The submission deadline to the Justice Committee on the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges and Other matters Amendment Bill) has ended and we are seeing the actual agenda of the Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms), Hon Nicole McKee.

Flipbook Version of our submission: https://heyzine.com/flip-book/d1efc0c46a.html

Under the guise of safety, she is effectively undoing all the lessons learned from March 15, to what can be best described as a ‘wild west approach’ to gun safety.

Example 1: The Amendment Bill allows each of the 774 non-pistol ranges, where the high caliber guns are used, to set their own safety standards, determine how the range is used, type of firearms used, buying and selling bullets, monitor and enforcing it themselves without any external or independent safety oversight. Worse still they can do this under secrecy. They can be ‘inspected’ only every five years or after a major calamity event . This is no different to say allowing car enthusiast clubs to write their own warrant-of-fitness, do their own inspection, drive on public roads and there is no police check except every five years or or after there has been a crash. Imagine 774 shooting ranges, each having their own standards and only being inspected every 5 years. How is this making us safe? (We had thought the Hon David Seymour’s Ministry of Regulation was about streamlining regulations, not the mushroom growth of 774 different safety regulations)

Example 2: Worse still, anyone without any qualification or credential can write their own standard. There is no baseline at all. This is essentially a BYO approach to writing gun safety standards. The only condition is that there is an inspection every five years.

Example 3: There are glaringly dangerous loopholes. Given that these ranges set their own standards, what happens when a bullet leaves the range and injures or kills a tramper, or if the range is near a residential neighborhood, a high caliber bullet injures and kills children. Who is liable, given the range is legally setting their own standard with no external and independent check? The legislation does not clarify this.

There are many other alarming features which we have pointed out in our Submission.

It should be noted that New Zealand has world standard best-practice in the Police Shooting Range Manual which covers all the ballistic safety and range requirements. This Manual was developed over two years by experts, NZ Police and shooting organisations and representatives.

It is simply absurd and totally illogical that for pistol ranges the Manual is mandated but for non-pistol ranges, where high caliber guns are used, the Minister is throwing the Manual into the rubbish bin. The legislation is full of loopholes. For example, some organisations have ranges that are used for both pistol and non-pistol events. How will they manage?

The Minister claims that clubs and ranges are being forced to close due to the regulatory burden, but she has not provided any evidence whatsoever. The facts are that only 2 clubs and ranges have closed since the new legislation and the closures have nothing to do with the current regulations.

We find it worrisome that the National Party has not checked the merits and evidence of the legislation. The Regulatory Impact Statement clearly states that whole legislation is based on assumption and very little data or evidence. It is based on anecdotes.

Due to the anecdotal nature of what we have been told, it is difficult to assess the scale and significance of the issues experienced by clubs and ranges and the associated risk of closure. The proposals under consideration are therefore based on an assumption that the risk is of a scale that warrants regulatory change.

(Regulatory Impact Statement: https://www.regulation.govt.nz/assets/Ministry-for-Regulation-files/Regulatory-impact-statements-RISs/published-3/10/24/Regulatory-Impact-Statement-Supporting-shooting-clubs-and-ranges.pdf)

We trust that the Prime Minister and the National Party receives independent advice on the legislation, since just one injury and/or death as a result of the relaxation of the safety parameters under this legislation will be firmly the responsibility of this government. One injury or one death is too high a price to pay for a gun lobby Minister wanting to impose her own agenda for her gun lobby friends.

What is most dangerous is that the Minister is unlearning the lessons of March 15 and returning us to the situation which existed at that time when a terrorist joined a gun club, was able to practice his killing skills at a shooting range with no checks. The result was 51 shuhada, over 40 bullet-wounded, and a nation in mourning.

© Scoop Media