© MARKO BUKOROVIC | DREAMSTIME.COM
80 G&Aoctober 2019 SPENT CASESKEITH WOOD
NEW ZEALAND WAS STRUCK by an unthinkable atrocity
on March 15th when a psychopath killed 51 people and
wounded at least 50 others. The killer, a hate-fueled
28-year-old Australian, targeted Muslims in and around
the Al Noor mosque and Linwood Islamic Centre in the
city of Christchurch.
It was the worst mass
shooting in the island
country’s history. In
addition to the shoot-
ings, the suspect placed
multiple improvised
explosive devices (IEDs)
in various locations.
The first 17 minutes of
the event was streamed
on Facebook Live from
a camera worn by the
shooter. Prime Min-
ister Jacinda Ardern
described the events as
“one of New Zealand’s darkest days.” The small country
was left in shock.
Though the attack has been falsely described as the
country’s “first mass shooting,” it was certainly the dead-
liest. Less than a month later, New Zealand’s Parliament
followed the lead of Great Britain and Australia, both of
which passed sweeping gun bans after mass shootings.
New Zealand’s Arms (Prohibited Firearms, Magazines, and
Parts) Amendment Act, was amended by a vote of 119 to
1, in favor of restricting “military-style” semiautomatics,
magazines with a capacity of 10 or more rounds, and parts
that can be used to assemble prohibited firearms.
All centerfire semiauto rifles are now banned, as are
rimfire semiautos, pump actions, or other rifles with a
high-capacity magazine. Many accessories designed to
work with prohibited firearms such as AR-15 uppers, gas
tubes and stocks are now unlawful to own. The banned list
includes predictable models such as AR-15s and AKs, but
it also captured M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, Marlin Model
60 .22s, and Winchester Model 12 shotguns.
Maybe you’re not a fan of so-called “black guns,” but
are you ready to turn in grandpa’s Garand or your daugh-
ter’s .22? Rest assured that policymakers, the media and
activists in the U.S. will look to New Zealand’s actions as a
model, just as they did in Australia’s example.
When the U.S. Congress passed its firearm and magazine
ban in 1994, it grandfa-
thered existing owners.
This isn’t the case in New
Zealand where individu-
als have until December
20, 2019, to surrender
their now-illegal firearms
and accessories. These
collection events, which
sound pretty Orwel-
lian to me, will be held
country-wide in order to
facilitate the surrenders.
Owners will be financially
compensated for their
loss of property up to 95
percent of their original value, depending on the condition.
A new AR-15 will fetch $2,200 U.S. dollars, and a used M1
Carbine will go for $1,150. On could argue that those are
decent prices, sure, but my rights aren’t for sale.
We haven’t seen serious legislation to actually confis-
cate firearms at the federal level in this country, but we
have seen states such as California where certain firearms
and magazines cannot be transferred to another owner.
Rather, they have to be removed from the state, altered
or destroyed — even after the owner’s death. We may not
see collection events in this country, but your gun may very
well die with you. This war of attrition might take a genera-
tion but, if enacted, it will ultimately prevail.
The U.S. isn’t New Zealand, and we have a different rela-
tionship with our elected representatives, but I have little
confidence that we won’t see similar attempts here within
my lifetime. Could such a ban happen here? You bet. Bills
that sit in committees of the U.S. Congress aren’t dissim-
ilar to New Zealand’s legislation. I hope these bills don’t
advance, but “hope” isn’t a strategy. Do representatives in
Congress know your position?Did New Zealand draw a blueprint for the U.S.?