Six days after the shootings, politicians from across the spectrum and many lobby groups associated with gun use rallied around the government’s decision to ban semiautomatic weapons as well as the accessories that can convert lower-caliber guns into military-style assault weapons. People who own these weapons will be required to surrender them in a buyback program, and owners who fail to do so will face fines and prison time.


Ardern said the ban takes effect immediately to prevent the stockpiling of firearms while legislation to make it permanent is being drafted.


Legislation to make the ban permanent will be introduced in Parliament in the first week of April. It is assured of passage, given that the coalition government and its supporters have 63 of the 120 seats. Still, the leader of the main opposition National Party, which has 55 seats, pledged his support for the legislation as well.

Continue reading:  In New Zealand, broad support for ban on assault weapons following massacre

27 thoughts on “In New Zealand, broad support for ban on assault weapons following massacre

  1. The Kiwis easily understand the concept (or stupidity) that if everyone, every single person in their country, including the mentally unstable, had 4-7 flaming torches (2-3 of them propane or welding torches) for sport, camping, recreation, etc… OF COURSE, and poorly trained in their proper safe uses… AND every single building and home possessed powder-kegs and nitroglycerin…

    What do you think WILL eventually happen?

    Duh. It is not even close to high school rocket science, let alone statistical probabilities!!! Does every single person in the world know how to fly jumbo airliners with passengers? Does every single person in the world know how to operate and maintain nuclear power stations? Nuff said. 😒😠

    Liked by 3 people

      • They often are perhaps because they’ve been taught (brainwashed) and trained to hate and kill as youth.

        Have they released any info and extensive background on the guy? Has he been a psychological time-bomb for many months or years? Family background, etc.?

        Liked by 1 person

        • Well, the last two facts speak volumes right there don’t they? May not need to know much more about his psychological, neurological, intellectual, and familial condition. Getting behind a fake American leader is quite reminiscent of Deutsche Bürger getting behind a German Führer of the 1930’s and 40’s who had no clue whatsoever of how to efficiently or wisely lead or care for his own people, much less be a Commander in Chief… of ANY nation’s military!

          Liked by 1 person

        • He’s lived in Aotearoa New Zealand on and off for several years since leaving Australia around 10 yearsd ago. Apparently he had not shared his beliefs with anyone in NZ or Aus. He was able to get a gun licence in 2017 which, as part of the process, requires a personal interview and two referees who are also interviewed. That process didn’t raise any flags.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. Governments can never be assured passage of legislation in NZ. That’s not the way coalitions work here. When a coalition agreement is made after a general election, specific policies are set in place that all coalition members agree to support. Outside those policies specified in the agreement, the political parties are free to disagree. In the case of the current government the two parties in the coalition (Labour and NZ First) form a minority government. Labour has a separate agreement with the Greens which assures the government will have a majority only in matters of confidence and supply. Although it doesn’t happen every week, the government sometimes finds itself without support from its allies and requires the support of the opposition to pass legislation.

    In the case of the proposed gun law legislation, I don’t think any politician opposes the proposed changes in principle, and as far as I’m aware, there’s only one who opposes the bill being processed under urgency. The Select Committee stage of the process can take up to 6 months, whereas under urgency, that can be reduced to days.

    I too, would prefer the bill not to be passed under urgency, but I can understand why there is a desire to pass legislation this way as Executive decisions can be challenged in the parliament and in the courts, but unlike in the USA, the executive cannot veto the legislature.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s