U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- The Washington Post reported Monday—in a story picked up by the San Jose Mercury News—that the hype of restrictive gun control that made New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern a U.S. media darling three months ago has lost momentum as that nation’s gun owners are fighting back.
According to the story, “Growing opposition from New Zealand’s pro-gun groups has complicated efforts to round up the now-banned firearms under a buyback program. Lawsuits are threatened. “Gun-control advocates argue that compensation rates may not be fair and warn of a possible spike in black-market sales,” the story noted. “The government, meanwhile, is faced with a sobering set of challenges over how to enforce the new law.”
It was all brought on by the mid-March attack on two mosques by a lone killer, but the government’s reaction was to penalize every law-abiding citizen in the island nation.
When it comes to gun control, no state in the nation may provide a better test tube than California, where the Mercury News is located.
But another California newspaper, the Chico Enterprise-Record, published an editorial Monday that puts what may be a much-needed perspective on the problem at the core of every gun control effort not only in North America, but also down in New Zealand. The Chico newspaper, discussing the rush on ammunition leading up to Monday’s imposition of a new law requiring a background check on all ammo purchases, was blunt:
“It’s the latest gun measure that is passed with the best of intentions,” the newspaper said, “but will end up mainly impacting people who weren’t causing any trouble in the first place.”
In New Zealand, the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners announced that it will likely mount a court challenge to that nation’s hastily-imposed “buy back” gun control/confiscation program. What else can one call a mandate to turn in firearms for cash?
The confiscatory nature of New Zealand’s gun control scheme was not lost on the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms when leading Democrats in this country did not immediately criticize former presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and current presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders all tweeted support for the New Zealand ban. CCRKBA noted, “By their silence, the entire national Democratic Party, and especially those Democrats hoping to replace Donald Trump in 2020, have erased any doubt that they have graduated from being the ‘party of gun control’ to being the ‘party of gun confiscation.’”
While the Enterprise-Record agreed with the stated intent of some of the gun control provisions, the newspaper acknowledged, “We just wish more of these measures were focused on mental health, and keeping dangerous criminals off the streets in the first place, than targeting people who aren’t doing anything wrong.”
And that’s the problem in both countries. Gun control on a government scale doesn’t target criminals, it targets everybody in the belief that the restrictions—whatever they are—will ultimately affect everyone. Except that’s not how it works out, critics have repeatedly explained.
A prime example is in Washington State, where the full impacts of the billionaire-backed Initiative 1639, passed last November, are being felt with Monday’s enactment of all the provisions. It bars 18-20-year-olds from buying and possessing, with some exceptions, so-called “semiautomatic assault rifles.” As reported in Ammoland last Friday, the definition of this type of firearm encompasses every self-loading rifle ever manufactured anywhere, including .22-caliber small game rifles.
This measure exploited two tragic shootings, in Parkland, Florida last year and one three years ago in Mukilteo, a community north of Seattle. Two teenage individuals were responsible for those crimes, and both bought their firearms legally. So, the reaction from anti-gunners was to push an initiative to penalize all young adults in that age group, and it was quickly endorsed by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson.
The Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association joined forces and sued in U.S. District Court on Second and 14th Amendment grounds.
Down in New Zealand, gun owner groups—there is no right to keep and bear arms enumerated in that nation’s constitution—are apparently planning likewise.
But there’s another aspect of the situation in New Zealand that “Yank” gun owners here in the states find interesting. Kiwi gun owners apparently own a lot of un-registered guns. According to the Washington Post story, the co-founder of Gun Control NZ acknowledged, “These weapons are unlikely to be confiscated by police because they don’t know of their existence.”
Authorities in the country are planning almost 200 “collection events” over the next three months. And one police official, Mike Clement, deputy commissioner of national operations for the New Zealand police, told the newspaper, “We urge people to stay calm…We acknowledge that you’re a law-abiding citizen and through no fault of your own you know find yourself in possession of firearms that are now illegal.”
He reminded the newspaper that there is an “amnesty period,” so there will be no excuse for retaining the now-contraband firearms.
This scenario is hauntingly familiar with what some U.S. gun rights advocates have been preaching for years. A law is passed, the bureaucracy tells people there is nothing about which to be alarmed, but turn in your guns or you’ll be in violation.
This is all very ironic for history-minded American gun owners. This week marks the nation’s 243rd anniversary of independence, a feat that could not have been possible had not those colonials been armed, which is essentially why the Second Amendment is enshrined in this country’s Bill of Rights.
RELATED:
Kiwis Rush to NZ Gun Shops in Anticipation of New Gun Laws
Despite Self-Congratulations NW Anti-Gunners Haven’t Stopped Violent Crime
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
Two problems existed in Australia BEFORE gun control. 1) All firearms in Australia (with the exception of the criminal element) were registered (the authorities ONLY targeted registered firearm owners not the crims). 2) There were (and still are) laws in place that make it illegal for anyone to act in their own defence here in Australia. This differs slightly from state to state, but is pretty much how it is all over. If someone breaks into your home, assaults you and/or your family members or even kills them, ALL you can legally do is call the police to come deal… Read more »
Maybe the dumbocrats have shot themselves in the foot! When you penalize people who have broken no laws and have done no wrong (legitimate licensed gun owners), who want to protect themselves and family, you create an awful lot of dissent among an awful lot of people! And these miscreants making these laws have no problem when it comes to arming themselves and their security guards! Ain’t that right nancy?
Penetrates bulletproof vests without the slightest resistance.
one of the biggest problems is that politicians on each side think they need to make legislation to be successful in their job, because that is what politicians do. they also think that they know more about whatever the issue than the populace does. they really don’t, their staff probably does and then briefs them on the issue, they get the cliff notes. they are elected to office to represent their constituents not themselves which is what they usually do. if they did their job correctly we would have far fewer laws that take away/restrict our rights or inadvertently turn… Read more »
Quote from this article:
“It’s the latest gun measure that is passed with the best of intentions,” the newspaper said, “but will end up mainly impacting people who weren’t causing any trouble in the first place.”
History has demonstrated over 95 percent of the shooters are DEMOCRATS and Muslims. The solution is obvious. Ban DEMOCRATS and MUSLIMS from owning ammo and firearms unless they pass a very extensive background check. This includes their bodyguards. Go directly to the source of the problem
And oddly enough they continue to have voters support them which is ultimately demanding tyranny. Voting for more tyranny based upon previous record of tyranny equals STUPIDITY.
On October 4, 1938, Nazi police arrested one Alfred Flatow in Berlin. His crime: being a Jew in lawful possession of a firearm. Lawful because he had dutifully registered his guns in January 1932, complying with the pre-Hitler anti-firearm decrees of the Weimar Republic. The arresting police were probably unaware that Flatow won Gold and Silver medals for Germany in the 1896 Olympics. He had also served in the German army in the 1890s.
A politician with a law never stops a bad guy with a gun.
He only controls the good guys….which is his true agenda.
You don’t make a bad guy harmless by making a good guy helpless.
You only protect the government tyrant as he exercises his tyranny over the good guy.
How do these “buybacks” work anyway from a market value perspective? Or do they not consider the value of the firearm? I mean there’s a big difference between someone turning in a Palmetto State rifle that costs $450 or a LWRC or Noveske that costs $3000++.
Not that I would willingly hand over any one of them. Just wondering if they take market value into account.
Governments work for their own benefit. This frequently results in malevolent behavior towards the citizens.
Citizens that are not free to be armed should have no expectation of any other rights.