NYT - New Zealand’s weapons buyback runs into an obstacle: gun owners

Just read an article this a.m. claiming they have hauled in about 50,000 previously legally owned AR's under an "amnesty turn in program". Pretty scary.

LaneP said:

Just read an article this a.m. claiming they have hauled in about 50,000 previously legally owned AR's under an "amnesty turn in program". Pretty scary.

Click to expand...

They also don't know how many are left out in public. Between 50k and 170k, but they don't know. I hate the term buyback, means they owned it before, when they didn't. Sorry kiwis, we are hoping for the best for you.

LaneP said:

Just read an article this a.m. claiming they have hauled in about 50,000 previously legally owned AR's under an "amnesty turn in program". Pretty scary.

Click to expand...

Do you have a link to the article?

Yes.

https://news.yahoo.com/zealanders-hand-50-000-guns-055143842.html

Most of those aren’t AR’s though. Saw quite a bit of wood in the video.

Estimates are also that this program was a vast failure and gun owners kept more than two thirds of their firearms. So even if some cowards did buckle, I’d like to focus on the positive.

Browning said:

Most of those aren’t AR’s though. Saw quite a bit of wood in the video.

Estimates are also that this program was a vast failure and gun owners kept more than two thirds of their firearms. So even if some cowards did buckle, I’d like to focus on the positive.

Click to expand...

Yup, I agree that even though the kiwis don't have a 2nd amendment, they are showing some spine. Same thing happened in CT and NYS. Non-compliance seems to befuddle TPTB.
Forgot to add, NJ non compliance with bump stock turn in, not many of the estimated 8k plus not turned in, may have been destroyed or hidden by owners. Either way, people are resisting.

That is all well and good. However, the goal is to overturn such bans. There is little hope Congress will act as the supposed progun folks just play bait and switch on legislation that will go nowhere and they will not fight for it. The past couple of years clearly shows that, yet again. SCOTUS don't hold your breath.

Hiding your guns - they are been rendered useless but for all but apocalyptic usages. I've said before:

1. You can't hunt with them. Yes, you can sneak around but some places have game wardens and do you want to be the test case?
2. Use them in home SD and be crucified in court. Might win the SD but face gun charges depending on prosecutorial zeal.
3. Can't compete with them. I used to compete with my AR in a venue that included LEOs from state, local and Federal. Not going to happen in a ban. I wouldn't put them in a position of ignoring the law. The range owner would probably been in the same. Someone will say that they sneak out in the woods to shoot a rock. Whoppee!
4. Can't legally sell them if you are short on cash. Been there on that one.
5. Leave a legal problem for your heirs if they have to deal with them.
6. Hey, it's divorce time. Give me all your dough and the custody arrangements or the law gets called! Or just like revenge porn, revenge outing of your modern sporting rifle.

So don't think not turning them is is so great. Come up with a way to prevent such laws or overturn them. That the laws are disobeyed should be pointed out if the goal is to control them. Of course, keeping them legal - you might face registration as a 'compromise'.

The solution is something like the defunct Congressional SAGA act to void state bans but the GOP won't go near that. Or a SCOTUS decision, fat chance now - and if Trump is dumped forget it until the Glock plasma carbine comes out.

If such things happened (laws, court decisions) that truly implemented the RKBA, the NRA is out of significant business and the GOP will not have a campaign issue of defending your guns (note they never say - expanding gun rights, only the defense). Think about it. No appeals for a check and get a crappy Chinese knife.

You are correct of course that prevention is far better, overturning laws is even better. So what do you do? Turn them in, then lobby to get them overturned? Never happens in the real world. Seems some are emboldened to remove guns from societies right now. Are we all to comply and hope they will reconsider. I am not for violent insurrection, but I consider non-compliance a form of protest and demonstration against said laws. Why not do both? Don't comply and lobby for change? Sometimes you have to take a stand, while giving in just shows that they don't need to rethink their position, but of people don't show they are afraid, makes their position a little bit more fragile.

Just a thought, but I am not a kiwi, so I am not sure how they should proceed.

Because it worked out so very.... VERY well for the U.K. and Australia.

Morons! To *feel good* is to feel RIGHT for some utopians.

Todd.

If everyone that reads articles like these and would send $20 to their favorite Pro Gun group fighting for our rights it would go a long way in helping to keep this from happening here in the USA.

Use articles like these as reminders. Every time you see similar articles, send $20 or even $5 or $10. It’s really simple if you do it online.

It is my understanding that there exists a bunch more NZ gun owners than NZ registered gun owners and registered or not there wasn't a gigantic number of Kiwis racing to a buyback or "turn-in." I've spent time in New Zealand. The country is historically liberal and pridefully progressive. Small (said to be the size of Colorado). 4-5 million population and 3/4 of that is urban. I will be surprised if gun control goes beyond current restrictions.

ApacheCoTodd said:

well for the U.K. and Australia.

Click to expand...

UK is still awash in firearms--TBTB "blame lax EU customs" and have yet to do the math of "criminals do not obey laws."

Australia decided that what they actually got turned in, was "enough." Some estimates are that they collected fro ma low of 10% to a high of 25%. With recovery almost precisely inverse to population density.

CapnMac said:

UK is still awash in firearms--TBTB "blame lax EU customs" and have yet to do the math of "criminals do not obey laws."

Australia decided that what they actually got turned in, was "enough." Some estimates are that they collected fro ma low of 10% to a high of 25%. With recovery almost precisely inverse to population density.

Click to expand...

My point exactly. The failure, societally and on a law enforcement level is so well documented already and yet because of a single incident (as in both cited nations) and racial/theological guilt, it happens once again.

Todd.

Comparing NZ to the US on gun rights/laws is ridiculous for many reasons.

It would never go over even remotely like that in the US, regardless of the laws passed.

CapnMac said:

UK is still awash in firearms

Click to expand...

And that's in spite of the fact that the UK, as a whole, is generally law-abiding. Other parts of Europe, with a historical experience of dictatorship and/or foreign occupation, are much more defiant in not obeying draconian gun laws. But they do so quietly and below the radar.

Was anyone really under the impression that the street thugs and gangbangers would turn in their guns?

dbz77 said:

Was anyone really under the impression that the street thugs and gangbangers would turn in their guns?

Click to expand...

Commonsense would tell gun banners that there plans for reducing "crime" wouldn't work at all.