previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19450772

Is a "military-style" gun kind of like a "sports-style" car? Snark aside, this is some pretty weak reporting. Was their parliament or whatever involved at all? The article makes it sound like their prime minister can just arbitrarily ban guns, creating crimes, but I doubt that's really the case. Also the term "buyback" is a really bad term, since it usually implies a voluntary nature. This is really a "forced buyback" or confiscation.

There's a detailed classificaiton in NZ: https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/...

Military-style semi-automatic (MSSA) firearms

Are firearms that require an endorsement on your firearms licence (E endorsement) and are subject to special security conditions. Only an E endorsed person may have or use a MSSA and it is an offence for anyone without this endorsement to fire one, even under supervision. Only persons 18 years of age or older can have an endorsement for one of these firearms. A permit to procure the MSSA must be obtained from an Arms Officer before taking possession of it. MSSAs require greater storage security than for standard sporting firearms.

A MSSA is a self-loading rifle or shotgun with one or more of the following features:

• Folding or telescopic butt

• Magazine that holds, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 15 cartridges for .22 rimfire

• Magazine that holds more than 7 cartridges, or is detachable and has the appearance of holding more than 10 cartridges for other than a .22 rimfire

• Bayonet lug

• Pistol grip as defined by regulation

• Flash suppresser

You need a permit from the Police to obtain one of these firearms.

Background: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/21/explainer-how-...

It doesn't go into a lot of detail, but I think they already have a drugs-like classification system for firearms, with delegated authority to decide what goes in what category, so they're just moving all semi-auto to the "banned" category. By the sound of it, it really is that easy.

UK/Australia comparative review: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/firearms-act-t...

Isn't semi-auto basically every gun except revolvers and bolt-action rifles? I thought "semi-auto" just meant you could pull the trigger, get a bullet, and then pull the trigger again for another bullet (as opposed to full auto where you keep getting bullets until you let go of the trigger or run out of bullets).

Click the link. It has a section titled "What semi-automatic firearms will not be affected by the ban?"

> Semi-automatic .22 calibre rimfire firearms with a magazine which holds no more than 10 rounds

Oh, so the same weapon used in Virginia Tech, one of the worst school shootings in US history.

I believe NZ (as some US states do) regulates pistols differently than rifles/shotguns. The VT shooter also had at least some fifteen round magazines.

Ultimately, the policy goal is gonna be damage reduction. NZ likely understands that perfect protection isn't possible.

If there's damage reduction, how can French terrorists outfit themselves like Soviet soldiers circa 1982? It's getting easier to manufacture high quality firearms on your own, not harder.

If NZ shared a continent with Eastern Europe, they'd probably have more trouble. I suspect it's substantially harder to bring guns into a country surrounded by ocean (especially one with just a handful of air/sea ports) than it is to just walk them across minimal land borders.

People still manage to murder, but that doesn't mean we make it legal.

The only parts that are difficult to make are the pressure bearing parts, and those can be ordered and shipped into the country via a freight forwarding service. Changes in the law only stop the dysfunctional, mentally ill but not terrorists.

I can literally bake a lower receiver out of plastic in my oven or make one on my 3D printer. For something a bit nicer I can buy, and setup a CNC machine which only cost a few thousand dollars.

Sure. Just like you could strangle someone to death, but doing so is still illegal.

Yes, you can probably build or smuggle a gun if you're determined enough. I'm OK with stopping "the dysfunctional, mentally ill" you mention, and having them be outright illegal increases the chances of someone seeing them and tipping off the cops, being dunned in by an informant, or them being intercepted at customs, a traffic stop, etc.

You correctly highlight that this sort of thing is difficult, and won't ever be a 100% solution. Your apparent conclusion - that we shouldn't ever do anything - doesn't logically follow.

> increases the chances of someone seeing them and tipping off the cops

Based on my experience (in the US), almost no one outside of "firearms enthusiasts" is capable of distinguishing between legal and illegal configurations. In many cases, even those who do know the specific differences aren't in consensus on what is legal and what isn't.

Sure, because in the US an extremely wide variety of firearms are entirely legal. NZ is about to get quite limited in their permitted weapons.

This is not my understanding, based on Kiwis I've been speaking to online.

An AR-15 is a Class E firearm - unless it has a thumbhole stock, no "bad" features, and 7-round magazines. In that case it's a Class A firearm.

It's easy for someone who is somewhat mechanically inclined to manufacture a firearm, these law changes will not stop the next terrorist attack in New Zealand.

All this does is further disarm the populace and makes it even easier to carry out an attack. Australia or New Zealand could have an attack like this happen tomorrow, it's not like they are able to keep handguns and drugs away from your normal criminal gang member there, let alone a determined terrorist.

"All this does is further disarm the populace and makes it even easier to carry out an attack."

If the majority of school shootings etc in the States we're stopped by the populace with guns then yeah I'd agree with you.

Of course not. That's a tautology.

It may reduce the frequency and effectiveness of such attacks, as Australia's tightening of gun laws did for shootings. I'll take it.

> People still manage to murder, but that doesn't mean we make it legal.

No, because murder is harmful in itself. Guns are not. Knives are not. Ropes are not. Trucks are not.

There's strong evidence that it wasn't even the types of guns that made a difference in Australia.

http://theconversation.com/regulating-people-not-just-guns-m...

Yes, and this ban is against "military style" semi automatics. They believe that being able to accept a detachable magazine makes a gun "military style".

It's tremendously idiotic.

Meh. If it successfully bans the guns they're looking to ban, and not the ones they didn't, does it matter what they called them?

> If it successfully bans the guns they're looking to ban, and not the ones they didn't, does it matter what they called them?

Do you mean the lobbyists or the general public?

If you ask the general public to pick out which ones are not "military style" you're going to find that a lot of the ones banned don't get picked. So it doesn't meet your criteria for success.

Sort of - lots of guns can be manufactured as both, or converted between them by the addition/removal of parts.

This would be a much better link for the title.

Per https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/20/asia/new-zealand-christchurch...:

> The gun reform proposal will be introduced to Parliament in the first week of April. For it to come into effect, lawmakers need to vote on amending the existing legislation, the Arms Act 1983.

> In the interim, New Zealand Governor General Patsy Reddy has signed an order to reclassify some semi-automatic weapons as "military-style".

> As a result, many people who legally owned certain firearms will no longer be able to possess them on their existing license conditions.

So, a bit of both. The Government can make some immediate changes; others require Parliament's involvement in the near future. (Presumably there's an agreement already largely worked out there.)

'buyback' seems to be the commonly accepted term - Australia had one in 1996 after a mass shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_buyback_program#Australia

As an alternative to calling it "pretty weak reporting", perhaps viewing it as a list of brief summaries of what's happening in NZ related to the Christchurch shootings might make this web page more digestible.

Well, as it's clearly a link to last night's live feed of the story as it was breaking, and they link in the very top entry to a full article, I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect superb long form journalism in such a case.

Parliament needs to agree the compensation/buyback, and presumably any wider reaching changes to firearm licencing. All that's been done to start is recategorising some weapons to need the E licence so they are no longer legal to hold, even for those who already have them on an A licence.

I'm sure there's a couple more nits you can find to pick. :p

That’s the same type of reporting I’ve seen everywhere. “New Zealand bans guns” — can a single PM even do that? Is there any debate in their parliament regarding the move? Do citizens have the same constitutional protections there as they do here w.r.t. gun ownership?

It’s almost like the headlines are written in such a way as to say “See? It’s just that easy!”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_New_Zealand : apparently NZ has a UK-style uncodified constitution. I think the only country that defines weapon ownership as a right is the US?

Off the top of my head, Mexico, Haiti, and Guatemala all have a "Right to Bear Arms" in some form. It's widely ignored in Mexico, though.

I also know that there are several countries where firearms are widely available to private citizens, both in their homes and in public, such as the Czech Republic.

Even as a layperson, I find the media's (pretty much all media outside of legal blogs) reporting on almost anything concerning the law to be painfully lacking in detail or explanation.

I think you underestimate how popular the move is.

> Do citizens have the same constitutional protections there as they do here w.r.t. gun ownership?

I don't believe we ever needed or wanted such protection.

More details from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/20/world/asia/new-zealand-gu...

This does not yet have Parliamentary approval, but is expected to pass. It includes mandatory buybacks, but since they do not have a gun registry law they will have some challenges measuring compliance.

Only "Class E" firearms are themselves registered, to my knowledge. A holder of a less permissive license can purchase very similar firearms, so long as they are modified to be in compliance (e.g., have a thumb-hole stock instead of a traditional pistol grip) and they only use 7-round magazines.

New Zealand has fallen.

Correction: Military only.

Military “style” only. I can’t find where they make that distinction.

Probably means anything that looks like it was designed after 1940. The Australian Gun Control lobby is calling for bans on "military style" bolt action and lever action rifles. These were military rifles at the end of the 19th century. "military style" means whatever they want to ban.

https://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/publications/... page 34

What happened to the "no politics" policy of HN?

If you think a post is inappropriate for HN, you can flag it.

Only after a certain score, I think. Also, not the point of policies, or is it?