Kind of-sort of-related to Luxon, but looks like National have won Port Waikato in the by-election tonight.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/11/anti-gun-lobbyists-fear-new-government-will-erode-firearms-safeguards-gained-after-christchurch-massacre.html

Is this a cause for concern?

quickymart: Is this a cause for concern?

Last year, Matthew Fisken (Young MP for Act) spoke in Youth Parliament:

This caused mass walkout: https://www.1news.co.nz/2022/07/20/mass-walkout-at-youth-parliament-after-firearms-speech/

Matthew also stood for Act for Christchurch Central: Link

There is another story that happened about a month ago in Christchurch about somebody who was a gun advocate. I'm not putting the link here but just based on information already online you can assume it is likely the same person. It is worrying that this can get a pass given so many people are offended by it. The government was praised worldwide for taking swift action after the terrorist attacks.

Other things the government was praised for worldwide was Smokefree 2025, our COVID response, our green image and ending live animal exports just to name a few and yet the current government doesn't think so and wants to investigate our COVID response, wants to end Smokefree 2025, will allow Oil + Gas exploration once again and will also be allowing live animal exports which is just downright cruel.

Seriously this is the first time I've really felt sick of how some people think. I don't understand how anyone thinks this is a good idea. These are not small changes, there are major changes that are seen by the rest of the world and can and will affect our image. Goes to show money can both buy a government and their policies. 

quickymart:

 

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/11/anti-gun-lobbyists-fear-new-government-will-erode-firearms-safeguards-gained-after-christchurch-massacre.html

 

Is this a cause for concern?

 

Based on what is in the coalition agreement with ACT, not really. It appears largely administrative and promises a review of the Firearms registry, not repeal. The only real change is around shooting clubs.

The actual text is below, you can make your own mind up.

• Rewrite the Arms Act 1983 to provide for greater protection of public safety and simplify regulatory requirements to improve compliance and pass it through all stages during this term of Parliament. 

• Transfer responsibility for the Arms Act 1983, policy and regulation to the Ministry of Justice, and transfer the Firearms Safety Authority, administrator of the Act, to another department such as the Department of Internal Affairs.

• Review whether the Firearms Registry is effectively improving public safety, beginning by June 2024.

• Immediately begin to repeal and replace Part 6 of the Arms Act 1983 relating to clubs and ranges.

Handle9:

 

 

 

• Rewrite the Arms Act 1983 to provide for greater protection of public safety and simplify regulatory requirements to improve compliance and pass it through all stages during this term of Parliament. 

 

• Transfer responsibility for the Arms Act 1983, policy and regulation to the Ministry of Justice, and transfer the Firearms Safety Authority, administrator of the Act, to another department such as the Department of Internal Affairs.

 

• Review whether the Firearms Registry is effectively improving public safety, beginning by June 2024.

 

• Immediately begin to repeal and replace Part 6 of the Arms Act 1983 relating to clubs and ranges.

 

"Simplify regulatory requirements" is code for "remove regulations". Especially when it comes from libertarians. So yes, it is a cause for concern.

SaltyNZ:

 

Handle9:

 

• Rewrite the Arms Act 1983 to provide for greater protection of public safety and simplify regulatory requirements to improve compliance and pass it through all stages during this term of Parliament. 

 

• Transfer responsibility for the Arms Act 1983, policy and regulation to the Ministry of Justice, and transfer the Firearms Safety Authority, administrator of the Act, to another department such as the Department of Internal Affairs.

 

• Review whether the Firearms Registry is effectively improving public safety, beginning by June 2024.

 

• Immediately begin to repeal and replace Part 6 of the Arms Act 1983 relating to clubs and ranges.

 

 

"Simplify regulatory requirements" is code for "remove regulations". Especially when it comes from libertarians. So yes, it is a cause for concern.

 

Or if this was the USA, "provide greater protection of public safety" could also mean "more guns in the hands of people to defend themselves".

Time will tell which way it goes. As it stands, we know nothing.

Handle9:

 

Based on what is in the coalition agreement with ACT, not really. It appears largely administrative and promises a review of the Firearms registry, not repeal. The only real change is around shooting clubs.

 

The actual text is below, you can make your own mind up.

 

 

 

• Rewrite the Arms Act 1983 to provide for greater protection of public safety and simplify regulatory requirements to improve compliance and pass it through all stages during this term of Parliament. 

 

• Transfer responsibility for the Arms Act 1983, policy and regulation to the Ministry of Justice, and transfer the Firearms Safety Authority, administrator of the Act, to another department such as the Department of Internal Affairs.

 

• Review whether the Firearms Registry is effectively improving public safety, beginning by June 2024.

 

• Immediately begin to repeal and replace Part 6 of the Arms Act 1983 relating to clubs and ranges.

 

Not to mention that the Christchurch attacks terrorist was a gun club member in Dunedin.

The real own goal for me is the smoking legislation, that would have seen smoking phased out.  There is unarguable data showing the number of premature deaths that occur.  Unbelievable.

itxtme:

 

Not to mention that the Christchurch attacks terrorist was a gun club member in Dunedin.

 

The real own goal for me is the smoking legislation, that would have seen smoking phased out.  There is unarguable data showing the number of premature deaths that occur.  Unbelievable.

 

 

 

Removing access to something has never really worked has it? Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s-30s? Even the "war on drugs", simply pushes supply into the hands of organised crime. Education and reduction of demand for the product is really the only way that smokfree New Zealand is going to happen. I don't think that any Government is saying smoking is a good thing, nor is a smoke free NZ a bad target, I would see it as simple acknowledgement of the reality of the situation. 

sen8or:

 

 

 

Removing access to something has never really worked has it? Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s-30s? Even the "war on drugs", simply pushes supply into the hands of organised crime. 

 

Oh, it gets better:

 

To say that actually, you can concentrate all that distribution in a few shops and you have one smoke shop in one small town in New Zealand, you can't not tell me that will be a massive target for ramraids and crime; there will be an increased black market - an untaxed black market - for cigarette smokes.

 

This is the same party that voted against cannabis legalisation. You know, the cannabis that doesn't have that massive black market that finances criminal gangs.

sen8or:

 

itxtme:

 

Not to mention that the Christchurch attacks terrorist was a gun club member in Dunedin.

 

The real own goal for me is the smoking legislation, that would have seen smoking phased out.  There is unarguable data showing the number of premature deaths that occur.  Unbelievable.

 

 

 

 

Removing access to something has never really worked has it? Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s-30s? Even the "war on drugs", simply pushes supply into the hands of organised crime. Education and reduction of demand for the product is really the only way that smokfree New Zealand is going to happen. I don't think that any Government is saying smoking is a good thing, nor is a smoke free NZ a bad target, I would see it as simple acknowledgement of the reality of the situation. 

 

But it has been working, we have had a significant reduction in smoking because of it.

Difference between tobacco and Cannabis is that tobacco does not give you a high. So slowly eradicating tobacco will slowly remove "new customers", because there is nothing beneficial about tobacco apart from the addiction.

But it's been very nice not having to put up with smokers in restaurants , on buses, trains ,etc . It will also be nice to no longer see cigarette buts being tossed out car windows, dumped on footpaths etc.

If we can get smoking banned from all places of work, that too would make it much easier for others to quit, the loss of temptation and peer pressure.

we have all sorts of regulations and laws, but we are not going to get rid of them because some people break the law. If we made drink driving legal, no one would be breaking the law...etc

sir1963:

 

Difference between tobacco and Cannabis is that tobacco does not give you a high. So slowly eradicating tobacco will slowly remove "new customers", because there is nothing beneficial about tobacco apart from the addiction.

 

Anyone who thinks smoking doesn't give you a high has obviously never been a smoker. I haven't smoked for 19 years and I still dream of that first cigarette in the morning!

Rikkitic:

 

sir1963:

 

Difference between tobacco and Cannabis is that tobacco does not give you a high. So slowly eradicating tobacco will slowly remove "new customers", because there is nothing beneficial about tobacco apart from the addiction.

 

 

Anyone who thinks smoking doesn't give you a high has obviously never been a smoker. I haven't smoked for 19 years and I still dream of that first cigarette in the morning!

 

 

 

THAT is the addiction factor 

Breakfast this morning. I'll hand it to him, he is good at dodging questions.

Also they keep going on about Labours incompetence but both himself and Nicola have not actually provided any examples of this.

Avoiding the news as don't want to see F1 result, but I did catch this on Newshub. It all changes after signing the document?

"We are going to give tax cuts."

"But we are not ruling out tax increases."

Well,duh.