New Zealand law certainly protects every person's natural right to self defence and if necessary to use deadly force to protect their gift of life, and the lives of family, friends and those others who cannot defend themselves. If your life is under immediate and imminent threat and you happen to have a gun in your hand, you are legally entitled to shoot the person or persons who are attacking you.

There remains an as yet untested ground as to a person's right to keep the means to self defence; i.e. a gun; specifically if a civilian can keep a gun for the purpose of self defence. In New Zealand this has not been properly tested at the highest levels of the judiciary. This page discusses the current landscape for the purpose of letting the reader make up their own mind.

The USA and Self Defence

In the USA the court's have found the two distinct rights are mutually inclusive - the right to self defence must also by necessity include the right to having and keeping the means to self defence. The 2nd amendment is widely misunderstood as ‘giving' the people the right to "keep and bear arms"... it does not. The 2nd amendment acknowledges that people have a natural right to keep and bear arms and it guarantees that that right shall not be infringed by the state.


Treaty of Waitangi

In New Zealand the second article of the treaty of Waitangi provides a corresponding guarantee that covers not only firearms, but all other private property as well. The treaty of Waitangi presently, is unfortunately not taken as seriously as the United States Bill of Rights.

There is no equivalent constitutional guarantee in our own Bill of Rights but at the same time there is also no rule of law that completely suppresses our natural right. The law in New Zealand that does subdue the natural right to keep and bear arms provides a limited exemption to that suppression when a firearms licence is obtained... it is that limit of the suppression which is the controversy.

Licenses and Lawful & Sufficient Purpose

A firearms licence exempts the licensee from prosecution for being in "possession of a firearm." The exemption is however limited because the law also makes it an offence for any person to carry or be in possession of a firearm except for a lawful, proper and sufficient purpose.

At the heart of the controversy is the question of

what is a "lawful, proper and sufficient purpose." ?

The possession of a firearm or firearms licence is not a legal privilege or a legal right - Possession of a firearm is a prohibited natural right and a firearms licence is a legal exemption from that prohibition.

The police department would have us believe that we have no right (or licence) to keep a gun for the purpose of self defence. They assert that that would not be a lawful and sufficient purpose. That of course is a matter of legal interpretation, which is the jurisdiction of the Courts; the police role in the arms act is administration rather than interpretation or legislating.

Nonetheless in page 40 of the arms code the police state that people who indicate that they intend to use a firearm for self defence may find it difficult to satisfy the police that they are fit and proper to have a firearm. In the arms code the police offer the following opinion:
 

The police opinion from the Arms Code cited above is absolutely correct! "The law does not permit the possession of firearms in anticipation that a firearm may need to be used in self-defence." However the problem with that truism is the invalid (and frankly absurd assumption) that laws empower us to do things.

There is no law that permits me to buy a mince pie at lunch time either but that doesn't imply that I can't. We all, as free men (and women), have the natural right to do anything we care to do as long as that natural right is not subdued by the law.

So if we rewrote the police opinion provided in the arms code, so that it was a valid statement of fact, it would go something like this "There is no law that permits or prohibits the possession of a firearm in anticipation that it may be needed for the purpose of self defence"; therefore our citizens natural rights to keep a firearm for that purpose are not subdued.

Natural right to self defence

The legislation says that a firearm cannot be possessed for other than a lawful, proper and sufficient reason. Nowhere in New Zealand law is self-defence legislated, regulated or ruled improper, unlawful and insufficient. In fact our natural right to self defence is protected by section 48 of the Crimes Act 1961: "Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use."

Furthermore, in earlier times in New Zealand many people, especially settlers in rural areas, kept firearms exclusively for self-defence; that purpose has been acknowledged by the various arms control legislation throughout our history and even today the Arms Act 1986 (s2) states that all firearms are weapons.

The Trespass Act 1980 (s2) also states that gun or rifle is a weapon and for that matter all known references to firearms in New Zealand Statues label firearms as weapons. The dictionary definition of weapon is: An instrument of offensive of defensive combat; something to fight with; anything used, or designed to be used, in destroying, defeating, or injuring an enemy, as a gun, a sword, etc. [1913 Webster] Clearly we don't keep weapons in case we are attacked in combat by a ferocious rabbit, a paper target or a deer dressed in DPMs and armed with a MP5

There have been a number of recent cases that have highlighted the changing attitude of the Judiciary regarding the right of civilians to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defence. The right to bear arms was confirmed by Judge Cooper in the home invasion case where Mr & Mrs Bentley were victimised by a trio of scum bags.

Greg Carvell and the Penrose Gunshop Robbery

In a more recent case, Auckland shop owner Greg Carvell defended himself and his employee by shooting a robber armed with a machete. This incident resulted in public concern and judicial criticism over why a decent hardworking law abiding family man was charged for having at his disposal the means to defend himself. When sentencing the would be robber, Justice Harrison, in his judgment expressed his concerns that Mr Carvell had been charged with possessing a pistol for other than a lawful and sufficient purpose by saying "there is, as you will understand, a real injustice in Mr Carvell having to face the burden of defending a charge when he was subject to your threats." Justice Harrison is also quoted from open court submissions as saying "I am most concerned that Mr Carvell, acting in his own defence and in the defence of another employee, is facing serious criminal charges. There is an element of unfairness in this."

Although the charges were dismissed at a deposition hearing, the Police maintain that the general public are not entitled to have the means to defend themselves.

Two years on, Police (officer 84), whose use of guns is regulated by the same law as those which regulate civilian gun owners, shot and killed an innocent bystander on an Auckland motorway... no member of police as ever been charged with any offence over this killing. There has been no explanation why Police charged Greg Carvell but on the other hand have not charged officer 84.

Perhaps a relevant observation of the case of Greg Carvell is that the charges were thrown out at deposition by justices of the peace and notably not a jury. The Police have not appealed the JPs decision. It could possibly seen as a strategic manoeuvre by Police, not to appeal, least the Court upholds the right to possess a gun for the purpose of self defence. If that happened, the Police policy would have been found wanting. It is possible that Crown Law provided the Police with a legal opinion that was contrary to the Police policy and therefore the Police would rather have the ambiguity remain as it is?

What the future may hold

One day in New Zealand the circumstances will inevitably arise where a member of the public steps in with a firearm to defend unarmed police, like for example may have been the case in the recent incident where two officers were attacked in Ngaruawahia.

A good citizen will walk out his or her front door armed with a firearm (and in possession of that firearm, at that time, for the sole purpose of defending Police.) He or she will probably save lives. Will the Police then lay charges against that person for being in possession of a firearm for other than a lawful, sufficient and proper purpose?