What can the US teach New Zealand about arms control? More than you would expect

Inevitably, this has also put the coalition in the spotlight Government‘s proposed changes to the Weapons Act, and how changes to licensing procedures and regulations could impact public safety.

Firearms control is a complex and controversial issue, but New Zealand can learn from the experiences of other countries. It may surprise many, but one of those countries is the United States, where gun rights and restrictions are perpetually—and often tragically—political.

Of course there are ffundamental differences between the US and New Zealand when it comes to the regulation of firearms. For Americans, owning guns is a right. For New Zealanders it is a privilege. This has resulted in very different approaches to regulation, with the US undoubtedly becoming more liberal – for which it is paying a high price.

But it would also be wrong to assume that New Zealand has nothing to learn from the US. Paradoxically, a more liberal approach to firearms ownership can lead to stricter specific laws and regulations.

There are four areas where New Zealand could learn from this as the government looks to rewrite its gun law.

Some crimes should not be forgotten

The Americans take the position that anyone convicted of a crime punishable by a prison sentence of more than one year (a ‘crime’) loses their right to own a firearm.

Unless that right is restored, usually through petition or pardon (where it is agreed that the person no longer poses a risk), there is a strong presumption that this is a permanent ban. Additional state bans ensure that this law is generally properly enforced, keeping convicted criminals away from firearms.

(Even Donald Trump broke this law due to his conviction on 34 counts of falsifying corporate records during the 2016 presidential election.)

In New Zealand, the list of legal and other reasons for refusing a firearms license is growing. But such disqualifications generally only apply ten years after the application date and are not indefinite.

Take ‘straw buying’ seriously

A “straw purchase” occurs when someone who has the legal right to purchase or own a firearm hands over a gun to someone who is prohibited by law from owning one.

A 2023 federal report found that 54% of guns recovered from crime scenes by U.S. police in 2021 had been purchased in the previous three years. This suggested that straw purchases or illegal trade were a major problem.

Legal owners illegally providing firearms to those who are not allowed to have them (including gang members) is also a problem in New Zealand.

Recently, in a remarkable piece of police work, New Zealand officers searched three years of handwritten records for more than 360,000 individual gun sales across 390 stores. This appears to have set the tone for the arrest of nearly 40 people, including two former gun shop employees, on charges of illegally reselling weapons.

In the US, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 made gun trafficking and straw purchasing federal crimes for the first time. Until then, only light penalties applied. But the new law allows prison sentences of up to 15 years – or up to 25 years if the firearm was used in more serious crimes, such as terrorism or drug trafficking.

In New Zealand, on the other hand, selling or supplying restricted firearms to unauthorized persons carries a prison sentence of up to three years. The illegal sale of banned firearms or magazines (such as the type used in the Christchurch terror attack) carries a fine of up to five years. The prison sentence for supplying someone who is subject to a firearms ban can now reach up to seven years.

These changes, made in the wake of the Christchurch attacks, are at least an improvement. In 2018, the man who provided Quinn Patterson with the military weapons he used to kill two people was only given 12 months of house arrest.

Minimum amounts of metal in all firearms

One particularly clever American law – renewed four times since it was first signed by Ronald Reagan in 1988 – is the Undetectable Firearms Act. This makes it illegal to manufacture, import, sell, possess, transfer or receive firearms that cannot be detected by walk-through security systems.

Each weapon must contain enough metal to operate x-ray equipment and metal detectors. Also prohibited are firearms with key components that do not generate an accurate image in standard airport imaging technology.

While this alone won’t prevent the problem of unauthorized 3D printing of firearms, it is a step in the right direction for improving security in places like courthouses and airports. New Zealand has no similar law.

Mandatory reporting of firearm injuries

Although firearm homicides are well recorded and shared with police, there are often significant gaps in the data because reporting firearm injuries is optional.

Health professionals in New Zealand are only required to report an injury if they believe someone has a health condition that should prevent them from holding a firearms licence.

But mandatory reporting of firearm injuries by medical professionals is common in a number of comparable countries. In the US, there are reporting requirements in 48 of the 50 states.

Mandatory reporting of all firearm injuries helps authorities track the extent and nature of unlawful firearm use. It may also prompt police visits and checks on the gun owner to ensure they are still “fit and proper” since the last license renewal.

Despite these benefits – and the fact that mandatory reporting of firearm injuries by health professionals was recommended by the royal commission into the Christchurch terror attack – the government declined to take the matter further.

A review of the gun law offers a unique opportunity to make New Zealand safer. The first step is to look at what other countries can teach us. And while it may seem counterintuitive, and despite all the flaws in its very liberal system, the US still has some ideas that we should consider adopting.