There’s a running gag in the Second Amendment community about how we’ve all lost our guns in tragic boating accidents. I mean, I totally did, but I can’t speak for anyone else. I’m sure some of them are joking.
In New Zealand, a gun-rights activist who spoke out about the coming gun restrictions used his own firearm as an example of how the law wouldn’t just target AR-15s. His was a lever-action .22 that he used for shooting rabbits. These are the types of guns we routinely hear anti-gunners say they don’t want to ban.
Yet this one got banned.
Then, to make matters worse, he got a visit from the police.
On Thursday evening, I was just finishing up dinner with my two oldest kids. My wife was feeling unwell and feeding our four-week-old baby in bed. I had just gotten the icecream out for the kids when the doorbell rang.
I opened the door to see a number of police officers outside. They served me with a search warrant under Section 6 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. Half a dozen armed police officers swarmed in the front door (holstered sidearms only) as several more ran around the sides of the house. They later called for more backup as the house was larger than your average state-house drug lab. I got the impression that they’d never had to raid a middle-class suburban house like mine before. Everyone on the property was detained, read their rights, and questioned separately. I opted to call a lawyer who advised me to refuse to answer any questions.
The warrant claimed they had reason to believe I was in possession of a prohibited magazine fitted to a “.22RL lever-action rifle. Blued metal, brown wooden stock.” The officer told me I had posted about it online, which I had—in my public written submission against the Firearms Amendment Act passed last year. That submission was shared on several blogs and social media. I had used the firearm as an example to prove the legislation was not targeting “military-style assault weapons” as the media, prime minister, and her cabinet repeated ad nauseum. The vast majority of firearms affected by the legislation were just like mine.
I thought nothing more of my little example to the select committee. It was no longer in my possession when the police raided my house. They departed empty-handed after turning the place inside out for ninety minutes and left me with my firearms and a visibly shaken wife who broke down in tears. Thankfully, the kids didn’t quite get what was going on—but I realised after that they had gone to bed without icecream.
In other words, the writer–Dieuwe de Boer–had spoken up about the amendment, showed his firearm wouldn’t be covered by the impending ban, and then got his house torn apart by the proverbial jackboots.
There doesn’t appear to have been any evidence he hadn’t complied with the law, just some posts on blogs and social media that may or may not have dated after the ban went in effect. So they show up prepared to kick the door in and look for the goods.
Only there weren’t any.
Is it any wonder that so many of us talk about losing our guns in boating trips? It’s why so few will share photos of their guns on social media.
If the gun control crowd gets its way, raids like this will be the least of our worries. The problem here is that guns are so ubiquitous that trying to go after people with guns on social media or in blog posts would never work. There’s too many of them, but also too many that refuse to share any pictures of guns, ever.
Instead, they’ll start by targeting people who they suspect have a gun. From there, they’ll branch out and potentially decide door-to-door confiscation is the way to go.
Regardless, only a fool thinks we won’t see raids like this on American shores if the anti-gunners get their way about things.