Anti-gun proposals are rarely anything new. It's almost always something someone has tried somewhere else. It never actually matters that those laws didn't work in those other places, only that they're somehow going to work wherever they're now being proposed.
And while this instance is happening in New Zealand, it didn't start there and it's just a matter of time before it's here on our shores.
In particular, what I'm talking about is requiring people to be part of a gun club in order to actually own a gun in the first place.
The rationale behind the coalition government’s proposed reform of New Zealand’s gun laws sounds reasonable on the face of it. Responsible gun owners, shooting ranges and clubs deserve a sensible legal framework and a viable financial footing.
But the Arms (Shooting Clubs, Shooting Ranges, and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, currently before the justice select committee, arguably goes about it the wrong way.
In particular, reducing compliance costs for clubs and ranges will not automatically increase memberships or make such organisations more financially viable.
However, making club membership compulsory for gun owners would.
Comparable jurisdictions such as Australia – and New South Wales in particular – use specialised club memberships and attendance at mandatory events as evidence of licence applicants having a “genuine reason” to possess firearms.
...
A little lateral thinking might help square the circle. Making membership of clubs and ranges mandatory for most, and introducing practical components to the licensing and renewal system, would drive up member numbers and income.
As well, facilitating the creation of new clubs – inclusive, specialised, geographically well placed, attractive to a younger generation – would help grow a responsible gun ownership culture.
Don't try to pretend you're doing clubs a favor with this.
Oh, it might do all of that, but the problem is that requiring club membership and attending 12 shooting events per year just to show cause is vile. For one thing, it keeps gun ownership only to those who can afford a gun, ammunition for actual events, and club membership. No one should have to jump through all of those hoops just to own a gun.
Yet it might actually fly in New Zealand. They don't respect the right to keep and bear arms. They don't view it as a right at all, as we've well seen in recent years.
But someone here is just as likely to do something like this as well if they got half a chance.
See, while Bruen eliminated the whole idea of having to show cause for carrying a gun--and, ostensibly preventing any effort to require it to buy one--any Supreme Court decision that controversial is going to be in peril for a while. The moment the anti-gun justices have the majority, Bruen is as good as dead.
If that happens, expect to see a lot of restrictions be rammed through whenever the anti-gunners get a chance. That may well include a permit-to-purchase requirement, complete with a requirement to provide a good cause. As we know from anti-gun states pre-Bruen, self-defense will not be considered a valid cause.
From there, requiring club membership is just a single step away. The fact that it helps preserve gun ownership for the wealthy while keeping guns out of the hands of the poor is just a bonus.
Let's also remember that these rules have never kept guns from ending up in criminal hands. The bad guys aren't worrying about club membership or anything of the sort. They're getting guns through illicit means and are willing to use them to hurt others with impunity. Imparting an additional requirement on law-abiding gun owners, regardless of how you view the right to keep and bear arms, isn't going to stop them.
But that doesn't stop stupid people from trying to do it anyway.
