But in the aftermath ofhis killing of 51 people, regulations for clubs and ranges were tightened to help ensure public safety and the safety of those who use them.
Are they so tight that too many gun clubs are closing? Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee thinks so. The 20,000 to 40,000 members of a gun club shouldn’t be treated as if they’re all bad apples,she has said, when only a tiny fraction of 1% of them might be.
Proponents of tighter regulation say that’s the point of a regulatory framework: to deter or prevent a potentially harmful or even worst-case scenario, accidental or otherwise.
This is the latest in a series of shifts in fulfilling the National-Act commitment to replace the regulations.
The agreement was to repeal all of them. Then McKee proposed keeping most of existing rules for pistol clubs and ranges, but non-pistol ranges would self-regulate, with zero penalties for non-compliance. Critics argued this was the “wild west”, asking to be exploited.
Following consultation in June, Ministry of Justice officials advised McKee to keep regulatory oversight of those ranges, as well as a $10,000 fee for operating under the radar. They also wanted to enable one-off events - at the back of a farm, for example - with no safety requirements.
There may be more shifts to come. As the bill goes through select committee scrutiny, a contentious issue remains: the need for any change at all.
Act MP Nicole McKee made changes to firearms legislation (to do with annual reporting for gun clubs) without public consultation, and with the nod of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. Cartoon by Rod Emmerson
Disagreement over what is ‘safe’
“Clubs and ranges can have an important public safety role,” the Ministry of Justice regulatory impact statement (Ris) says.
“They are intended to promote their particular shooting activity and offer a safe place for people to learn how to operate firearms safely, build confidence and discipline through practice, and engage in sporting competition.”
There are about 400 gun clubs and 1200 shooting ranges. Pistol clubs and ranges used to be lightly regulated, while non-pistol clubs and ranges were self-regulating.
After the Christchurch terrorist attack, the Firearms Safety Authority (FSA) was given oversight of all of them, with a consistent safety standard nationwide, and powers to shut down those that fell short of the standard.
Since then, 267 improvement notices have been issued for safety matters that police were previously blind to. All of them were for pistol ranges that used to be self-certifying (non-pistol ranges are still being reviewed). None of the notices resulted in closure, meaning a solution - for ballistic safety, for instance - has always been found.
McKee told the Herald a notice doesn’t necessarily mean a range is unsafe, but rather “trying to adhere to a regime that police have put on people”.
“You can go into some office and find some sort of safety improvement, but it doesn’t mean it’s actually going to make some sort of difference to the outcome, at the end of the day.”
Gun Control NZ co-founder Philippa Yasbek disagreed.
“The range manual is done by ballistics experts, and if a range isn’t meeting that standard, then it’s not safe enough,” she said.
“Given the sort of levels of non-compliance with pistol ranges under the old [self-certifying] system, it’s hard to know why the Minister thinks the other ranges will be better organised and somehow magically comply with a very light-touch system.”
The New Zealand Deerstalkers Association Bay of Plenty branch shooting range. Photo / Supplied
How many closures are too many?
McKee’s rationale for change is that too many clubs and ranges have closed because of the regulatory burden. Lightening that burden will keep more open, thereby improving public safety.
Justice officials said there is limited data about the current regime’s impact on safety, or how burdensome it is. In May, they described the basis for McKee’s rationale as an untested assumption.
That hasn’t changed following consultation, mostly with firearms groups, in June.
“Due to the anecdotal nature of what we have been told, it is difficult to assess the scale and significance of the issues experienced by clubs and ranges and the associated risk of closure,” the Justice Ris in July said.
“The proposals under consideration are therefore based on an assumption that the risk is of a scale that warrants regulatory change.”
The Ris noted submissions during consultation: “Two clubs indicated that they no longer operate a range due to the compliance burden, while two others mentioned costs in excess of $10,000 to achieve range certification (although these costs appear to have related mainly to seeking relevant territorial authority consents).”
So how many have not closed? About 400 clubs and 750 ranges have met the new requirements, according to police data. The remaining 400-odd ranges are still active while their certifications are processed.
The Firearms Safety Authority says only one club has closed, and that had nothing to do with regulation. But this doesn’t include clubs that voluntarily shut instead of applying for certification.
McKee said she’s aware of five voluntary closures since last year’s election campaign.
Labour Party spokeswoman for police Ginny Andersen.
That’s hardly a compelling sign that the current regulations are overkill, Labour’s police spokeswoman Ginny Andersen said.
“The risk of them shutting seems miniscule. And even if they have, as the Minister claims, if it means greater public safety then that’s a good outcome.
McKee used to be the spokeswoman for the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners, and her frequent engagement with Colfo has triggered questions over whether she’s in the pocket of the gun lobby.
McKee rejects this.
“I have been speaking to those that operate clubs and ranges a lot lately because I have been getting ready to produce this bill. So it makes sense to talk to the people that are going to be affected,” she said.
“I don’t call them lobbyists. I call them stakeholders.
“So I’m not in anybody’s pocket. I am working in the best interests of Kiwis and our communities. I want to help keep them safe.”
Regulations for gub clubs and shooting ranges were tightened after the terrorist attack in Christchurch on March 15, 2019. Photo / Michael Craig
a $10,000 fine for operating without being enrolled. The Police Commissioner “must cancel” enrolment if a range doesn’t have “proper regard to individual or public safety”.
a new offence, also punishable by a $10,000 fine, for operating a one-off range without first notifying the Commissioner. Police, however, have no compliance tools.
the ability to inspect a range but only when it is applying for enrolment, and thereafter only every five years. The exception is a change in circumstances (such as after a weather event).
the ability to suspend if an improvement notice isn’t complied with.
One issue likely to be scrutinised in select committee is inspection powers, which can currently happen at any time with seven days’ notice.
Limiting them to every five years, according to the Justice Ris, “could increase the likelihood of risks to public safety going undetected, unmanaged and not being appropriately mitigated”.
McKee said: “I’ve had a number of clubs approach me and say, ‘Hey, we’ve just had our review done. Police inspected us, and we’ve had to pay for that. And then six months later, they’ve come back to do it again and nothing’s changed. And then they come back again.’
“So it just means that the clubs are almost running at a loss because they’re constantly having to pay for inspections that they’ve told me are unfounded and not necessary.”
More questions over Nicole McKee's suitability as Associate Justice Minister. Cartoon by Guy Body
Another potential issue is the lack of any regulatory teeth for one-off events in a place that’s not enrolled as a range.
Such events are not allowed at the moment unless the range is certified (the application fee for a single range is $400), but under the bill, they could happen after notifying the Commissioner. With no requirement for safety standards, police would be limited in what they could do.
“There will be no compliance tools to intervene for one-off events, which could impact on public safety,” the Ris said.
Andersen described this as the “wild west coming to a backyard near you”.
“The changes create a frightening precedent for landowners who might find ‘pop-up’ rifle shooting ranges over their back fence. The bill risks the ability of the police or the firearms regulator to enforce any safety oversight or even inspect the facilities.”
McKee said there could well be an ability for police or the regulator to monitor these events.
“This will come down to the operational aspect, and if that’s what police or the regulatory person wants to do, then they can ... There’s nothing to stop that.”
She said the temporary range option was an “opportunity for clubs”.
“An example is where a farmer might utilise his farmland for what has always been safe, controlled events, managed by range officers. It’s usually for fundraising or for community events, and it usually only happens once a year.”
‘A few bad apples’
Yasbek said she was pleased the bill has some regulatory oversight for non-pistol shooting ranges, instead of the “‘absolutely no consequence’ approach in the Minister’s initial proposal”.
“But I still don’t think it’s good enough, and the Minister still hasn’t laid out any compelling reasons why there needs to be change.”
Clubs and ranges were not “uniformly a strong force for good”.
“You could certainly have a few bad apples doing some quite bad things. There were certainly people saying there were very disturbing white supremacist elements at the gun club at which the Christchurch terrorist trained.”
She also noted police concerns about shooting ranges hosting activities they weren’t designed for, such as “cowboy horseback shooting”.
McKee said it was more important for clubs and ranges to be operating.
“The moment we lose those ranges, we’ll have people trying to shoot rifles down the riverbank, and that is not good for public safety.”
She described the new elements in the bill as “a better balance”, compared to her earlier proposal.
“I’m going to be interested in the community feedback during the select committee process, where they get to have their say about whether or not I haven’t gone far enough for them. Others may come in and say, ‘Actually, you’ve gone too far.’
“I don’t think I’ve gone too hard. I think I’ve found quite a good balance.”
Derek Cheng is a senior journalist who started at the Herald in 2004. He has worked several stints in the Press Gallery team and is a former deputy political editor.
