THE ARMS ACT

Hokitika Guardian, 8 November 1929, Page 8

THE ARMS ACT

AMENDING Bl IX IN COUNCIL.

PJUNCI PAL €LAL\SE DELETED

WELLINGTON, November b

The Legislative Council to-day as suited its independence liy striking om the main operative clause in the Arms Amendment .Hill, the mmisure which has .as its object rela-xation of the severity of the requirements of the Act of 1920. in regard to the purchase and possession of firearms, ammunition, and explosives. S'r l r ra lie is Hell said the efle tof the Hid was that while a pistol could remain in the possession of registered persons, or persons who had been granted permits, so that the polic • might know where every pistol was, restrictions in regard to other or explosives were to lie lifted. “ Surely.” lie said, “ we have danger elf explosives present to-day, on November bth. Parliament, even you, Mr Speaker, may be in danger. Rifles may be ini-ported, collected, and gathered together in any district, and in possession of any body of men, dangerous or not dangerous. It is our duty to preserve this country from danger of armed resistance to executive authority.” What did the matter of irksomeness to the police weigh against that danger? lie- asked. Sportsmen were to he sympathised with, but wlmt was tha,t against the duty of Parliament, merely to be ready to preserve ordcir, but also to take precautions against the shedding of blood in the preserva-. t- ; on of order. Those arguments seemed to have no real weight as against the effectiveness of the present laiwt' Danger might not threaten to-day, but there was danger from men who advocated that the only means df attaining social progress was slaughter. It was not as if there was no organised advocacy throughout the world of resistance by*force of arms. It was against that organised effort to promote bloodshed that the Arms Act. of 1920 was aimed. The proposed amendment would render that nugatory. ‘‘We should not depart from an assured means of preserving pence,” observed the Hon. Mr Garland. ‘ 1 What are the police paid for? If they, want soft jobs, let them get out olf the PoT’ce Force and go somewhere else.” •The Hon. Mr Earnshaw referred to the danger of the Communistic element in the community, and to the objectives of that Party. “ And don’t forget,” he added, “ that the head and front and body and soul of the Labour programme is Communistic. The very first clause covers the whole principle of the Soviet gospel of Russia.” Sir Robert Stout spoke of the immorality of shooting birds as a reason whyi the use df the rifle should not ho permitted, and added that if it was wrong to permit the possession of pistols, surely it was also wrong to allow rifles to‘he used. If it was necessary to control firearms, he asked, why restrict- the limitation of pistols?

“ "Wlliy.” exclaimed the Hon. Mr Barr, “life is one long destruction of h’fe. Birds themselves live by destruction of . other life.” Replying to the suggestion that there ivas still an extreme section in the ranks of Labour upon whose operations a close rein should be held, he remarked that since 1023 a revolution had taken place in the attitude of Labour. There was no longer fear of resort to force of anus amongst trade unionists in New Zealand.

The Hon. .Hr Sliniler Weston said he did not believe the provisions of tho Bill have the effect that was feared by some speakers. “ We New Zealanders,” he said, “ are on the whole a well educated people, full of comnionsen.se, and I don’t think the use of firearms is in accordance with the characteristics of a New Zealander. T admit that thonc is a CommunistParty in New Zealand. It is small and very ineffective, but its members are men who largely were not born in New Zealand, and who have not that

commonsense aml character which we associate with New Zealanders. Consequently, I don’t think the efforts of a Party like that are likely to succeed. We have occasional industrial disturbances, hut I don’t think we have any reasonable grounds to expect outrages in any industrial disturbance, except from men whose mental calibre is such that we would class them as perverts, and that is why the provision in regard to pistols should be preserved.” l In the course of a brief reply the Lender of the Council (the Hon. Mr Sidey) cited instances of the irksomer ness of the present law, and said the proposals had the authority of the police. The motion to commit the Bill was carried by 16 votes to 10, hut when the principal clause was reached, restricting the provisions of the 1920 Act by doing away with the necessity for the issue of a permit for the purchase of firearms, ammunition, or explosives, it was challenged by Sir Francis Bell, taken to a division, and struck out by 16 votes to 11. Mr Sidey thereupon asked that progress he reported, and this was done.