The case for making club membership compulsory for NZ gun owners – a response.

I was pondering how to do this, and I figured just quoting and responding may be the easiest. I will not respond to everything, as some of what is said isn’t actually that relevant to the article’s subject. While I am likely going to deviate a bit anyhow, I am genuinely trying to keep this focused. However, as many conversations about this subject tend to be, the points jump around a bit.

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.

I would suggest reducing club costs would help make such organisations more financially viable. Regulatory costs are a significant burden – as was one of the biggest concerns voiced when the new Range Certification process was put in place, which, incidentally, I was involved with – being one of the people who helped guide and write the NZ Police Shooting Range Manual. This was under my Gunsafe banner – where I also provided workplaces with firearms policy creation and guidance, and training. Saying reducing costs for any club or organisation wouldn’t make it more financially viable doesn’t make basic sense.

Sure, forcing everyone with a firearm to belong to a shooting club would increase their potential income, but it would also add more costs to firearms owners. The reality is that most firearm owners—in the form of hunters—never go to a range, nor really need to. In New Zealand, hunting is a ‘genuine reason’ to possess firearms.

Personally, I would like hunters to spend more time learning and using their firearms, so I encourage most people I meet to join a club or range. But making it mandatory? No. That will create even more pushback when it doesn’t need to be there.

Sure, some clubs will love it—just as I am sure the NZDA would ‘love’ mandatory membership from hunters. But I don’t think that’s the right approach either.

Whatever its eventual shape, the new legislation will affect many people. As of mid-2024, there were just over 232,000 licensed owners in New Zealand, down from more than 240,000 just a couple of years ago.

There were 1,184 shooting ranges and 396 shooting clubs, of which 303 were non-pistol clubs. Many of these have strong historical, social and cultural foundations, and deliver significant benefits to members, including building skills, confidence and safety awareness.

They are also often run by volunteers and operate on limited budgets. Making them commercially viable is a sensible part of an overall gun safety strategy.

True. All very true… Oh… But here comes the but…

But only an estimated 20,000–40,000 people are affiliated with shooting clubs. Compulsory membership only applies to those with legal endorsements to possess pistols, with participation in 12 club shooting activities per year required.

Non-pistol owners who want a licence are required to pass a three-and-a-half-hour safety course. Whether this is sufficient to cover the fundamental safety considerations is questionable.

Correct – there are two kinds of ranges/clubs (I know they are separate terms, but I will use them a little interchangeably in the understanding to those who see the nuance know the nuance) – there are the target shooting clubs (pistol clubs, small bore). Deerstalker ‘hunters’ Ranges (who often still run competition shoots) exist. And yes – if you hold a pistol (B endorsement) licence – you must be a member, attend a minimum of twelve shoots a year (which is harder than you might think) – and – you can only shoot the pistol on a certified pistol range.

All firearms owners are required to attend the safety course – I taught it for several years. For me (this is all going to be my opinion, not that of the Mountain Safety Council, whom I contracted to) – it was to teach prospective firearms owners the basics they needed to be responsible. It’s important to understand that I had people attending that ran the gamut from someone who had grown up around firearms, had family members who already had them, and likely had used them previously. Many firearms owners in NZ have family members who already have a licence. At the other end, I reguarly had applicants who, for various reasons (often having moved to NZ from a country where firearms were effectively not able to be owned by civilians being a prime one) had never held a firearm before in the lives.

I had around 3.5 hours to convey a pile of information to attendees. Was it long enough? Maybe. I would have loved to have spent a day with people, but given the resources available to us (remember that I contracted to the MSC, and the MSC contracted to the Police), it was phenomenal, and a phenomenal improvement from the previous system, that many people (myself included) went through when they got their firearms licence.

In my mind, it is sufficient to cover the fundamental safety considerations. I would comment more on specific concerns, but the article, as it does in several other points to follow, doesn’t actually provide details or examples to support its assertion. The statement assumes the truth of its conclusion without proving it by simply asserting that the course length is questionable without any supporting arguments. The statement begs the question because it presents its opinion as a fact without offering any justification.

I will also assume here that the writer has never actually attended the course. I am happy to be wrong, of course.

There are no obligatory followup courses or a practical live-firing shooting component. By comparison, a prospective gun owner in Japan must attend mandatory all-day classes and pass written and shooting-range tests with an accuracy of at least 95%.

Ah. Here is an exciting bit: I think a mandatory practical shooting test would be a great addition to the licencing process.

The Learners Licence

If we look at the driver licencing process, you first get tested on the theory, then have to learn in a controlled environment, and then you are required to pass a competency test before being allowed out on your own.

In my ideal world, where cost and implementation headaches weren’t a problem – I would look at a process a little like this:

• Sit your firearms licence—a test to ascertain you understand the legal requirements and basic safety requirements and are a fit and proper person (there is a lot I could write about my thoughts on that last bit).
• This allows you to purchase ammunition and learn how to shoot a firearm safely and competently. You might choose to do that privately (someone you know teaching you), or you may choose to have professional training in the form of joining a club or range. You could even be allowed to purchase a rimfire rifle to practice with (this also reminds me of my motorbike license, where I could get a lower-powered motorbike to learn on before getting a full license).
• Once you are comfortable with your ability, you can attend a practical certification course at a shooting range. In this course, you need to shoot a qualifying target while showing proper safety protocol in a live firing environment. There isn’t a time delay on this, but yes, there is a cost, so if you are trying to wing it, it could cost you more.
  • Japan—https://youtu.be/NDodwo5vBfI?si=7qg72sSqslyi8h0o&t=330—this system is a little broken. It expects you to be able to shoot a gun, potentially without ever having shot a gun.
  • Many European countries require a practical component in their firearms ownership process – additional tests are needed if you plan on hunting ‘dangerous animals’ – these can include standing shots and moving target shots as well.
• Get that signed off, and you can now say you are both a safe and ethical hunting. 
• Require requalification every couple of years – because…

Do you know what is missing from the process?

An eyesight test.

I had applicants who would have trouble reading the writing part of the licencing test because they forgot their glasses or were too stubborn to get them.

• You have to take an eyesight test to get a driver’s licence
• Nearly 1 in 12 men experience color blindness
• We have an ‘aging population’ of mostly male firearms owners
• Target identification, in low light conditions, is quite important

Convincing the public

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.

There are a couple of things here – we don’t need to convince the public – we need to convince the gun owners – that is, who mandatory membership would affect.

The writer also seems to have assumed there isn’t a responsible gun ownership culture in New Zealand, which, to be blunt, there is – and has been for many years. This is regardless of the acts of a few individuals who ultimately – were not obeying the law when they committed their acts of murder or terrorism. It’s somehow seems to get misconstrued that they are not representative of the general firearms owner in NZ, however, all firearms owners get tarred with the same brush.

The actions of the few should not be considered representative of the whole.

Geographically Well Placed

Given the high number of rural, remote firearms users, this is easy to say but hard to implement. There was a lot of pushback regarding the new requirements for the new practical test component of the firearms licence from people who would have to travel a long way to attend them. Given that firearms ranges tend also to be pushed away from significant areas of the population, we would have a situation of people having to travel a long way to remote ranges.

Don’t get me wrong – I love the idea of more ranges, better run and funded ranges – I just don’t think forcing to have to do something is the way to effect the change.

But for the public to support such initiatives, they will need to be convinced safety is being improved. The fact the terrorist behind the 2019 Christchurch atrocity trained at an established rifle club does not help.

And, here we have it.

He belonged to a rifle club. He trained there.

Are we able to start to address this now?

Have a read of this – it’s pretty interesting – https://christchurchattack.royalcommission.nz/the-report/part-6-what-public-sector-agencies-knew-about-the-terrorist/bruce-rifle-club-allegations/

I encourage you to read the whole thing – but – I will pull this bit (reformated to make it easier to read):

We conclude that:

The individual was not present at a competition held by the Bruce Rifle Club on 19 November 2017; and Peter Breidahl did not complain to New Zealand Police about the culture of the Bruce Rifle Club on 20 or 21 November 2017.

We are therefore satisfied that New Zealand Police did not hold information about the individual in relation to the Bruce Rifle Club before 15 March 2019.

This is not to say, however, that the individual’s behaviour at the Bruce Rifle Club after he joined it was unremarkable.

– The individual shot while standing up

– he went through a large amount of ammunition and his primary interest appeared to be firing and changing magazines quickly

– As well, some members at least were aware of his firearms injury and were involved in discussion with the individual about large capacity magazines

His behaviour is only remarkable based on his actions afterwards. If it wasn’t due to hindsight (it’s a bitch) – his behaviour isn’t that remarkable for competition shooters. This is even stated in the official report:

A few members of the Bruce Rifle Club said three aspects of the individual’s behaviour were slightly out of the ordinary and, with hindsight, may be significant:

You shoot standing up at shooting competitions. It’s called positional shooting. Lots of hunting is done standing up as well, so I would encourage more shooters to practice standing up.

Based on my involvement with shooting competitions and how much competitive severe shooters shoot – no – he didn’t go through an overly strange amount of ammunition. I would shoot more ammo at the range if I had the money for it – and I know of many shooters who do go through copious amounts of ammunition practising at a range. Notably, at the time, with the semi-automatics – hundreds of rounds of .223 ammunition is not that out of the ordinary.

We also talk about guns on the range. Some people (like collectors) know a lot about military firearms and their technologies. It’s their passion.

So, once we remove the discredited accusations, much of the criticism placed on the ranges was in hindsight. 

At the other end of the scale, a catalogue of 267 improvement notices issued to operators of clubs and ranges for not meeting prescribed standards has also not inspired confidence.

Some of those improvement notices were likely due to updating the standing orders (the paperwork outlaying the rules) headings and formats, so it’s probably not as much of a panic as made out. I have no doubt there were some safety concerns, but I am comfortable saying that the majority of changes were likely minor or not actually directly threatening public safety.

Changes to the Arms Act made after the Christchurch attacks aimed to tilt the balance more towards public safety. The reforms affected licensing, the prohibition of the some types of firearms, and oversight of clubs and ranges.

Clubs were required to have formal management and improved governance structures. The Firearms Safety Authority/Te Tari Pūreke was responsible for certification, stricter enforcement, inspections and compliance. New national standards, such as the Police Shooting Range Manual, all helped.

Unanswered questions

The government, and particularly the Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms) Nicole McKee, need to explain how watering down of any of these rules – especially around reduced inspections or uniform national standards – will improve public safety.

First, though, what were the evidence-based concerns about public safety regarding firearms ranges? I think this is part of what confused a lot of us who had been on shooting ranges and involved in shooting competitions for any period of time—as there hadn’t been any major (or minor) public safety concerns regarding the operation of ranges prior (again, hindsight) to the actions of he who shall not be named.

Five questions stand out.

– What are the safeguards to prevent people training in firearms use if they present a threat to public safety? Since 2021, those with firearms prohibition orders against them have been banned from membership of a shooting club or attending any shooting range. But only 30 such orders (eight of which were to gang members) had been issued in the first 15 months of the law taking effect.

– Should the same rule to apply to others who don’t meet the prohibition threshold, but have still had licences revoked, or to those deemed unfit (such as gang members or extremists)?

Legally? The law. You get vetted by the NZ Police before you get a firearms licence. The New Zealand government determines you are a ‘fit and proper person’ to possess firearms. In NZ, we have essentially licenced the person, not the gun. If you present a threat to public safety, you won’t be on a range, because you won’t have a firearms licence, that was always the theory.

We also have to acknowledge that those who are willing to present a threat to public safety are willing to break the law if it serves their purpose more.

However, the onus shouldn’t be on the range operators. If the shooter has been issued a Firearms Licence, that is all that should be required, as that is the certification they have been approved to possess firearms. If there is an issue, we must look further into the process here.

– Should the owners or managers of clubs and ranges be obliged to report worrying behaviour to the authorities? The Security Intelligence Service’s guide for identifying signs of violent extremism could be useful here.

Sure. Again, the assumption is being made that it isn’t.

But – here is the rub – I know racists with firearms, I know bigots with firearms, I know cheaters and generally unfriendly people with firearms licences. But – that’s not illegal. Just because I don’t agree with their political views, and I don’t agree with their opinions on abortion – that has zero to do with them responsibly owning firearms.

IF someone decided to walk onto a range and indicated they were looking to commit mass murder, yes, they would be reported.

But he didn’t.

When we spoke to him, the individual was very free in acknowledging what he saw as tactical errors in the execution of the terrorist attack but was less willing to accept that there had been any lapses in his operational security. Consistent with this, he claimed that the comments by club members about his shooting style were hindsight reconstructions and that a number of other shooters at the club would sometimes fire magazines quickly as “it was fun to do”.

The Report – Part 4, Chapter 5.

He was intentionally playing us. He knew not to draw attention to himself, referring to the whole process of deception as ‘operational security’.

– Should only registered firearms be allowed to be used at clubs and ranges?

Under current law, all firearms will be registered soon, so is this a bit of a mute point?

– And what obligations should be placed on clubs and ranges to help reduce self-harm, the biggest firearms risk in New Zealand. By building awareness of mental health warning signs, such education and guidance could help gun communities protect vulnerable members.

Since they (we) are not trained health professionals, there is no more obligation than the general public. My best response for this would be to refer people to another post I have already done around this issue: https://goodblokes.nz/guns-suicide-an-uncomfortable-conversation/

The more significant issue to focus on is the still-existing concern that firearms owners have that if they ask for help, they will lose their guns. For those of us (not me, but I know people where this would be the case) whose firearms use is a central part of our identity, the notion that their shooting club (their ‘safe space’ to use a modern term) is now required to be monitoring and reporting any concerns to the authority, does not make for a nice place to be.

Law change offers an opportunity to improve gun safety and education. As things stand, however, reform risks reducing public safety while failing to secure the future of clubs and ranges.

Sure. And despite what the gun community sometimes seems to be portrayed as (not that I claim, for a moment, to speak for the community as a whole), the vast, vast majority genuinely want the community to be safer and better educated.

Mandatory membership seems a simple solution, but with further consideration and insight into how clubs and ranges run in NZ, it’s not that simple.

---

As I was mulling this over with a female friend (not a gun person), they provided some interesting perspectives:

First question – “Do they happen to own a gun club?”

Second –

“What about the people that live super rural and don’t have access or want to attend a gun club?”

Which I thought was a good insight from a non-licence holder. And followed up with:

“That would be like saying if I wanted to play any form of netball, I had to belong to a club.”

Now, firearms do have a more vital safety aspect requiring competency though, which I do appreciate. So, I reframed it like this:

“If you want any sports injury to be covered by ACC, you will need to prove that you belong to a club and have received approved training in the sport by the club.”

To which she relied:

“Yeah, exactly – and pay a membership – It would kill the sport, not grow it”

Yes. Exactly.

But you know what, though? Regardless of all my thoughts on better processes and policies, there is still a problem because I feel all of this, without directly stating it, seems to be asking the same question over and over—”What could we have done to prevent what happened in Christchurch?” Who can we hold accountable?

You know who? Him.

And as much as it sucks for us as a nation, who really did lose part of our national innocence on that day, no amount of regulation of clubs, requirements of reporting on members, or mandatory club membership is going to give that back to us.