WEAPONS OF FORCE

Evening Post, Volume CVIII, Issue 111, 6 November 1929, Page 4

WEAPONS OF FORCE

DANGER IN COMMUNITY

ARMS ACT AMENDMENT

DEASTIC ALTERATION

' The Legislative Council asserted its independence yesterday afternoon by excising the main operative clause from the Arms Amendment Bill, which is designed to relax the severity of the requirements of the Arms Act of 1920 in respect to the purchase and possession of firearms, ammunition, and explosives. This action is the first serious amendment made by the Council this session in a Government nieasure. '

Speaking on the committal of the Bill, the Eight Hon. Sir Francis Bell said that the existence of an Arms Act in Isfew Zealand, prohibiting the free possession of firearms, was no new thing. It went "back to the days t>f the Maori Wars, the first Act having been passed in the 'fifties or 'sixties. It was said that the Act it was now sought to amend was irksome, but the Act in force when the Massey Government had to consider the question in 1920 was much more irksome than, the Act of 1920. It was deemed necessary to place the present provisions on the Statute Book when, after the war, a great number of automatic pistols were in the possession of dangerous persons —criminals, he was not speaking of the Communist class—who constituted a. danger to the community. The effect of the Bill was that, while the pistol could remain in the possession of registered persons or persons who had been granted permits so that the police might know where every pistol was, other arms or explosive were not to be militated against. PRESENT DANGERS. "Surely," said Sir Francis, "we have the danger oi! explosives present to-day, on the sth Kovember; Parliament, even you. Air. Speaker, may be in danger. Rifles may be imported, collected, and gathered together in. any district, and in the possession, of any body of men, dangerous or not dangerous ... it is our duty to preserve this country from the danger of armed resistence to the- executive." "What did the matter of irksomeness to the police weigh against that danger? Sportsmen were to be sympathised with, but what was that against the duty of Parliament not merely to be ready to preserve order, but also to take precautions against the shedding of blood in the preservation of, order? The suggestions of irksomeness to the police and of nuisance- to sportsmen seemed to have no real weight as against the obvious effectiveness of the present law. Danger might not threaten, to-day, but there was the danger of the man who advocated that the only way of attaining social projects was by means of slaughter. It was not as if there was no organised advocacy throughout the world of" resistance by force of arms against the powers that be, and it was against that organised effort to promote bloodshed that the Arms Act of 1920 was intended to provide against. The present amendment rendered that nugatory. SOFT JOBS FOE POLICE? "We should not depart from an assured meaus nt preserving peace," observed the Hon. G. J.Garland. "What are the police paid for? If they want soft jobs let them get out of the Police TTorce and go somewhere else." The Hon. W. H. Earashaw referred to the danger of the Communistic element in the community, and to the objectives of that party. "Arid' 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 Eussia." The Eight ,Hon. Sir Bobert Stout spoke of the' immorality of shooting birds as a reason why the use of the rifle should not be permitted, and added that if it was wrong to permit the possession of pistols surely it was also wrong to allow rifles to be used. If it was necessary to control firearms, he asked, why restrict ..the limitation to pistols? EXTREMISM MODERATED. The Hon.'J. Barr described the discussion as rather amusing. According to Sir Bobert Stout, they should prohibit the use of any weapon which was capable of destroying bird life. "Why," he exclaimed, "life is one long destruction of life; the birds themselves live by the destruction of other life." Eeplying to a suggestion that there was still an extreme section in the ranks of Labour upon whose operations a close rein should be held, he remarked that since 1913 a revolution had taken place in the attitude of Labour. There was a higher trend, largely caused by education, happenings in other parts of the world, and the realisation of the fact that the day of force had gone, and that nothing was to be gained except by peaceful methods, arbitration, and conciliation. There was no longer fear, he declared, of Tesort to force of arms amongst trades unionists in New Zealand. NO REAL DANGER. The Hon. T. S. Weston said that when tho Bill was introduced he had doubts as to whether its object was desirable, but after giving it careful consideration and hearing the evidence given before a committee of the Council, he had come to the conclusion there was not in. reality the danger that had been, referred to. He did not believe the provisions of the Bill dealing with the necessity for the purchase and transfer of arms would have the effect that was feared by some speakers. "We New Zealanders," he said, "are on the whole a well-educated people full of common-sense, and I don't think the use of firearms is in accordance with the characteristics of the Britisher or the New Zealander. I admit that there is a Communist Party in New Zealand. It is small and very effective, but its members are men who largely are not born in New Zealand, and who have not that common-sense and character which we associate with New Zealanders. Consequently I don't think the efforts of a party like that are likely to succeed. We lave occasional industrial disturbances, and there is always a fear that there may be outrages when men get excited, but I don't think -vYe havo any reasonable grounds to expect outrages in any industrial disturbance except f roan men whose mental calibre is.such that we would class thorn as perverts, and that is why the provision in regard to pistols should be reversed. The pistol is the weapon of the coward, and the pervert is usually a coward." The Hon. Sir Frederick Lang thought there were other pieces of legislation far more necessary than the Bill under discussion. ALL FIREARMS DANGEROUS. The opinion was expressed by the Hon. V. H. Beed that there should be a continuation of the registration authority conferred in the present Act. He regarded rifles as well .as pistols as dangerous weapons, and the restriction should not be .removed from any dangerous weapon. He failed to see there had been any. hardship in the carrying out of the regulations up to the present, and he would support any legislation, designed. to continue the re~-

gistration of rifles, pistols, and re< volvers.

In the course of a brief reply, the. Leader of the Council (the Hon". T. K. Sidey) cited instances of the irksomeness of the present law, and said the proposals in the Bill had tho authority, of the police. He considered the legii-' lation was necessary and desirable. The motion to commit the Bill wai carried by 16 votes to 10, but when th« principle 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, ihe clause was taken to a division an* struck out by 16 votes to 11. Tho Leader of the Council thereupon asked that progress be reported, and this was done. . ■