ARMS AMENDMENT BILL.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20867, 6 November 1929, Page 6

ARMS AMENDMENT BILL.

DEBATE IN UPPER HOUSE

MAIN OPERATIVE CLAUSE STRUCK OUT. (From our Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON. November 5. The Legislative Council to-day asserted its independence by striking out the main °fl® ra tive clause in the Arms Amendment ~ • T he measure has as its object the relaxation of the severity of the requirements of the Act of 1920 in regard to the purchase and the possession of firearms, ammunition, and explosives. D Sir Francis Bell said the effect of the inll was that while a pistol could remain m the possession of registered persons or persons who had been granted permits so that the police might know where every pistol was, the restrictions in regard t 0 other arms or explosives were to j et L “ Surely,” he said, “we have the danger of explosives present to-day, November 5, in Parliament. Even you, Mr 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 tlm country from the danger of armed resistance.” What did the matter of irksomeness to the police weigh against that danger? he asked. Sportsmen were to be sympathised with, but what was that against the duty of Parliament? It was their duty not merely to be ready to preserve order, but also to take precautions against the shedding of blood in the preservation of order. Those arguments seemed to have no real weight as against the effectiveness of the present j W ’ “ e danger might not threaten today, but there was a danger of men who advocated that the only means of 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 (’ -t the Arms Act of 1920 was aimed, iao proposed amendment would render that nugatory.

“ We should not depart from an assured means of preserving peace,” observed Mr G. J. Garland. “What are the police paid for? If they want soft jobs let them get out of the Police Force and go somewhere else.”

Mr W. 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 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 fire-, arms, he asked, why restrict the limitation to pistols? “Why,” exclaimed Mr J. Barr, " life is one long destruction of life. Birds themselves live by the destruction of other life.”

Replying to the suggestion that there was still an extreme section in the ranks of Labour upon whose operations a close rein should be held, Mr Barr remarked that since 1023 a revolution had taken place in the attitude of Labour. There was no longer a fear of a resort to force of arms amongst the trades’ unionists in New Zealand. Mr T. S. Weston said he did not believe the provisions of the Bill 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 commonsense, and I don’t think the use of firearms is in accordance with the characteristics of the Britisher or New Zealander. I admit that there is a Communist Party in New Zealand. It is small and very effective, but its mem hers are men who largely are not born in New Zealand and who have not that commonsense 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 have occasional industrial disturbances, but I don’t think we have any reasonable grounds to expect outrages in any industrial disturbance except from m6n whose mental calibre is such that we would class them as perverts, and that is why the provision in regard to pistols should be reversed.”

In the course of a brief reply the Leader of the Council (Mr T. K. Sidey) cited instances of the irksomeness 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. but 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 be reported, and this was done.