[Here's some info on the text below from a friend in New Zealand.] The document Ross turned up and which Jeff has now added to his site is a summary of Alistair McCallums report. The full report is entitled "Firearms Registration in New Zealand" "Support Services Directorate - September 1982" The report is 33 pages but carries about 20 appendices. Inspector Alistair McCullum was the person who designed the 1983 Arms Act - which dropped rifle registration in favour of a 'lifetime' firearms license. Alistair was prepared to listen to firearms users, weigh up what he was told, check it carefully, then implement it if it checked out. Somehow I just assumed everyone who was interested had copies of his report? In case anyone is interested the copy I have would possibly scan but many of the appendices would not................ ......................................... I also have the document entitled "A Review of Firearms Control in New Zealand" (Operations Support Group, Police National HQ, May 1996.) Note that this internal Police review was accepted and ENDORSED by the Police Executive Council (PEC-THE Police Bosses!) shortly before the Thorp inquiry was announced. Recommendation 2 "That the current system of firearm registration be endorsed" was endorsed by PEC on 28th May 1996. (The "current system" is registration of handguns, machineguns, and since 1992, Military Style Semi Automatics) I have no doubt that the desire of Thorp and the Police to 'fall in' with current trends had a huge bearing on Thorp's review findings. __ Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 02:19:34 +1000 From: Ross Wilmoth Subject: NZ Police report on Firearm Registration 1983 Foreword on the source of this document. ---------------------------------------- The document came to me as you see it, with no origin, author or date. >From enquires in New Zealand I have been able to gather it was a background paper prepared by the NZ Police. Written in 1983. Either just prior to or (more likely) soon after new legislation introducing lifetime licences and dropping longarm registration. A major report was recently (1996) undertaken internally by the Police. This was entitled "A review of Firearms Control In New Zealand" and was done by the Operations Support Group, Police National Headquarters, and reported on in May 1996. Appendix "A" of that report is entitled "Universal Registration of Firearms" and section 3.2 of that appendix reads as follows:- quote 1982 Review The pros and cons of a full registration system were fully explored in the extensive paper "Firearms Registration in New Zealand" prepared by Inspector AG McCallum, Support Services Directorate in September 1982. This was summarised in "Background to the Introduction of Firearms User Licensing instead of Rifle and Shotgun Registration under the Arms Act 1983" which accompanies the paper. [this is the summary below] The paper reviewed the existing registration system and came to the conclusion that the costs of setting up and maintaining full registration except for pistols and restricted weapons, could not be justified when viewed against the desired benefits. Such a system to remain viable and achieve its desired benefits would require full validation checks to be made every 5 years or so. endquote A well read firearm legislation researcher in New Zealand wrote me; "The paper is a summary of Alistair McCallums 1982 paper - although possibly updated. "I spoke to the Police Firearms Licensing Co-Ordinator today. He has a copy of the summary but it is not signed. He thought Alistair McCallum wrote it. "Anyway it's certainly genuine! BACKGROUND TO THE INTRODUCTION OF FIREARMS USER LICENSING INSTEAD OF RIFLE AND SHOTGUN REGISTRATION UNDER THE ARMS ACT 1983 These notes explain why the licensing of persons who possess firearms was introduced instead of registering rifles and shotguns under the Arms Act 1983. OBJECTIVES ---------- After reading these notes you should be able to understand: (d) Why registration was introduced in 1920 (d) Why the need for registration was questioned (d) cWhy the cost of registration could not be justified (d) Why licensing was introduced THE NEW SYSTEM -------------- The Arms Act 1983 introduced a new system of firearm licensing which started on 1 June 1984. Persons who possess/use firearms and who are considered by the police to be fit and proper will-be issued with a firearms licence. The licence will entitle the holder to buy or sell rifles and shotguns without notifying the police. (Persons wishing to possess pistols and restricted weapons, will have details of their weapons-recorded in the Wanganui Computer). The licence means that rifles are no longer registered. Good reasons exist why it was necessary to license persons as opposed to registering firearm. EXISTING RECORDS ---------------- Prior to the 1983 Arms Act, the 16 Police Districts held records of all registered rifles in the country and their owners. Although the exact number of records in the indices was not known. It is believed they exceeded a million. This number included 500,000 certificates of registration plus index cards. Additional to the 16.Rifle Registration Indices was an index containing records of persons who were issued with permits to procure shotguns. This index was' held at Police National Headquarters and held records of approximately 100,000 shotgun owners. Besides maintaining these 17 indices policemen throughout the country issued an estimated 70,000 permits and certificates each year. An estimated 10,000 new owners of firearms were processed by the police yearly. Therefore in summary approximately: 1,000,000 Certificates of Registration and index cards were held in the 16 rifle registration indices Page 2 100,000 Records were held in the shotgun index 70,000 Permits and certificates were issued each year 10,000 New firearm owners were processed each year WHY WAS REGISTRATION INTRODUCED ------------------------------- When the Arms Act 1983 was being drafted many fundamental issues came under critical examination. The question as to whether the registration of firearms was achieving its purpose arose as did the question, should the policy of registering rifles be extended to include shotguns under the new Act. It was-not-possible to determine if registration was fulfilling its purpose as no one was sure why it was decided to register rifles in the first place. Research into the history of firearms legislation was then. Carried out and some interesting facts were revealed. Historically in 1920 the Arms Act of that year was introduced and registration of all firearms including rifles, shotguns, .pistols and restricted weapons started. At that period of New Zealand history the First World War had ended with many returned servicemen bringing pistols and automatic firearms into 'the country. They were freely available from stores. Revolution had occurred in Russia and there was a fear that large scale industrial demonstrations or even riot could occur here. Consideration was given to the registration of all firearms including shotguns as it was believed to be a method of controlling the illegal use of firearms.. Registration was therefore introduced by the Arms Act 1920. The Police prepared themselves to cope with the task. It is clear that the number of firearms in the country surprised the police. Within two years the police had accumulated records on 200,000 firearms and the Commissioner reported to Parliament that the Act 'entailed a great amount of work upon the .police' and that it revealed "there is an extraordinary number of firearms in the Dominion." By 1928 the sheer volume of work in registering all firearms was proving difficult for the police to cope with and in 1929 the Government introduced a Bill to dispense with registration of rifles and shotguns, but the Bill was defeated in the Legislative Council. Page 3 The compromise reached in 1930 was to drop the registration of shotguns, and they have not been registered in New Zealand since, although in 1968 a permit to procure shotguns was introduced. Therefore it would seem rifle registration was introduced for political reasons and as a method of 'controlling firearms.' It is open, to speculation as to whether the Police intended in 1920 to use the records as a method of locating offenders. In summary: - The decision to register all firearms in 1920 was made because of the fear riot or revolution could occur. - 200,000 firearms were registered between 1920 and 1922. - In 1930 registration of shotguns stopped as the task was a burden for the police WHY THE NEED FOR REGISTRATION WAS QUESTIONED -------------------------------------------- The next question which arose was whether the index achieved its purpose in assisting the police to locate offenders and if so to what extent. There is no doubt that on occasions offenders were located through the Rifle Registration Index. It is difficult to assess how many times this happened. Research has been carried out into this issue but was inconclusive, the reasons being that any research in this area is dependent on the memory of persons who have used the index. But it is reasonable to assume that the index was of only limited value for several reasons. The first being the number of rifles that were never registered. We will never know how many just as we do not know how many firearms there are in this country.' It is safe to assume that many thousands of firearms existed which were not registered. During one month long amnesty alone, 1,500 rifles and shotguns were surrendered along with 300 pistols. It is estimated many thousands of firearms have been reported as lost or stolen but never recovered. It is also known that approximately 30% of the people who registered their firearms failed to advise the police when they changed their address. Even if an offender used a rifle during a crime and left it at the scene it did not mean that the offender would automatically be found. If the rifle had never been registered the police would have no record of it. If it did not have a serial number the index could not be used. If the offender had stolen the firearm he could not be traced through the index as is the case if he had found the firearm. Page 4 In summary: - The number of unregistered firearms was unknown but assumed to be many thousands. - About 30% of people who registered their firearms failed to advise change of address. - The index could be used to find offenders only if the rifle had a serial number, was registered, had not been lost or stolen, and was left on the scene or otherwise located. - It is difficult to assess to what extent the index assisted the police but it can be assumed that it was limited. WHY THE COST OF MAINTAINING THE INDEX COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED ------------------------------------------------------------ Another question then arose. In view of the limited use the Police made of the index, could the cost of maintaining registration be justified? The first time that the system of registration was seriously questioned was in 1973. Six years-prior to this, in 1967 the police decided to make a personal check with the owner of every registered rifle: - That the rifle existed - That it was at the address recorded on the Certificate of Registration held in the index - That other details in the certificate were correct It was then believed a purge of the arms records would be "a large undertaking but not a frightening one", taking about two years. Five years after the check commenced it was still not completed and District Commanders commented: - "At the present rate of progress the arms check programme will never finish. Eleven districts will have taken at least 11 years to complete it. Clearly time to start again. Even now records checked since 1967 are known to be out of date." - "Two thirds of the certificates were in error, ie. Rifles destroyed, certificates missing or in error. The question must be asked how long will it take to return to this state." - "Wanganui District Commander estimated that 25% of enquires have shown the registrant has failed to notify change of address." Page 5 - "By the time Wellington completes its programme there could be in the vicinity of 20,000 firearms untraced." - The check was stopped. The Management Services concluded: "throughout New Zealand there seems a good cause to doubt the value of the present system of registration. The 'unregistered rifles' referred to were rifles which had previously been registered. No estimate of the number of firearms which had never been registered could ever be made. COULD THE COST OF REGISTRATION BE JUSTIFIED ------------------------------------------- Serious doubts existed over the benefits of registration particularly as such a large number of firearms which had been registered could not be traced. It also became clear that to maintain the registration of rifles and to also include the registration of shotguns under the new Arms Act would be an enormous task for the police to cope with. If the police considered that the use of the index was an aid to detection then they would be committed to maintaining as many accurate records on firearms and their owners as possible. This means that the police could not afford to start afresh under the new Arms Act. In other words it would have been essential to try and correct all the existing records held in the existing 17 indices and to place them in the Wanganui Computer. After trying to achieve this in 1968 without success there was little point in attempting this task once again. To ensure that the records were as accurate as possible every owner of firearms in the country would have been required to call into police stations with their firearms to ensure descriptions of each firearm were placed in the computer. This exercise would have had to be carried out approximately every five years to ensure the accuracy of the index was maintained. It can readily be appreciated that considering there was an estimated 350,000 firearm owners and a minimum of 500,000 registered rifles with no estimate of the number of shotguns, this would have been a massive task. In summary: - A persona1 check of all firearm owners from 1968 - 1973 could not be finished Page 6 - As a result of the check serious doubts existed over the index - To register rifles and shotguns under the new act would mean correcting all existing records - Periodic renewal of records would have been necessary - The police would have been faced with a massive burden which was unjustified LICENSING FIREARM USERS ----------------------- There were advantages in the proposal to license persons. By licensing all persons who the police consider are fit and proper, the police are able to quickly identify persons who are unlawfully in possession of firearms. With the computerisation-of all licence holders all policemen have immediate access to records on licensed firearm users. When the police attend an incident involving an armed offender they have immediate access to all records instead of searching 17 indices spread throughout the country. Some believed the new system would disadvantage policemen attending armed offender incidents as it would not be known how many firearms the offender has. No system whether. firearms registration or otherwise will provide the police with this information. No system can record details of firearms which the offender has stolen borrowed or found. Licensing permits recreational shooters to pursue their chosen sport without undue restrictions. Some shooters believe that registering rifles and shotguns only serves to assist the police in collecting records on honest persons. In other words those who conform to the requirements of the law and advise the police when they procure firearms or change addresses. The reduction of police time spent on registration of firearms will allow more time for functioning within the community. Some questioned how lost or stolen rifles and shotguns could be returned to their owners if they are no longer registered. The licence has provision at the back for licensees to record. details of their firearms. Therefore when their stolen or lost firearms are reported to the police (it is an offence not to do so) details are recorded in the Wanganui Computer - If they are recovered the police know immediately who they belong to. In summary, the licensing of firearm owners - assists the police to quickly determine who is in unlawful possession of firearms Page 7 - provides the police with immediate access to records on licensed firearm users - allows recreational shooters to pursue their sport without undue restrictions - reduces police time spent on maintaining records - allows the police to spend more time in the community -= end of document =- This document disagrees with the recommendations of the Thorpe report. The review was conducted internally by the police and was undertaken BEFORE Thorp got involved (Late 1996). Reasons for the difference between police view in this review and the police opinion expressed in the Thorpe report can be found in the Thorpe report itself. Quote Review of Firearms Control in New Zealand Summary and Conclusions OF THE REPORT OF AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY COMMISSIONED BY THE MINISTER OF POLICE Police Opinion The internal review conducted by the police in May 1996 described the present system as "effective" but in need of some amendment to ensure that it "maintains its high level of integrity". It was an early and central conclusion by this Review that the pre-sent system is fundamentally defective, and that arms control work has suffered from being repeatedly put behind other apparently more urgent police duties. That view was communicated to the Police as early as November 1996. In April 1997 the Police advised that further consideration had convinced them that there was need for a radical change. Later a formal "Police Response" forwarded to the Review on 2 May 1997 confirmed a major shift in the Police position, and that they accepted that the issues which had arisen during the Review, and "international trends in arms compliance", indicated the need for "a different category of control". endquote Here Thorpe tells us how the police were encouraged to change their opinion. This is an example of manipulation along the line of "international trends in arms compliance" - from the United Nations. What you have just read is the real police opinion.