John MacDonald: Are we serious about gun control or not?

Would you rather the police could only search a place for illegal firearms if they believed there were illegal guns there, or would you rather they could search a place for illegal firearms if they suspected illegal firearms were there?  

There’s quite a difference. If you believe something, you’ve generally seen or heard information that gives you reason to believe. 

But if you suspect something, it’s one of those things where you can’t quite put your finger on it, but you reckon there’s something going on.  

And that’s where things are potentially coming unstuck a little bit for the Government’s crackdown on gangs and illegal firearms. 

Because Parliament’s Justice Select Committee has come to the conclusion that some changes the Government wants to make in relation to firearms prohibition orders would give the police too much power to search without search warrants. 

And my response to that, is “so what?” Because, if we’re going to get serious about getting weapons out of the wrong hands, why wouldn’t we give the police more powers? 

The particular piece of legislation that the justice select committee has been considering is the Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill. 

Prohibition Orders are handed-out by the courts, and they’re supposed to stop people from having a firearms licence, stop them from using a firearm, and stop them from associating with anyone who has a firearm. 

And they’re given out to people who the courts believe are high-risk and shouldn’t have anything to do with firearms.   

Another change the Government wants to make is to apply the law to more people. At the moment, the bar is pretty high, but the Government wants to see people convicted of lower-level offences also given Firearms Prohibition Orders.  

Apparently, this could see three-and-a-half times more people banned from having a firearms licence, banned from using firearms and banned from having anything to do with people who have firearms.     

But people like gang members, generally, don’t give two hoots about things like prohibition orders. Which is why the Government also wants the Police to be able to turn up somewhere without a search warrant - even if they don’t have reason to believe there are illegal firearms there. 

The Government wants the cops to be able to act on a hunch and go in somewhere without going through the malarkey of getting a search warrant and I’m all for that. 

It seems the select committee, which has gone through the proposed changes, is concerned about innocent people getting caught-up in police stings. 

They reckon it’s not good enough to search on the basis of suspecting someone might have an illegal weapon. They say the police should only search if they believe it. 

Which is all fine and dandy when you’re sitting in Parliament at your select committee meeting, having morning tea breaks and lunch breaks and looking at the proposed changes from a position of relative comfort. 

These politicians might think slightly differently if they or someone they know was at the wrong end of a gun barrel. 

Because so what if a few innocent people get taken-in for questioning now and then? Surely we should be more concerned about the safety of these innocent people. Not any inconvenience that might be caused if they have to spend a couple of hours down at the cop shop and are then allowed to go. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the Canterbury Morning's Podcast with John McDonald
from News talks'b.

Speaker 2 (00:13):
Would you rather? Here we go another game? Would you rather?
Would you rather the police could only search a place
for illegal firearms if they believed there were illegal guns there,
or would you rather they could search a place for
illegal firearms if they suspected illegal firearms were there. It's

(00:37):
quite a difference. If you believe something, you've generally seen
or heard information that gives you reason to believe. If
you suspect something, it's one of those things where you know,
I can't quite put my phoner on it, but I
reckon there's something going on there. And this is where
things are potentially coming unstuck a little bit for the

(00:57):
government's cracked down on gangs and illegal firearms, because Parliament's
Justice Select Committee has come to the conclusion that some
changes the guvern It wants to make in relation to
firearms prohibition orders, we'd give the police too much power
to search without warrants. And my response to that is,
so what, so what? Because if we're going to get

(01:21):
serious about getting weapons out of the wrong hands, why
wouldn't we give the police more powers? The particular piece
of legislation that the committee has been considering is the
Firearms Prohibition Orders Legislation Bill, and is the title of
the bill, says or suggests says, It's all about firearms

(01:42):
prohibition orders. Now, these are dished out by the courts,
and they're supposed to stop people from a having a
firearms license, b from using a firearm, and c from
associating with anyone who has a firearm. And they're given
out to people who the state or the courts believe
are high risk and shouldn't have anything to do with firearms,

(02:06):
bad eggs or risky slash, dangerous ones. Generally they've committed
some sort of crime that leads to that conclusion. Another
change the government wants to make is to apply the
law to more people. So at the moment, the bar
is pretty high, well the government thinks so anyway, and
it wants to see people convicted of lower level offenses

(02:27):
also given firearms prohibition orders. So apparently this could see
three and a half more times or three and a
half times more people banned from having a firearm license,
banned from using firearms, and ban from having anything to
do with people who have firearms. Themselves, and you know,
people like gang members generally, they didn't give two hoots

(02:49):
about things like prohibition orders, which is why the government
also wants the police to be able to turn up
somewhere without a search warrant, even if they have or
even if they don't have reason to believe there are
illegal firearms there. The government wants the cops is what
the govern what much of the cops to be able
to do, to be able to act on a hunch

(03:10):
and go in somewhere without going through the malarkey of
getting a search warrant. And I'm all for that. I'm
all for it. It seems the Select Committee, though, which
has gone through the proposed changes, it seems it's concerned
about innocent people getting caught up in police things. They
reckon it's not good enough to search on the basis
of suspecting someone might be breaking their prohibition order. They

(03:35):
say the police should only search, or only be allowed
to search without a warrant if they believe it, which
is all fine and dandy when you're sitting in Parliament
at your Select Committee meeting, having warning tea brakes and
your lunch breaks and you're looking at these proposed changes
from a position of relative comfort these politicians, though they
might think slightly differently if they or someone they know

(04:00):
or someone close to them was at the wrong end
of a gun barrel. Because my position, so what if
a few innocent people get taken in for questioning now
and then, surely we should be more concerned about the
safety of these innocent people, shouldn't we not their inconvenience
or any inconvenience it might be caused of the handsapp

(04:20):
to spend a couple of hours down the cop shop
answering a few questions, and then they're allowed to go
because they're innocent. The original version of the bill also
wanted any offense under the Crimes Act punishable or punishable
by a year in jail to qualify someone for a
firearms prohibition order, but the Select Committee is pushed back
on that one too, and has recommended that that only

(04:43):
be applied for crimes against people such as kidnapping or assault,
and crimes against properties such as theft or burglary, which
sees someone set away for twelve months. So what happens
next will The bill is expected to be passed later
this year, but I think it's been watered down too much,
because I have no problem at all with the police
searching somewhere for illegal weapons without a warrant, without reason

(05:07):
to believe there are weapons there in the first place,
or the prohibition Order is being contravened in the first place,
because surely, surely that would be a much better way
than worrying about innocent parties getting caught up in the action.
For five minutes For more

Speaker 1 (05:23):
From Canterbory Mornings with John McDonald, listen live to news
Talks It'd be christ Church from nine am weekdays, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.