The New Zealand government punishes gun owners for their political beliefs

A common – and compelling – argument against gun registration is that those who comply are simply putting themselves on a list that can expect to have their firearms stolen by government officials in the future. As if to emphasize this point, the New Zealand government recently confiscated firearms licenses and the weapons they have under their cover from 62 people because of their political ideology. The situation is an important reminder that warnings against registering firearms are correct. But it also raises a red flag about governments’ willingness to punish people for the ideas they believe in.

Under the influence of ideology

“62 firearms license holders with views aligned with the Sovereign Citizens movement had their licenses revoked following a police intelligence operation,” said Catherine Hubbard. reported for the Waikato Times on October 13. “Nationwide, police identified 1,400 people acting under the influence of Sovereign Citizen ideologies, and of that number, 158 were firearms license holders.”

If you’re not familiar with the term: “sovereign citizen” is a general description for various people who deny the legitimacy of government and claim to live under customary law, regardless of the rules imposed by the state. That is, they go beyond skepticism about the legitimacy of government which is shared by many people, including philosophical anarchists like Michael Huemer (I recommend his book, The problem of political authority) and sometimes try to live by their ideas. They could refuse to use license plates and file liens against government officials, while using garbled legal arguments that they believe – wrongly – will deter unimpressed police and judges.

Just like anyone else, they are dangerous at times. But usually it’s those guys who corner you at a party to tell you about his magical constitutional revelation that will immunize you from the income tax.

Sovereign citizens have found fertile ground in New Zealand, given an impetus through the country’s tough COVID era limits. And for some reason, so are they Real anger government officials in that country.

“The Police Security Intelligence and Threats Group’s Operation Belfast in September 2022 focused on identifying security risks to personnel from people influenced by the ideologies of the sovereign citizen,” Hubbard added in her piece. “In most cases, charges are not filed for revocation proceedings unless the former license holder had committed a criminal offense.”

Beliefs that are not ‘fit and correct’

That’s right, the country’s police have been conducting a domestic intelligence operation to identify people with cranky ideological beliefs. They were stripped of their firearms licenses because they were no longer considered “fit and proper” to possess them.

I approached the New Zealand Police about the situation, but their press officers refused to answer my questions. “Due to resources and our obligations to the New Zealand media, we are denying your request for service,” I was told by email.

Strictly speaking, I wasn’t asking for an oil change or a massage, but for the kind of answers that media representatives routinely cough up as part of their job. But if that’s a service, I didn’t get them.

Yet the Waikato Times article gave me enough information to search through the Firearms Safety Authority websitewhere I found a requirement that an applicant for a firearms license must be ‘a fit and proper person to possess and use firearms’. One of the possible disqualifications for that status is if a person “exhibits, encourages or promotes violence, hatred or extremism.”

‘Extremism’ is in the eye of the watching politician

Extremism is one of those words that politicians find very useful to smear their critics. Opposing views are always extreme to the speaker, so it is easy enough for those in power to point the finger at those who disagree and call for releasing censorship.

In fact, the governments of New Zealand and France were co-founders Christchurch Calla campaign against ‘violent extremist content online’. The campaign immediately became an amorphous cudgel against speeches by government officials just don’t like. Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, who tried to ban “incitement to hatred” during his time in office and has done so compared words to weapons of warnow devotes himself to “fighting online extremism.”

“For the past five years, New Zealand has been led by someone who has never really understood what freedom of speech is, or why it is so important,” says Dr. James Kierstead, researcher at the New Zealand Initiative think tank. wrote in 2022 about then Prime Minister Ardern.

So it is perhaps not surprising that New Zealand officials believe that simply embracing views that those in power consider “extreme” is reason enough to deprive people of some of their freedom.

Warnings for Americans

While most Americans do not need permits to own firearms, and we have First Amendment protection for our speech and Second Amendment protection for owning self-defense equipment, we should still consider the example of a liberal Democratic government who watches her own people. and restricting the freedom of those who embrace “unacceptable” ideas. Just two years ago the FBI led around by a guide to “domestic terrorism symbols” that could indicate a tendency toward “militia violent extremism.” Among the supposedly troubling symbols were the Gadsden flag, the Betsy Ross flag, a black-and-gold anarcho-capitalist flag and “Revolutionary War imagery.” Being tagged as an extremist is not difficult.

At the same time the government attempted to suppress discussions on social media when they crossed imaginary boundaries of acceptable dissent from public policy or were simply inconvenient for politicians.

“For law-abiding American gun owners, the fate of Kiwis should serve as a stark reminder of the dangers of firearms registration, especially when combined with a government that has no concern for an individual’s inherent rights, such as the rights of their citizens. to defend themselves and their families’ warnings the Second Amendment Foundation.

That is absolutely true. While it’s not always possible to get around government mandates, registering your guns just puts them on a shopping list for sticky-fingered officials. That’s true register something that you value and that powerful people may fear or desire.

Even more disturbing, however, is the prospect that governments in supposedly free societies will conduct intelligence operations against their populations and punish those who hold disapproved ideas. That’s a great argument for getting rid of the need for government permission to live our lives. Politicians will never approve of those who disagree with them, but we shouldn’t need their approval.