New Zealand’s Shifting Attitudes on Firearms Regulation Since Christchurch Mass Shootings

In the quiet suburbs of Christchurch, New Zealand, Neville Dodd looks longingly to the corner of his room as he reminisces about the custom long range rabbit rifle he used to shoot with his son. The $10,000 USD, American-made firearm was his prized possession. 

That was until 2019, when Dodd was barred from shooting the rifle ever again. He wasn’t so lucky with his other firearms; a unit of New Zealand police crushed them in front of him. He said he couldn’t watch, and had to turn his back as he heard the crunch. 

Dodd is one of thousands of Kiwis [New Zealanders] who were forced to surrender their firearms to police for either modification or confiscation after amendments were made to New Zealand’s firearms laws after the 2019 Christchurch mass shootings at the Al Noor Mosque and the Linwood Islamic Centre. 

---

As a nonprofit journalism organization, we depend on your support to fund more than 170 reporting projects every year on critical global and local issues. Donate any amount today to become a Pulitzer Center Champion and receive exclusive benefits!

---

Since then, New Zealand has often been hailed as a gun control model for the world, but there are signs that this may no longer be the case—to the dismay of anti-gun advocates. Today, Kiwi firearms owners are hoping a shift in government policy and public opinion will foster more firearm-friendly policies. Over the past few years, the country has begun to see a shift in public attitudes and a turn toward possible legislation regarding firearms regulation. According to Alexander Gillespie, a law professor at the University of Waikato, the public enthusiasm for change in firearms legislation has dwindled since 2019, leaving less resistance to new laws.

For people like Dodd, the prospect of having a gun-friendly country is great, but he also has some hesitations. 

“The core to all of this is that if a New Zealand citizen is properly vetted to meet the ‘fit and proper’ criteria [for owning a firearm], you don't really need an act to say that. We’ve always had firearms around us,” Dodd said. “The process by which a New Zealand person can own a firearm has been reasonably stringent and almost without exception. When it fails, it's always because of a failure by the authority responsible; that is New Zealand police.”

New Zealand found itself a global model for gun control in 2019 after, on March 15 of that year, an Australian white supremacist, identified as Brenton Tarrant, entered two Christchurch mosques with two illegally modified AR-15s and multiple shotguns and opened fire during Friday prayer. The attack killed 51 people and injured almost 90 more. The rampage was live-streamed on Facebook. Tarrant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

It was the second mass shooting in the nation’s history, after the 1990 Aramoana massacre that killed 13 people. 

Within a week of the attack, then-Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern announced the establishment of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Terrorist Attack on Christchurch Mosques. It was a government fact-finding mission to determine the failures in procedure and policy that allowed the attack to occur in hopes of bringing a sense of closure to victims and all Kiwis alike. 

Within a month of the tragedy, the nation’s Parliament passed the 2019 Arms Amendment Act, which narrowed the categories of which guns in the country were legal to own and fire. Thomas Hemphill, president of the Sporting Shooters Association of New Zealand (SSANZ), said attitudes toward gun owners shifted overnight. 

“Suddenly licensed firearms owners were no longer the most trusted and well vetted civilians you could find,” Hemphill said. “We were potential terrorists.”

To remove the newly prohibited firearms from private ownership, Parliament initiated a mass involuntary buyback system, using an estimated $117 million USD to do so. Across the country, firearms owners lined up in rugby stadiums and other large venues to turn over their guns for destruction and disposal. For some owners, like Dodd, their collections were so large that New Zealand police had to come to their homes to evaluate the firearms and destroy them.

As part of the buyback program, each firearm was evaluated by police for its monetary worth. However, many firearms owners felt they weren’t well compensated for the accumulated value of their weapons. 

In addition to the implementation of the buyback program, the Firearms Safety Authority, also known as Te Tari Pūreke, was established as a new unit within New Zealand police. It was tasked with the oversight of the firearms registration program and the issuing of licenses to those who are “fit and proper,” a clause originally included in the 1983 Arms Act. 

The creation of the Firearms Safety Authority has had mixed reception within the firearms-owning community. Nick Fisher, a 20-year veteran of the New Zealand military, owns and operates the 900-acre Sparrowhawk training facility, farm, and shooting range in South Canterbury, about two hours south of Christchurch. He says the 2019 laws dramatically changed his business. 

According to Fisher, firearms are necessary for him and thousands of other Kiwi farmers to ensure the efficient operation of their farms. He said wallaby and deer, who regularly wander onto his property, are considered major pests and threats to New Zealand’s farming industry, and they are eliminated by farmers using personal firearms. 

The semi-automatics that were used in pest control are now prohibited. As a result, farmers are forced to spend additional money hiring professional pest controllers, which he says are a significant financial burden. Fisher said he has seen a 30% decrease in farming efficiency now that he can no longer use semi-automatic firearms to eliminate pests, costing him almost $110,000 USD in lost opportunity costs.

In addition to the impacts on farming, the 2019 laws eliminated the types of previously authorized licensing courses that Fisher ran on his property to train firearms owners and hunters. Fisher says the police now refuse to authorize his reformed, comprehensive course. 

According to Fisher, the police’s training course includes a 40-minute lesson and exam, while his proposed program features two days of training and live-range firing time. 

In the buyback program, Fisher said, Sparrowhawk had to turn over various training firearms and devices that the business owned, in addition to his own collectible firearms. Of the firearms that Fisher turned over to the police, which he valued at about $150,000 NZD ($90,382 USD), he was paid only $47,000 USD. Fisher said the lost value in the firearms has only gone up since then, considering the value the collectibles would have accumulated over time. 

Fisher believes the Firearms Safety Authority’s pitfall lies with the fact that it operates under New Zealand police, and not as a stand-alone body. He believes that putting the Firearms Safety Authority under the umbrella of the police has led the organization, which he believes should be a purely regulatory body, to be more prosecutorial in nature. 

“The police internal culture is to approach everything looking for fault. Their whole internal culture and function in life is to approach any task looking to apportion blame or assign fault and to prosecute,” Fisher said. “Because the Firearms Safety Authority is within the police, they are incapable of approaching a problem without looking for prosecution.”

The Firearms Safety Authority declined to comment.

Just as many of the long-term policy implications of the 2019 law changes were taking effect, long-term gun rights advocate and MP Nicole McKee was appointed to the position of Minister of Courts and Associate Minister of Justice (Firearms), placing her in charge of the Firearms Safety Authority. McKee has been criticized by the Labour Party and Gun Control New Zealand as a gun lobbyist. When McKee was elected to a second term in 2023, through the victory of the national coalition government, her new appointment meant a key shift in the direction and implementation of policy.

In 2024, she announced that, by 2026, the government would implement new firearms legislation to amend the 1983 Arms Act and its 2019 additions. This announcement spurred mixed reaction across the country. The possibility of rollbacks in restrictions loomed large in the minds of those affected by gun violence. Meanwhile, mistrust of the government by gun owners persists as the country holds its breath for the future of New Zealand gun policy. Fisher believes that with the possibility of upcoming law changes, the focus of laws need to include a key shift in thinking that was present prior to 2019. 

“The law needs to focus not on firearms. It's taken the onus away from people and puts it onto inanimate objects: Focus on the person, focus on their education, on their 'fit and proper' status, the quality of their conduct,” Fisher said. “If you're qualified and you pass the test, then there's no reason why you can't have access to whatever it is that you're after. It's pretty simple, really: Make it about the people.”

Following the 2019 massacre, a Royal Commission of Inquiry was issued to evaluate if the government failed in preventing the massacre, and based on these findings, would issue proposed recommendations to remedy the cracks in the system and prevent a similar incident from occurring again. The Royal Commission of Inquiry’s investigation began in April 2019 and concluded when the final findings were presented to Parliament in December 2020. 

Aliya Danzeisen, the national coordinator of the Islamic Women’s Council of New Zealand, said she has concerns about the role the government has played in the review process. She was one of the first people on the ground in Christchurch when flights into the city resumed after the attack. 

According to Danzeisen, the reviews that have been done haven’t been the comprehensive, public investigations the government promised they would be. In her eyes, they haven’t offered enough closure.   

“The government was trying to shore up its reputation,” Danzeisen said. “[It] was an internal look into themselves, run by themselves …We didn't get to hear any of the evidence, look at any of the evidence, or respond to any of the evidence.”

The final report from the 2019 Royal Commission of Inquiry found that police failed to properly administer the proper firearms licensing vetting protocol when evaluating the alleged perpetrator. It also suggested improving the firearms licensing system, especially in regards to consistent administration of the program by officials. The report also says that the police didn’t have prior knowledge of a shooting threat.

For Danzeisen, the latter could not be more untrue. She said she had knowledge of a potential threat and had warned police of the exact date of the shooting weeks in advance.

“It was very clear that the government did not meet their responsibility to our community, and our community is not accepting of the finding that the government didn’t fail [in having prior knowledge of the attack],” Danzeisen said.

To assist in the upcoming legislative review, a new Coronial Inquiry reviewed the causes behind the 2019 massacre, understood the policy failure, and issued policy recommendations on how to rewrite the Arms Act. Coronial Inquiries bring together lawyers to determine the cause and investigate the conditions surrounding an unexpected death from witness and expert testimony. 

The Coronial Inquiry occurred from October 2024 to January 2025, behind closed doors, and the list of policy recommendations is expected to be made public this summer. 

Hemphill, who served as an expert witness in the inquiry, said that as a result of hearing testimony, he learned more about the massacre and its aftermath than was originally made public.

“[Firearms owners] being in the room kept a lot of people honest,” Hemphill said.

In addition to recommendations expected from the inquiry, the government has been looking to academics and policy advisers for possible amendments to be included with the upcoming law changes. One person is Alexander Gillespie. 

A University of Waikato law professor educated at the University of Auckland, the University of Nottingham, and Columbia University, Gillespie also served as an expert witness in the inquiry. In 2024, he was awarded the Borrin Foundation Justice Fellowship to internationally examine firearms policy in regards to amending the Arms Act. Since being awarded the fellowship, he has traveled to Australia, Canada, and the United States to interview politicians, police officers, academics, forensic specialists, and veterans. His upcoming destinations include much of Western Europe and Japan. 

While Gillespie believes that the recommendations that come out from the report will be comprehensive, strong public opinion on firearms policy has fizzled. 

“You're looking at an atrocity, which is nearly six years past, and forget. The drive and momentum that you've got initially starts to fade, which is why you tend to have to wait for another bad situation before you get further reform,” Gillespie said. “I think our laws need to be able to be adaptable and to change quickly, because new threats emerge often faster than we're prepared for, and we need to respond fast with greater speed.”

As policy changes for New Zealand’s firearms owners are up in the air, Gillespie agrees that safe gun practices are a global concern, and need to be recognized as such. 

“​​I think what people see in New Zealand isn't just our ability to be progressive on firearms, it's our ability to be progressive on a number of topics,” Gillespie said. “Recently, it's been a bit of a challenge. I wouldn't say we're the best in the world. I don't think any country has got it right. But, I think most countries have got something right."

“My work shows very clearly that everyone's facing the same problems, and also we have to learn from each other,” he said. “It's about trying to reach out and find out the best of everyone, and then try to put that together in an overall package.”