Thread: Constitution and controls on firearms ownership

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

When the word "constitution" gets used the argument sounds important and weighty. But is it, really?

The constitution referred to here is the Bill of Rights 1689 (or 1688 for the NZ version). There are several things you may want to know.

Firstly, New Zealand has no written constitution. Not single Act has constitutional status. In New Zealand, Parliament is still supreme, it can elect new laws to override/repeal old laws all it wants. So if there is a conflict between new law and old law, new law prevails (although there are some minor exceptions to this). The best you can hope to happen is to have the Court declaring that the new law is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (note, not the 1688 Act). Even this declaration is a new thing that was only approved by the Supreme Court last year and has been resisted by the Government (they say the court has no power to make such declaration) all the way. So I do not think BOR 1688 has such elevated "constitutional status" as the author indicates, at least not in New Zealand.

Secondly, if you look into the background of the BOR 1688, you will pick up a few things. This Act was enacted to: address certain social/political problems of England of the day (which they say were caused by the exiled Catholic King James II) , namely, the King had too much power and Catholics had too much influence; and to assent William III, a Dutchman, to the King of England. So basically the Act was not as much as an big step of advancement in civil liberty or democracy as it was a band aid solution to a political problem of the day. The part that had long lasting, and arguably big-step-forward effect for future generations, was the first paragraph of the Act which limits the power of making or suspending law of a regal government. This was used as recently as 1980s to nullify some order made by the then NZ PM Muldoon.

Thirdly, if you read the wording the relevant para to arms in BOR 1688, it says this:

Subjects’ arms - That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.

What we get out of it are:
A, it is affirming only the Protestant's right to arms, so if you are not a Protestant you are not covered;
B, it refers to right to have arms for defence - which is effectively outlawed by later laws in New Zealand;
C, even this paragraph says it is conditional on the ownership is allowed by law, obviously referring to other laws. So long as NZ has other laws that would permit a person to have fire arms, this paragraph would not be offended.

Your post warrants a considered response from me but I am going out in a few minutes and will hopefully have time to respond later tonight.