Thread: Protesting Confiscation Events

Originally Posted by Rushy

Sasquatch / ebf the debate about whether obtaining a firearms license in New Zealand is a right or a privilege to me pivots on interpretation of the Arms Act clause below.

24. Issue of firearms licence
(1). Subject to subsection (2), a firearms licence shall be issued if the member of the Police to whom the application is made is satisfied that the applicant—
(a). is of or over the age of 16 years; and
(b) is a fit and proper person to be in possession of a firearm or airgun.

I have always contended that it is a privilege to have a firearms license in New Zealand but many read the words “shall be issued” and interpret them to imply a right. I can absolutely understand how those that hold this view arrive at that conclusion. I hold my view because the way I interpret the clause is that being issued an FAL is not an inalienable right as it has conditions (in that you must be of a certain age and be fit and proper). This debate will continue forever because to me each individual’s interpretation is subjective.

Thank you Rushy. In English law, Shall does not refer to the future. It can be paraphrased as "has the duty to" and refers only to capable subjects (meaning, Lessor, or Buyer shall do something, but not Property or Product shall). (Must refers to the duty to perform of inanimate subjects (like the product or the property)). With this legal (not 'civilian') language interpreted, a right is not invoked but a duty is. I.e. the police have to issue a firearm to all those people who satisfy 1 & 2. If the police disagree, next step is a courtroom if the prospective fit and proper person wishes to invoke the law to have the police perform their duty. Differences like this fund lawyers' Maseratis.