[ad_1]
Ricky Wilson / Things
Police Minister Stuart Nash was unable to see the civilian use of military ammunition. (File photo)
Owners of military munitions that were banned on the recommendation of the Minister of Police in the wake of the attack on Christchurch mosques are not entitled to compensation, the Crown says.
Ten types of ammunition were banned, but two in particular, tracer and improved penetration ammunition, were the focus of legal action by the Council of Authorized Firearm Owners to establish property rights and the right to compensation.
His lawyer told a judge that the ban had not advanced the gun law’s public safety purpose.
Judge Francis Cooke, at Wellington Superior Court, reserved his decision on the request to review Police Minister Stuart Nash’s recommendation. He said he had to decide whether banning ammunition was deprivation of property or legitimate regulation.
READ MORE:
* Christchurch Mayor calls for banning of bullets “designed to cause major damage”
* A version of the Christchurch Mosque marksman weapon remains legal, despite changes in law
* Council of Firearm Owners Challenges Ban on Military Ammunition
The council also wanted the court to consider whether owners should be compensated for the loss of ammunition that was on the banned list.
But the Crown has defended Nash’s recommendation and says no compensation was due.
On Tuesday, crown attorney Austin Powell said the change deliberately did not provide for compensation, unlike the government’s buyback scheme for semi-automatic firearms and parts that were banned in a separate law change shortly after the shooting in the mosques that killed 51 people in March 2019.
Taking prohibited munitions cannot be compared to when compensation was paid for private property that was taken for public works, he said.
Richard Cosgrove / Things
Tracer ammunition topped the list of prohibited military-type ammunition on a recommendation from the June 2019 Police Minister. (File photo)
Council attorney Jack Hodder said that if it were a deliberate decision not to compensate people for the lost ammunition, that would have been clearly stated.
The court was told there were legitimate civilian uses for military ammunition, including “plinking” and that bushings could be a cheap source of brass. The parts could also become more usable forms of ammunition.
