In the Weapons Code, a manual on gun safety, the New Zealand Police Department emphasizes that “the law does not permit the possession of firearms `in the expectation` that a firearm is to be used in self-defence.” [18] [19]: 41 • How many times did the accused call the police and what was the result? This defence recognizes that people have the right to defend themselves against violence or threats of violence as long as the force used is no more than is appropriate for that purpose. The law does not require people to wait until they have been attacked before taking steps to protect themselves. But the law also recognizes the aggressor`s right to life and physical integrity and requires that force used in self-defense be no more than necessary to prevent violence or the threat of violence. 38 The relative physical weakness of many mistreated accused towards their attackers often determines the nature and timing of the reactions of the beaten accused. Research suggests that a significant number of abused women who kill their spouses do so unless they are immediately attacked or threatened with immediate attack. [50] If an immediate attack is threatened, any attempt at self-protection may be too late. For example, victims of domestic violence may resort to surprise attacks,[51] or they may attack them during a break from violence. [52] The partner may even sleep. [53] This raises the question of whether the danger posed by the partner was sufficiently immediate that the use of lethal force would be considered necessary and therefore proportionate. 41 This is illustrated in R/Wang.

[56] In this case, the defendant was an immigrant from China charged with the murder of her abusive husband. On the night of the murder, the husband threatened to kill the accused and her sister, who lived with them. Then he went to bed drunk. The accused handcuffed him while he was unconscious and then killed him with a knife. She claimed to have acted in self-defence. The judge refused to bring self-defense before the jury. He stated that since the accused was not in immediate danger and had other options, such as going to the police or seeking help from her sister and boyfriend who were in the house with her, the jury could never have considered that she had used lethal force as appropriate. [57] After the Aramoana massacre in November 1990, Police Secretary John Banks announced that the government would ban what he and others have called Rambo-type weapons and significantly strengthen gun laws in general. The law was finally passed in 1992 and required written authorizations to order weapons or ammunition by mail order, restricted the sale of ammunition to firearms licence holders, added photos to firearms licences, required licensees to safely store firearms in their homes (which were verified before a licence was issued), and controversially required all holders to of permits are re-audited for new licences. Had. which would only be valid for 10 years.

Using a firearm for self-defense is preferable to something that seems harmless and improvised, rather than a deliberate weapon Anyone who purchases firearms or ammunition, whether private or from a dealer, must show their gun license. In addition, a supply permit must be obtained prior to the transfer of pistols, semi-automatic military weapons and restricted weapons. The sale can be made by mail order, but a police officer must sign the purchase order to verify that the buyer has a firearms licence. Previously, New Zealand allowed the possession of military-style semi-automatic weapons, which it calls MSSA, and a loophole in the law allowed many people to buy them without a special license. [ref. needed] The discrepancy exists because MSSAs are classified according to their parts, so minor changes may mean that an MSSA can be purchased with a regular license (Rosie Perper). [34] Permits to import or possess stun guns must be issued by the New Zealand Police under the direction of the Commissioner. The Police Department may issue licences to licensed dealers and members of organizations who broadcast programmes, stage theatrical productions or make film and video recordings. Applicants must demonstrate that they are capable of carrying and possessing these restricted weapons.

Owners and importers of stun guns who do not obtain the necessary permits are liable to a fine of up to NZ$1,000 (as of August 2010), imprisonment for up to three months, or both. • Did the accused attempt to avail himself of the protection of the criminal justice system or other authorities, and what was the result? Unless it is absolutely necessary to defend oneself to avoid doing harm, it is better to walk away, avoid confrontation, call the police and give them a good description. You can use force to defend yourself, but the violence must be reasonable. Self-defense skills should be practiced and you can do this by taking a self-defense course. 34 New Zealand`s self-defence test has both a subjective and an objective element. The investigator must determine the circumstances in which the accused used violence. This is a subjective request. The defendant`s conviction does not need to be reasonable, although the absence of reason may influence the factual investigator in deciding whether the defendant really had this belief.

Whether the defendant acted “in defence of himself or someone else” is also subjective: the answer depends on whether the defendant`s intention was in the circumstances as he saw it. [46] 33 To call self-defence a “defence” is somewhat misleading, as it is the prosecution that must prove beyond a doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defence. [44] However, for self-defence to become a matter of jury decision, the defendant must be able to present evidence that may constitute a reasonable possibility that he or she acted in self-defence. The judge must then determine, on the basis of the evidence most favourable to the accused, whether there is sufficient evidence to permit the jury to consider the matter. [45] 44 As Schopp has observed, there is a difference between immediate danger and the action that must be taken immediately to ward off a danger that is not itself immediate. [64] As long as action is necessary, since no non-violent alternative will achieve this objective, there should be no additional preference requirement. Threat of injury may be a factor to be considered when assessing necessity, but it should not be an independent requirement in addition to necessity. In New Zealand, immediacy is a presumption of evidence, not the rule of law. It is useful because, in the absence of imminent danger, there is usually no need for defense forces, since the danger can be avoided by other means. However, according to Schopp, necessity can exist without immediacy if danger is unavoidable. In some situations, inevitability may be a better tool for assessing the need for defensive measures.

• How has the abuser responded to other self-protection efforts in the past? Anyone attacked has the legal right to use force to protect themselves (including lethal force when circumstances warrant). The level of force used must be proportionate to the threat and not excessive. For example, if someone attacks with a knife or gun, people can use lethal force if necessary. The law also allows for the use of force to prevent someone from breaking into a person`s home. After the Christchurch mosque shooting, Prime Minister Ardern announced: “Our gun laws are going to change, now is the time.” People will strive to make changes, and I am committed to that. [52] Ardern continued, “There were attempts to change our laws in 2005, 2012 and after an investigation in 2017. Now is the time for a change. [53] Attorney General David Parker later reportedly said that the government would ban semi-automatic weapons,[54] but then backpedaled, saying the government had not yet committed to anything and that regulation of semi-automatic weapons was “one of the issues” the government would consider. [55] On 20. In March 2019, Ardern announced that all military semi-automatics and assault rifles would be banned.

[56] [57] [58] The first step in this process was taken on March 21, when most semi-automatic firearms were classified as “military-style semi-automatic firearms” under section 74A(c) of the 1983 Act. [59] RECOMMENDATION 1 The new Firearms Act explicitly states that self-defence is not a legitimate purpose for acquiring firearms.