The Arms Act 2026 is in force, and Police no longer license gun owners

Since 23 September, Police no longer decide who can hold a firearms licence in New Zealand. That job now belongs to the Arms Regulator, a new body set up the same day the Arms Act 2026 came into force.

The Act replaces the Arms Act 1983. In an explainer published on 4 August, the public law firm Franks Ogilvie called it an overhaul of the 1983 law. The firm said the shift to the Regulator was its most significant change. The Regulator now runs both licensing and the firearms registry.

The split isn't complete. Franks Ogilvie says the Regulator reports independently of Police to the Minister responsible for the Act. But it is "hosted" by Police and uses Police corporate resources. Police have no part in licensing decisions. They still work with the Regulator to enforce firearms safety.

Information still flows from Police to the Regulator. Under a new "red-flag" system, Police and other government agencies, such as the Security Intelligence Service, can send the Regulator information that may affect whether a licence holder is "fit and proper", according to the explainer.

Challenges to licence decisions also go somewhere new. Police's internal review process has been abolished. A new Firearms Licence Review Committee will review decisions to refuse or revoke a licence, and decisions to put conditions on one.

What applies now

For licence holders and applicants, Franks Ogilvie lists these changes under the new Act:

• Gang members are expressly disqualified from holding a firearms licence.
• Owners can keep firearms in secure storage at any location the Regulator approves, not only at their home address.
• Dealer's licences are now called business licences. A person who holds one for two years without compliance problems will have their licence extended to five years.
• Firearms or parts made for personal use can be sold on only to licensed businesses.

The registry stays, as does the ban on military-style semi-automatic firearms and high-capacity magazines. The firm says the Regulator can't require registry information beyond what the Act and regulations explicitly allow.

Most offences carried over from the 1983 Act now have higher penalties. The 2026 Act also creates eight new offences. Some deal with firearms safety, such as unsafe storage. Others target the black market, such as unlawfully 3D printing firearms.

The 1983 Act made it a specific offence to possess a firearm after your licence had been revoked. The new Act drops that offence. Franks Ogilvie says people whose licences have been revoked will be able to use firearms under the direct supervision of a licensed owner.

The Act also requires fees to be reviewed every five years, after consulting the people affected.

What comes later

Not everything started on 23 September. From February 2028, the Regulator can suspend a licence for up to 12 months over mental health concerns, according to Franks Ogilvie. Until then, the limit is 90 days.

In August, Franks Ogilvie said regulations would set out which offences can be dealt with by infringement notice. Once those offences are set, the firm said, the Regulator can issue infringement notices and suspend a licence for 90 days for ongoing low-level non-compliance.

When Franks Ogilvie published its explainer on 4 August, many details had been left to regulations that hadn't yet been made. These included definitions of many arms items, safe storage requirements and what information goes on the registry. Those regulations have since been made, according to a Ministry of Justice notice headed "Regulations made to support new Arms Act".

What the Act leaves unclear

Franks Ogilvie flags three gaps that the new law carries over from the old one.

The Act doesn't define "possess".

It also keeps the 1983 rule that anyone occupying premises or a vehicle where arms items are found is treated as possessing them.

Then there is the fit-and-proper test, which decides who gets and keeps a licence. As under the 1983 Act, the Regulator can take into account any matter it considers relevant. An applicant can't know in advance everything that might count against them.