Firearm Amnesty, GunSite™ South Africa’s interpretation

| 24 February 2010 | 3 Comments

“Ms Jenni Irish-Qhobosheane, Secretary of Police has requested that firearms organisations communicate a message of support for the amnesty as a measure to ensure responsible firearm ownership to firearms owners and the public.”

The Minister of Police has by means of a publication in the Government Gazette, declared an Amnesty for a period of 90 (ninety) days commencing from 11 January 2010 and ending on 11 April 2010.

The purpose of the amnesty is to allow those in unlawful possessions of firearms or ammunition to hand these in.

GunSite™ South Africa fully supports responsible firearm ownership in South Africa. We therefore call on all criminals to hand in their firearms before 11 April 2010. (We just hope that their reading skills are not particularly good and that they miss the part where they have to disclose their full details, so that after forensic testing, should it be found that the firearm was used in a crime, they can be traced)

GunSite™ South Africa further supports a crime free South Africa. We believe that the government and SAPS could rather focus their energy and efforts on fighting crime and reducing the criminal element.

The Facts:

  • All existing licenses are perfectly legal.
  • You may use the current amnesty to license or re-license your guns.
  • Firearm owners who missed the relicensing period will also be allowed to apply for relicensing during this amnesty. The old “green” licenses remain valid pending the outcome of the SA Hunters court case.  You are further allowed to keep your firearm while the renewal is being processed.
  • It’s questionable whether any firearms used in crime will be handed in.
  • It’s our opinion, subsequent to the JASA case, that compensation is payable on request for all licensed guns surrendered to SAPS.




Further Reading:

Visit our Forums

This is a public service announcement brought to you by GunSite™ South Africa.

GunSite™ South Africa is South Africa’s Firearm, Tactical and Hunting Discussion Forums.

Click here to visit our forums, if you like what you have seen, please sign up and join in our discussions, membership is FREE.

Image per kind permission of VolkStudio Home



Tags: , ,

Category: News

Comments (3)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Paul says:

    “It’s our opinion, subsequent to the JASA case, that compensation is payable on request for all licensed guns surrendered to SAPS.”

    It’s more than an opinion!

    It’s the uncontested and uncontestable judgement of the Cape High Court!

    In this case the State conceded all JASA/GOSA’s points. In other words they admitted that they had been wrong all along, but requested that Acting Judge President Traverso please not rule them to have acted unlawfully and unconstitutionally. Justice Traverso was NOT feeling charitable and gave the State both barrels!

    She ruled that the State had acted both unlawfully AND unconstitutionally.

    This judgement can NEVER be appealed. It is part of the edifice of South African law forever. The Police Minister and the National Commissioner, by denying this, are perpetrating a fraud on the Sourth African public.

  2. Bennet Massyn says:

    I am already a responsible firearm owner. The fact that they, the government and gun free liberals are infringing on my right to protect my constitutional right to life is already enough to bear.
    There is no need for us to support a gun amnesty as it is not applicable on law abiding citizens, Gun amnesties are between criminals and the Government.
    They should leave us, the law abiding gun owners alone and concentrate on criminals instead. GFSA has nothing better to do in life than infringing on law abiding citizens’ constitutional rights. GFSA should be banned, not law abiding gun ownership. This is not Stalin country, and we must keep on fighting to keep it Stalin free!
    The problem with GFSA and gun free liberals is the following and I quote from the Martialist Phil Elmore:
    What is Pacifism?
    Pacifism is the doctrine of non-violence. It is the philosophy that the use of force is always wrong. It is the credo that one may not hurt or kill another human being even when that person uses physical violence against you or those you love. Pacifists may engage in “nonviolent” resistance — that is to say, they may actively resist even though they will not use what we would normally consider force — but they will not fight. A pacifist would attempt to place himself between his wife and his wife’s would-be rapist, giving his life to “protect” her, but he would not actually hurt or kill the rapist. The logical outcome of this scenario is a dead husband and a violated wife (as well as an unbroken chain of violated women in the future). A group of pacifists might gather together to stand before an advancing army and throw their bodies under the treads and wheels of the invaders’ war machines, but they would not actually try to kill any of the invaders. The logical outcome of this scenario is a pile of dead pacifists and a sacked city (as well as an unbroken chain of sacked cities in the future).
    False Moral Equivalency
    The fundamental flaw of pacifism is that of false moral equivalency. There is a difference between initiated and retaliatory force. If you do not make this distinction — if you do not see the difference between attacking someone and defending against that attack — you are, in effect, declaring both attacker and defender to be morally equal. You are saying that there is no difference between the rapist and the raped, the mugger and the mugged, the murderer and the murdered. You are saying that there is no moral difference between the September 11th hijackers and those they slashed to death, no difference between Osama bin Laden and those condemned to be torn and blown to pieces in fiery collisions.It is very easy to play the part of nihilist, of relativist, wandering in the forest of affected profundity, wondering aloud if a distinction between initiated and retaliatory force can really be made. Anyone actually applying philosophy to life in a practical manner will immediately perceive the difference. Our first social interactions with other children are marked by the distinction, something as simple as understanding who “started it” when two individuals come into conflict. If we have a verbal disagreement and I strike you, I have initiated force. If we have a verbal disagreement and you tell me you are going to strike me as you take a step toward me and cock your arm, I am using retaliatory force when I strike you before you can complete your attack. All conflicts in life are permutations of these simple examples. While the complexity of these interactions on a national level can make moral judgment much more difficult, it does not make necessary judgment impossible.

  3. Peter says:

    I like the use of pacifism to label those who would do others harm to appease their own moral conscious.

    However always remember that when pointing a finger at least three point back.

    Those that accept in silence and do not object are indeed pacifists because this is the same doctrine they follow. Silence is agreement and there is no other interpretation.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.