Competency: moving the goalposts!!

[F a n i e]

If you can succinctly motivate your need for a firearm

You do not need to motivate your need. If a person has the right to self defence then it is what it is - self defence. The term 'self defence' is self explaining.

[Pirate]

There's two different issues here that we should not mix up:

1.) The issue about Competency or then rather: allowable reasons for being declared "not competent"
2.) The issue about the motivation of a particular firearm

IMHO the thread is about Competency, and P35 has unearthed some valuable information regarding allowable reasons as to why a person may be declared "not competent". I think those few lines should be kept in the "gatsak" by all of us that have competency applications in the system .

Regarding the motivation issue (and then, perhaps the subject for a different thread) I think we're all preaching to the converted here: IF the "Competency" process were defined and handled correctly, it should be seen as a "licensing of the individual" (a-la driver's license) and therefore should remove the need to motivate why a specific firearm is needed. I have one of those "30 page" motivations for my two rifles, but I truly believe that it is unnecessary to (for instance) have to compare ballistic performance of my rifle with different loads. Seen in the limit "I want it because I want it and I can afford it" should in all honesty be an acceptable motivation! Those 2 or 3 lines on the SAPS271 should really be sufficient.... The reality is, we're NOT there so, because we DO want our firearms, we DO jump though the hoops. I'm a fellow jumper, but that does not mean that I cannot see that I should be able to get the prize by walking directly to the podium using the shortest route (so to speak). The reality is also that we won't get the motivation issues changed today... no matter how hard we shout to bang out fists or threaten to disregard the law or whatever. That is where continued pressure applied by the firearms organisations come in: to get the law changed over time, so that the ridiculous and contradictory parts can be replaced with workable solutions. Easier said than done: for sure! Impossible: I believe not.

:- P

[SSP]

You do not need to motivate your need. If a person has the right to self defence then it is what it is - self defence. The term 'self defence' is self explaining.

Cool. You write that in the space provided and see what happens.

[P35]

Let me pose the question again. I'm not making this clear -obviously. SSP I did not say that - you did.

Where does the Firearms Control Act, 2000 explicitly say you need to demonstrate the need?

http://www.acts.co.za/firearms/index.htm

Use the search function and try to explain your statement about having to demonstrate the need. And where the Act prescribes this.

[F a n i e]

It, as you say, says demonstrate. This entails more than stating your need.

SSP, this is like saying you may or may not need to defend yourself. No person anywhere knows if or if not a situation may require self defence. The 'likelyhood' of it becoming nessesary or not is not the issue. The reason for having a firearm is IF such a situation occurs that you can defend yourself.

---------- Post added at 15:06 ---------- Previous post was at 15:03 ----------

I want to add -

If there is a pressing situation that requires a fire arm for self defence - when the situation passed, does it mean you have to do away with the firearm ?

NO !

The reason for having a firearm is for IF a situation occurs you can defend yourself.

[P35]

Let's go back to the law.

Firearms Control Act, 2000
Chapter 6 : Licence to possess firearm
13. Licence to possess firearm for self-defence

2) The Registrar may issue a licence under this section to any natural person who—

a) needs a firearm for self-defence; and

b) cannot reasonably satisfy that need by means other than the possession of a firearm.

[SSP]

Firstly, I don't have to explain my statement. Its a reality.

Secondly, refer Section 13 of the FCA.(My Emphasis added)


13 Licence to possess firearm for self-defence
(1) A firearm in respect of which a licence may be issued in terms of this section is any-
(a) shotgun which is not fully or semi-automatic; or
(b) handgun which is not fully automatic.

(2) The Registrar may issue a licence under this section to any natural person who-
(a) needs a firearm for self-defence; and
(b) cannot reasonably satisfy that need by means other than the possession of a firearm.

(3) No person may hold more than one licence issued in terms of this section.

(4) A firearm in respect of which a licence has been issued in terms of this section may be used where it is safe to use the firearm and for a lawful purpose.

For the benefit of those who have not had education in the interpretation of statutes, the use of the word "may" in this section affords the Registrar a discretion on whether to issue a licence or not. As he has a discretion and you are the applicant, YOU need to convince him that you need a firearm for SD and that that need cannot be satisfied by anything but a firearm. You will, no doubt note, that 2 hurdles have to be overcome here.

[P35]

Sorry you cannot qualify what you said about the Act.

Apply the law - only the law - don't disregard it , but don't add in extras which are not required by the Act.

What would the purpose of adding non essential extras be?

To further delay the administrative process?

[SSP]

Sorry you cannot qualify what you said about the Act.

Apply the law - only the law - don't disregard it , but don't add in extras which are not required by the Act.

What would the purpose of adding non essential extras be?

To further delay the administrative process?

I am not qualifying anything.

I am also not "adding" anything.

[P35]

You need to fill in 2 lines on SAPS 271. Just like you did with the previous Act. You have not been able to demonstrate that long winded motivations are required by the Act itself.