Competency: moving the goalposts!!

**SSP** · 12-07-2011, 15:38

Originally Posted by 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.

If you bothered to read my posts, you will note that I clearly said that the relative succes of motivations was not determined by their length.

I have not taken the position that you have to put in a "long winded" motivation, accordingly I do not need to demonstrate that such is necessary.

My position is, simply, that you have to motivate. You cannot just say: "Sport shooting"; "Self Defence" or "Hunting" in the space provided.

**F a n i e** · 12-07-2011, 15:39

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.

The first right any person has is to defend himself. I now need to convince the registrar that I have this right ? The only cryteria is I have to be a responsible person without a criminal record and of sound mind.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult here. If I have to prove somehow that I need a firearm for self defence it impairs my right to self defence.

If I apply for a firearm because we have freqient armed robberies here then there is nothing that says these robberies will occur again. They may never occur again, and even if they do, it does not mean I will be ever in a situation that requires using the fire arm.

The first right a person have is the issue. I cannot prove to the registrar such a situation will or will not occur untill such time as the situation actually occurs !

Even if someone has never had such a situation, never been in any kind of conflict, then there is no guarantee that person will not be forced into such a situation.

It does not matter what the conditions or circumstances are - one's first right is that to be able to defend yourself. The most suitable means of doing so is with a fire arm. If a spade or a pile of bricks were better then we would have done that, unfortunately it is a firearm.

I also want to say that if the 'reasons you have to give' begins to override the 'right to self defence', then it will be only a matter of time before the right to self defence gets replaced with a lot of other senseless conditions, proof of situations etc etc.

The 'right to self defence' should remain pure and remain exactly what it is - the right to defend yourself.

If they succeed to take away your right to self defence then you can just as well pack your bags because it will be open season on the unarmed defenseless (and may I add stupid). If the absolute basic of your being, the instinct to defend your self is taken away from you then there is nothing beyond that - you will stop to exist as a person.

**Skaaphaas** · 12-07-2011, 15:42

P35, I'm sorry to chirp in here on this whole argument. It would seem that you base your argument to not have to motivate in such detail on the two or three lines in the SAPS 271 form.

As Section 13 stands, the Registrar's discretion is clear. He is not obligated to grant you a licence if you show need, so you will have to convince him of it. Further to this you will have to convince him that if you do indeed have such a need, you cannot reasonably satisfy it by any other means than by owning the firearm in question. This in itself calls for a substantive motivation. And if you think 40 odd pages is long winded, you should see the volumes that court applications run, just to convince a judge of a point. Yes, I also do not agree that this is how it should be, but unfortunately, if you want your firearm, you will have to play with the cards as they are dealt.

Now, keep in mind that the SAPS 271 form is subject to the FCA. It is completely trumped by the FCA, and you cannot base your argument for not complying to the letter of the law due to space constraints on a form. If you can indeed convince the Registrar of all you have to in the space provided, by all means. If you cannot, attach a substantive motivation with its annexures, and convince the Registrar to exercise his discretion in your favour.

EDIT - Okay Fanie posted some more while I was typing. If you want to argue what is wrong with the FCA, there is a whole different thread for that. Actually, a whole legal paradigm to explore.

**SSP** · 12-07-2011, 15:49

Originally Posted by F a n i e

The first right any person has is to defend himself. I now need to convince the registrar that I have this right ? The only cryteria is I have to be a responsible person without a criminal record and of sound mind.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult here. If I have to prove somehow that I need a firearm for self defence it impairs my right to self defence.

If I apply for a firearm because we have freqient armed robberies here then there is nothing that says these robberies will occur again. They may never occur again, and even if they do, it does not mean I will be ever in a situation that requires using the fire arm.

The first right a person have is the issue. I cannot prove to the registrar such a situation will or will not occur untill such time as the situation actually occurs !

Even if someone has never had such a situation, never been in any kind of conflict, then there is no guarantee that person will not be forced into such a situation.

It does not matter what the conditions or circumstances are - one's first right is that to be able to defend yourself. The most suitable means of doing so is with a fire arm. If a spade or a pile of bricks were better then we would have done that, unfortunately it is a firearm.

I also want to say that if the 'reasons you have to give' begins to override the 'right to self defence', then it will be only a matter of time before the right to self defence gets replaced with a lot of other senseless conditions, proof of situations etc etc.

The 'right to self defence' should remain pure and remain exactly what it is - the right to defend yourself.

If they succeed to take away your right to self defence then you can just as well pack your bags because it will be open season on the unarmed defenseless (and may I add stupid). If the absolute basic of your being, the instinct to defend your self is taken away from you then there is nothing beyond that - you will stop to exist as a person.

Your view is overly simplistic I am afraid.

You do not have to convince the Registrar of your "right" to SD. For what it's worth we have a right to life, not expressly SD.

Similarly, we have the right to housing but this doesnt mean that we are entitled to a free house. We also have the right to freedom of expression, this does not mean that we can say what we like.

What you have to do is convince the registrar that you have need of a firearm in order to enforce your right to life against those who would threaten it.

You don't have to prove that something WILL happen to you.

Its also not that hard to do. Realistically if you are serious about your right to life and your ability to enforce that right, why not type out a few extra pages and add some crime stats?

**P35** · 12-07-2011, 15:52

So we ourselves are moving the goalposts..as you can see from the resulting discussion.

I'm saying stick to the Act -in the same way the regulations are meant to. Don't read things into the law that do not exist. Thats all, if you do you are only convincing yourself of something that is not required by the Act.

40 pages may not convince anyone either.

The Act merely states the requirement to apply as prescribed by the Act, and to complete the required administrative forms and pass the competencies as required by the Act.

The administrators may be convincing you otherwise. Not the Act.

Entitlement? 40 pages wont give you that right either I'm afraid.

The law is clear as to whom is unfit to posses a firearm - the rest is subjective.

**Skaaphaas** · 12-07-2011, 15:55

I don't understand. Stick to the Act, or stick to the Form? If there is a discrepancy in the form, (which there seems to be), which one will you stick to?

If it is the Act, I do not understand your argument regarding the motivation.

**SSP** · 12-07-2011, 15:56

Originally Posted by P35

So we ourselves are moving the goalposts..as you can see from the resulting discussion.

I'm saying stick to the Act -in the same way the regulations are meant to. Don't read things into the law that do not exist. Thats all, if you do you are only convincing yourself of something that is not required by the Act.

40 pages may not convince anyone either.

The Act merely states the requirement to apply as prescribed by the Act, and to complete the required administrative forms and pass the competencies as required by the Act.

The administrators may be convincing you otherwise. Not the Act.

If the legislature had intended for the Registrar to be obliged to issue a licence upon application, and if competent, the word "may" in S13 would have been replaced with the word "shall".

**P35** · 12-07-2011, 16:07

Originally Posted by Skaaphaas

I don't understand. Stick to the Act, or stick to the Form? If there is a discrepancy in the form, (which there seems to be), which one will you stick to?

If it is the Act, I do not understand your argument regarding the motivation.

No one said there was any discrepancy between form SAP 271 and the Act.

**Skaaphaas** · 12-07-2011, 16:34

Originally Posted by P35

No one said there was any discrepancy between form SAP 271 and the Act.

Indeed. I said that it seems there is, as you are (or rather, I am) not able to motivate (as per the Act) on the little space provided.

**P35** · 12-07-2011, 17:04

SAPS instructions - how to apply for a licence to possess a firearm
http://www.saps.gov.za/crime_prevent...lish/ei271.pdf

The form SAPS 271 - APPLICATION FOR LICENCE TO POSSESS A FIREARM
Section 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20 of the Act, 2000 (Act no 60 of 2000)

http://www.saps.gov.za/crime_prevent...glish/e271.pdf

If you apply for a RESTRICTED firearm for self defence (Restricted in terms of the Act) SECTION K will be completed by the DFO.

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

1) For purposes of this Act, a restricted firearm is any
a) semi-automatic rifle or shotgun, which cannot readily be converted into a fully automatic firearm;

Instructions for Application for a competency certificate

http://www.saps.gov.za/crime_prevent...lish/ei517.pdf

SAPS Form 517
http://www.saps.gov.za/crime_prevent...glish/e517.pdf