The Right to Life

[F a n i e]

“The Right to Life”
Section 11 of the Constitution (Right to Life) vs. Act 60 of 2000 (FCA)
Annexure A: Copy of The Bill of Rights
Annexure B: FCA 60 of 2000
Annexure C: Narrative from Mr Kgosimore (Department of Criminology, University of the North)
Annexure D: Copy of Replying Affidavit Case No: 13963/2011 in the North Gauteng High Court

Consultation and Investigation Conducted

a.Media (television, newspapers and internet)
b.Various focus group forums
c.Personal experience as licensed firearm owner
d.The author (retired) of the previous CFR Procedure of the SAPS
e.Friends and family experience/assistance

I, Mr Phillip de Kock, a South African Citizen by birth, with ID No: XXXXXXXXXX hereby wishes to present an alleged infringement of The Bill of Rights as afforded to me under the Constitution Sec 38 (a), which reads “Anyone listed in this section has the right to approach a competent court, alleging that a right in the Bill of Rights has been infringed or threatened, and the court may grant appropriate relief, including a declaration of rights.” for relief by the court.
It is with grave concern that I have taken note and also experienced first-hand the implications of Act 60 of 2000 (Firearms Control Act), which I believe is an infringement/threat to Section 11 “The Right to Life” of the Bill of Rights, with specific reference to the following:
The manner in which the new FCA was enforced by the Executive, in which the consultative processes were circumvented/neglected
The manner in which the new FCA failed scrutiny within the Judiciary by being suspended by Mr Justice Prinsloo in the case of SA Hunters and Conservation Association
The inability of the Legislative/Executive authority to explain/justify it’s application, interpretation or execution as found in the case of The Saga Trust.
The lack of consideration and planning prior to the new FCA being introduced
The contradiction of the new FCA to the Constitutional “Right to Life” as a non-derogable right under Section 11.
The lack of consideration in the ability of the administrative system to cope with the enforcement of the new FCA with the resultant infringement and unlawful contravention of Section 33 of the Constitution and Section 3 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (Act No. 3 of 2000)
The intended policy proposal entitled "Winning the War Against Crime," in which the Democratic Party intends pressing for the amendment of the Constitution in order to have the rights of the victims entrenched there-in is in further contradiction to the new FCA, which seeks to infringe on a victim’s right to life.
The proposal that the victim be empowered (as a crime-prevention strategy) which appears in the National Crime Prevention Strategy document (1996:65) may be taken as an acknowledgement on the part of the government that the victim needs to be recognised, which sadly is not entrenched in the Constitution.
The extent to which “The Right to Life” as contained in the Constitution has been protected, as tabled in the category of non-derogable rights, is in it’s entirety, and thus can NOT be subject to any sub sequential laws or conditions.
Considering the “Interpretation of the Bill of Rights” Sec 39(1a) “a court, tribunal or forum *must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom”, which have all been infringed by the new Act by:

Treating citizens without human dignity through threats of persecution, lack of administrative experience, extensive administrative and compliance requirements.
Inequality through discrimination between those in society who have the means to financially fight the injustice vs. those who are unable to do so.
Depriving society of the freedom to make a choice regards the manner in which to pursue a desire (sport/recreation) or defend their “Right to life” (self-defence).

Considering the “Interpretation of the Bill of Rights” Sec 39(1), “a court, tribunal or forum must consider international law”, it has also become evident that the numerous attempts at increasing the onerous requirements and process of obtaining a firearm legally have NOT been considered, as well as the fact that it has not deterred the unlawful use of firearms against victims now left without the ability to protect their “Right to Life” but rather increased the incidents (300% increase in Australia).

Considering the “Enforcement of Rights” Sec 38“, anyone listed in this section has the right to approach a competent court, alleging that a right in the Bill of Rights has been infringed or threatened, and the court may grant appropriate relief, including a declaration of rights.” It has become clear from the numerous legal cases currently in progress and individuals, forums, stake holders who have successfully won cases that this right is not being considered by the Legislature, Executive or Judiciary when anyone is persecuted unlawfully under the new FCA.

Considering the enforcement of Act 60 of 2000 by the authorities appear to have adopted a set of terms and conditions not even prescribed by the infamous Act, which has resulted in the “Registrar” having implemented a consideration of applications resting on the opinion of the relevant official as the new FCA remains quiet on the following crucial aspects:

What should happen if the original reason for acquiring a firearm changes? This leaves future enforcement of this new FCA open to further confusion and interpretation reliant on opinion.
“Self-Defence” is an internationally recognized term with no ambiguity, which in the modern world and especially the RSA has a very high likelihood of being able to defend oneself against an attack of an armed nature or overwhelming force. Why are applicants now required to explain the level of crime prevalent in the country to an officer of the Law?
There are no guidelines provided in the Act regarding the “extent” or “need” that should exist in the country or to the individual that it would consider as justifiable. The consequence has been that this adjudication has now been left to the opinion of the relevant official, which has varied as vastly as there are officials.
The terminologies of “occasional” and “time to time” contained in the new FCA is again without guidelines and again open to interpretation as to the extent of the motivation that would appease the relevant official.
The “competency’ pre-requisite is understood but the manner in which the Act prescribes as sufficient is sadly incompetent and serves no purpose other than to add to the administrative burden of the process. It does not allow recognition to extensive training obtained by individuals, for example in the armed forces, which could be used to ascertain an individual’s competency. Due to the varied nature and circumstances of attacks it would be impossible to truly ensure competence, which remains the responsibility of the individual.
The difference in validity periods for same firearms obtained for different reasons makes no sense and again adds to the confusion and administrative burden. How does a competent person become incompetent with a firearm because it was obtained for self-defence, but would still be competent if the same firearm was obtained for occasional sport?
Should the license/competency expire due to unforeseen reasons and the individual is required to defend him/herself, would it be considered as an unlicensed firearm? Placing any form of validity restriction on a license for a firearm, after it has been supplied makes no sense as the individual is entrusted with the responsibility to consider another’s “Right to Life” but not with the responsibility to decide when the firearm is no longer required?
The Right to Life cannot be determined by a fire arm licence status, but will be supported by allowing every person the freedom in reasonably being able to protect this right.

The ambiguous nature of Act 60 of 2000 and above inadequacies has also resulted in the “Registrar” being in contravention of Section 3 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (Act No. 3 of 2000), which reads “It is within the scope and duty of the Designated Firearms Officer/Registrar to request any additional information they deem necessary in order to reach a fair and objective decision, before summarily dismissing any application on the grounds of insufficient motivation”. Ultimately this has resulted in Firearms Control Officers now making judgement on the support or rejection of every applicant’s constitutional “Right to Life”.

Considering Section 33 of the Constitution “the right to lawful, reasonable and procedurably fair administrative action” it is clear that this right has also been grossly infringed through the inability of the SAPS to conduct applications within the times provided in Schedule 1 of the new FCA.

The SAPS issued an internal administrative directive stating that the licenses under the old Act remains valid, which does not have the force of Law and which can be withdrawn at any time without notice to the public. This would see further persecution of licensed firearm owners as stated by the Head of the Central Firearms Register and Mr Bergenthuin in a television interview, in direct infringement of several constitutional rights.

The numerous contradictions in the interpretation of the new Act within the SAPS as expressed in internal directives, public interviews, responses in litigitation cases and varied opinions of rejections can leave no doubt as to the unenforceable nature of this new FCA.

Further support of the confusion and unlawful conduct by the “Registrar” is found in the reasons supplied in the rejection of applications, where mind to matter was not applied or lacking due to incompetence, to consider a few:

“Insufficient motivation supplied” – no one is obliged to prove “Right to Life” nor does the new FCA stipulate such a requirement.
“Convince the Registrar of a Need” – freedom of choice and “Right to Life” does not need proof nor does the new FCA clarify this requirement.
“Reason for a Specific firearm selected” – freedom of choice, personal preference and the new FCA do not necessitate this requirement.
“Did not indicate Where you intend to hunt” – evolving societies and changes in circumstances make it impossible to satisfy this question nor is it required by the new FCA.

The very nature of the reasons supplied above and the fact that an Independant Appeal Board has overturned 61% of the rejected applications questions the competence of the “Registrar” to objectively adjudicate applications.

The fact that the Legislative have remained silent on this matter further supports the suspicion that the new Act has been put into law without cosideration of due dilligence or following the required policy making procedures, which would have provided all stake holders with the opportunity to comment.

Finally, the extensive costs incurred with public funds to attempt implementation (FCR, Staff, Documentation and Resources) and defend litigation in defeating the ends of justice can be considered as fruitless expenditure, which would require further investigation as it would have been unlikely that these costs were budgeted for at the time of release of the new Act. This does not include the costs incurred by individuals and /or stakeholders:

Who had to forcably dispose of their property,
Incur additional costs in acquiring competency and new licenses or
Legally defend their “Right to Life”

Conclusion

“The Right to Life” is a fundamental constitutional right that is protected in it’s entirety from which there can be no deviation by the legislative, executive or judiciary and any attempts to do so would be unlawful.

In modern society the use of a firearm, or overwhelming force to deprive someone of this right by criminal elements is well entrenched and an international phenomenon. It is thus irresponsible and unconstitutional to deprive any person from their freedom of choice in defending this right with the most suitable means available, which happens to be a firearm.
Should this constitutional right not be protected and individuals unlawfully deprived of exercising it through unreasonable rejection or administrative incompetence, the following consequences will become prevalent:

Accountability by the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary organs of the state for consequential harm to every person who has been denied this right domestically and internationally for human rights violations.
Individuals will seek other means to protect their “Right to Life” as a constitutional and basic human instinct, regardless of the consequences as failure to do so could result in their extinction.
Individuals exercising “The Right to Life” under international law with perceived “unlawful” means thus defeating the purpose of the new FCA completely and resulting embarrassment to the RSA legislature in the international arena.
Failure of the people by the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary in enforcing this fundamental constitutional right will have far reaching implications on ALL other rights and a breach of trust for all Laws to follow.
Continued future endless litigation that would again require justification by the Legislative authority, which it can ill afford.

As a concerned law abiding citizen it is my contention that Act 60 of 2000 should be struck from the Law completely as UNCONSTITUTIONAL and an infringement/threat to several Constitutional rights as discussed in this document, as no amendment or alteration would support “the Right to Life”, which is the essence the threat being imposed by this new FCA.

I respectfully request that this matter be addressed as a matter of urgency and with the respect it deserves as the cornerstone of our society.

This document has been submitted to the Human Rights commission, the DA, and the Public Protector as well as the Sunday Times.

---------- Post added at 13:57 ---------- Previous post was at 13:56 ----------

Dear Sir/Madam,

As a concerned citizen I have been forced to obtain greater perspective in the Constitution (Chapter 2 – Bill of Rights), which all started with attempting to comply with the New FCA Act 60 of 2000.

After 6 months of endless research in applications, requirements, Appeals and international standards it has become evident that the Bill of Rights is being infringed/threatened by countless Acts from the Government.

To add to this unabated attack the SAPS have also taken it upon themselves to interpret the New Act as they see fit and have thus added to the infringement of the Bill of Rights with zest.

And lastly the Judiciary has become impotent in ensuring that the Constitution is upheld in the interest of every citizen, by simply postponing, delaying or refraining from decision in another system overburdened by administrative incompetence.

To this end I have already submitted a detailed complaint to the Human Rights Commission in which the infringement/threat to the Constitution by Act 60 of 2000 has been alleged as follows:

· Section 10 Right to “Human Dignity” – by illegal access, persecution, detainment and seizure of licensed firearm owners when they dare to act in self-defence.

· Section 11 “Right to Life” – by disarming the citizens and then making it impossible to own protection against a criminal onslaught that is the highest per/capita in the world.

· Section 12 Right to “Freedom and Security of the Person” – Public announcements by the SAPS of their data base that can pinpoint the whereabouts of all licensed firearms.

· Section 14 “Right to privacy” – by allowing illegal access, without a warrant, to every citizen’s home under the auspices of inspecting the safekeeping of firearms.

· Section 25 “Right to Property” – by illegally removing property from citizens without sufficient reason or compensation.

· Section 33 “Right to Just Administrative Action” – Citizens have been forced to suffer financial and personal loss in a system that has all but crashed, with an independent Appeal Board that has been required to rectify the incompetent decisions of the SAPS (61% of the “Registrar’s” rejections overturned).

· Section 35 Rights pertaining to “Arrest, Detain or Accused” – by the arrest and detainment of any defender being accused of murder in their own home, presumed GUILTLY before proven.

· Section 39 “Interpretation of Bill of Rights” – by clearly defying the Constitution in creating laws that are in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights.

A complaint has also been addressed to the Public Protector regards the misappropriation of funds by the SAPS in attempting to implement a flawed Law, which could not have been budgeted for as it was clearly not foreseen at the time this Law was passed and the chaos ensued. There are also thousands of law suits that have and will still emanate from this Act that will again require financing from Government.

It has subsequently also become evident that many other Laws are in the pipeline for approval that will be in the same spirit as Act 60 of 2000, which will need to be challenged. If the Government is prepared to challenge and infringe on our “Right to Life” without contest, then the rest will topple like dominoes.

Sadly the SAPS and Judiciary have become the puppets of Government who appear to be spending more funds and resources in attempting to control the people than serving their Rights, which is why they exist in the first place.

Considering the many investigations and cases against corrupt government officials (Including The President), SAPS, Metro Police and others it is frightening to consider that these are the very people appointed to protect our rights and serve our needs.

Please note that this is not a communication on behalf of any forum or organisation and that once the HRC have made their findings it will be publicised for every citizen to see.

Kind Regards

Phillip de Kock

A follow up

---------- Post added at 13:58 ---------- Previous post was at 13:57 ----------

My letter to the SAPS

SAPS
Attention:

Dear Sir/Madam
RE: RIGHTS OF SA CITIZENS
The high level and intensity of crime that citizens are being subjected to in South Africa refers. We are all aware of the unabated deaths of not only citizens but of police men and women on a daily occurrence. The police, who are also citizens, have been appointed with the provisions of the Law to Protect and Serve.
I grew up with a respect for any uniformed member of the armed services, who were respected for the very nature of their duty, which brings them into direct contact with the worst that crime has to offer.
Unfortunately the level of crime has escalated to a level where a handful of police can not be expected to contain or challange crime alone. If this was not the case then crime would be almost none existent – and South Africa would not be considered as one of the most dangerous countries with one of the highest crime rates in the world.
It is to this end that I wish to submit a reasoning that a by-law attempt to make citizens even more vulnerable and defenceless against criminals as well as make the police more susceptible to become victims as a small entity that has to face crime on it's own.
This by-law has also created a distance between citizens and the police by allowing the infringement of the public's rights as afforded by the Constitution, which has created another reason to distrust the intentions of police actions and their administration.
The specific Law I am referring to is the FCA Act 60 of 2000, which infringe / threaten the following Rights under the Constitution -
The “Right to Life” Chapter 2 Section 11
The inability of every law abiding citizen who chooses to, to obtain a firearm for self-defence within a reasonable period of time. A person obtains a firearm to defend himself, NOW – not months and years later since it may not matter any more by then.
Enforcing an expiry date on a license would imply that the individual’s 'Right to Life' also expires, which is ridiculous. Keep in mind that a firearm is internationally recognized as a suitable means of self-defence without which the 'Right to Life' cannot be protected. The expectancy is 'life long' and can not be limited by a license expiry date.
Expecting any individual to defend themself against criminals who are armed even with automatic assault rifles in some cases without a fire arm is ludicrous.
If the individual’s Right to Life, as the most basic right, is denied then they will ultimately not be bound by any other laws or rules.
Individuals will seek other means to defend themselves - even if it means illegal firearms – since failing to defend themselves could lead to their extinction.
If the individual's “Right to Life” is not recognised, how can it be expected of the individual not to resort to other illegal means of self defence, hence is forced to become a criminal in order to protect themself.
Right to “Property” Section 25
Depriving thousands of licensed firearm owners of their property and expecting them to accept this infringement.
If the right to property exists then the right to defend that property surely also exists, or this right would be meaningless.
The 'Right to Property' was never intended to be controlled or prescribed by the police. It is every individual's Right to decide which firearm and for what purpose he wants to obtain it, as it is with any other property the individual chooses to obtain.
Many more people are killed in vehicle accidents than with firearms, so how can a person have a drivers license but not aquire a firearm license. A firearm is a property like any other, and like many other properties requires a sense of responsibility.
The idea is to get rid of criminals and illegal firearms, so why beat the law abiding individual up who applies legally within his rights for a firearm license to obtain a firearm.
Right to “Privacy” Section 14
Announcing the ability to 'track and control' licensed firearms on TV by the police has breached the security and privacy of trusting citizens. There is however clearly no control over illegal firearms.
Apart from criminals not honouring the individual's privacy, it is made even worse if the police are now also allowed the right to demand the individual's firearm for what ever reason, seemingly on demand.
A police officer confiscating or taking a firearm without proper legal justification is in possession of an illegal firearm and it is also theft. A firearm is per se' a personal private possession and is not for exploitation at any police officer's will or private reasons.
Right to Just Administrative Action” Section 33
The delay in processing applications for months and years is unlawful and unconstitutional.
Considering that seemingly ~60% of rejected applications are overturned by the Appeal Board - this indicates wilful obstruction and/or incompetence by the police.
Rejecting applications on the grounds of “not supplying sufficient motivation of the need” is absurd and indicates a lack of understanding the criminal threat prevalent in SA. Perhaps explaining 'trying to stay alive when attacked' would clear the irrational 'motivation of need' up.
Rejecting applications on the grounds of “not supplying a reason for the specific firearm” makes no sense since the firearm has been legally imported for sale, as well as the individual's right to buy whichever firearm he wants for which ever reason he chooses. Self defence, sport shooting, hunting or collecting should be more than adequate.
Rejecting the application on the grounds of “not providing sufficient motivation of use” is absurd for the same reason as above.
The competency required is absurd since it will not prepare the average person for the possible situations they may encounter and has sadly become a money making racquet, especially since you will suddenly become incompetent overnight after exactly 5 years. It is the individual's own responsibility to achieve a level of competency and it is the individual's right to choose for how long he wants to own a firearm.
Varied validity dates of licenses for same firearms used for different purposes will render the individual unlicensed to use the firearm for self-defence (5 years) but licensed for occasional sport (10 years) ? Someone clearly did not put mind to matter here. A firearm license should be issued for life as stated before.
“Right to “Freedom and Security of the Person” Section 12
The wilful attack by criminals on any person infringes on this right since the defender has no choice but to react to the threat.
It further breaches security since criminals in police clothes impersonating police officers now have easy access to any individual's firearm(s). This may lead to either a threat to 'Right to Life' or 'Obstruction of the Law' in the case of a legit officer who is refused.
Inspection of an individual's safe makes the location of a safe and what type of safe and firearms kept in it common knowledge. If money is also kept in the safe it may further increase the risk. It is the responsibility of the individual to ensure they have a place of safekeeping for the firearm.
Rights pertaining to “Arrest, Detained or Accused” Section 35
“Innocent until Proven Guilty” should apply to all cases where self-defence has been necessary and not prosecution, detention and removal of property assumed as the standard procedure.
To confiscate the firearm, detain, and prosecute a defending individual, after being attacked without any choice, defeats the rights of the individual, as well as the purpose of defending him and his in the first place.
Right to “Human Dignity” Section 10
Arresting and detaining a person who defended themselves allows no dignity and is a humiliating experience. Keep in mind the defender has no choice but is forced into this situation.
It further questions the integrity of the police since the defender's property and family is now left in a situation where they have to face a challenging situation, consider the barriers broken, the property is now undefended and the wife and children also may have no way to defend themselves.
It is also humiliating if someone cannot attend work and has to explain to customers / employer why he/she is detained by the police, seems in some cases for unreasonable prolonged periods extending to even years.
“Interpretation of Bill of Rights” Section 39
No court, forum, individual may infringe / threaten these rights.
The Constitution clearly and cleverly allow no rights to a victim, which by implication means that the public is not supposed to become a victim under the Rights given to them – the right to defend your life, the right to defend your property etc.
If a sensible amendment wants to be considered it should be that a criminal waves his rights as he is wilfully and deliberately going to deprive another of their rights – be it theft to deliberately taking another's life, thus becoming a victim by his own actions. Consider that we have various restrictions in place to prevent access to property (walls, alarms, fences, dogs...) and it is unreasonable to expect the individual to expect a criminal NOT to have the worst of intentions as the criminal proceeds through the various barriers to gain access to property. Also consider that the criminals are usually not alone, gangs of up to fourteen or more, some of who are usually armed with firearms is not uncommon. Some of those that believe that criminals have no criminal intentions are dead already.
Personal property is often not considered serious, but take into consideration that if a person had to work for, in some instances, years to obtain that property, when it is stolen or destroyed, it is that many years that is destroyed of the person's life obtaining the property. I fail to see how a criminal with malicious intentions to life and property can claim any rights.
Conclusion
From the above it should be clear that the by-law is raping the public's rights, and is deviding the police and the public as opposition.
The public faces three Enemies
The criminals that are attacking the public's property and life and in the process become “victims with rights” after transgressing the laws and Rights of others.
The Police who are attempting to disarm and arrest the public that dare defend their life and property with a firearm. Instead of the police protecting the public's rights and supporting the public, they are infringing and threatening the public's rights.
The Justice System that fails to recognise the overwhelming threat that is being elevated against individuals who are acting within their rights and capabilities. The Justice system is supposed to protect the public's individual, their rights, and consider them as innocent until proven guilty and is not a tool to deliberately prosecute the individual.
The public is the country. Every citizen is charged with the responsibility to protect themselves and their property to ensure that an open and democratic society is maintained – If not, the public does not need any rights or laws at all. It is however expected of the public to function without any decisive or reasonable action or resources, as should be available from the Police and the Justice system.
It is thus no wonder that the public and police are not functioning as an integral unit in the fight against crime. It is also evident that the public will not trust an entity that does not act in it’s interest, with the apparent sole purpose of prosecuting them even if they act within their rights.
When the police start recognizing the rights of the public, whom they are a part of, and realise that the police's role is to support the public and protecting the public's rights THEN the fight against crime will become a coordinated effort and a true defence against criminal activities. The idea should be to ally the police and the public against crime, supported by the Law.
The Police are after all from the SOCIETY, paid by the SOCIETY to serve the SOCIETY and was never intended to become a threat to society.
Please get rid of the FCA Act 60 of 2000. It infringe on and threaten the public's rights under the Constitution as indicated above. The threat is not firearms, the threat is criminals.
Thank you for considering.
Regards
Fanie

[P35]

The cornerstone of any society and civilisation is the family unit, the day your right as head of your home; to protect that unit (your family); is removed. run Forrest, RUNN

How you choose to defend the right to life of your family - should never be prescribed or restricted by law. The right to bear arms in defence of yourself and your family should neither.

Its a right even the UN acknowledges.

Fundamental rights cannot be violated by state and local governments. Not even by attempts to do so by introducing ambiguous or contradicting law.

[Optimistix]

Its a right even the UN acknowledges.

Well, looking at the long-term aims of the arms resolutions I seiously doubt this statement,

Fanie, it would be interesting to see how the relevant parties you submitted this to respond if you can add the voices of more firearm owners in support of your quest.

[P35]

Well, looking at the long-term aims of the arms resolutions I seiously doubt this statement,

nternational Law Series: The Right to Self Defense

NGO Monitor January 13, 2010 International Law, Human Rights, and NGOs Series

• The right to self-defense, including the right to combat terror, is a cornerstone of international law, enshrined in the UN Charter (Article 51) and numerous Security Council Resolutions.

Hopefully that clears it up for you.

There are some things one has to take back from what crime has stolen from our society and our country.

One of those, is the basic responsibility and right to protect the right to life of your family -as any reasonable man would see fit in self defence; and with the tools he deems appropriate for him and his family to survive.

[P35]

Excerpts from A/HRC/Sub.1/58/27

Report Submitted by Barbara Frey, Special Rapporteur: Prevention of Human Rights Violations Committed with Small Arms and Light Weapons

Publisher UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights
Publication Date 27 July 2006

Under human rights law, States must maximize protection of the right to life.

This commitment entails both negative and positive obligations; States officials must refrain from violations committed with small arms and States must take steps to minimize armed violence between private actors.

The principle of self-defence does not negate the due diligence responsibility of States to keep weapons out of the hands of those most likely to misuse them.

The State has particularly acute obligations to protect vulnerable groups, including victims of domestic violence, from abuses with small arms.

Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations applies to States acting in self-defence against armed attacks against their State sovereignty.

It does not apply to situations of self-defence for individual persons.

For further reading - research the UN documentation regarding the non proliferation of small arms.

---------- Post added at 21:10 ---------- Previous post was at 20:16 ----------

Distinguish between alienable and unalienable rights. No government has the right to alienate its citizens from their basic rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

The right to what is in essence inalienable is imprescriptible, since the act whereby I take possession of my personality, of my substantive essence, and make myself a responsible being, capable of possessing rights and with a moral and religious life, takes away from these characteristics of mine just that externality which alone made them capable of passing into the possession of someone else. When I have thus annulled their externality, I cannot lose them through lapse of time or from any other reason drawn from my prior consent or willingness to alienate them.

[Brett Nortje]

Barbara Frey is one serious hater. Google that name.

One interesting tidbit: Lord Kitchener acknowledged the right to possess arms for self-defence as far back as the MooiRivier discussions and the right (OK, to possess rifles) was recognised in the Peace Treaty of Vereeniging.

In the laws that were passed to give effect to that right subsequently, the licence fees for handguns are half the fees for rifles.

[Marekjan]

What the UN says in their documents and what is the final outcome of their ("reasonable" ha, ha ) measures to control the small arms are two completely different things. In my opinion it is clear they want to remove ALL arms from the civilians and all this affirmation of the right to the self-defence is just a cover.
MJ

[Optimistix]

I do believe that the right to life and associated discussions should form the basis of any further discussions with Government ... We should use this when we draft our alternative proposal to teh FCA. Looking forward to see your inputs on therelevant thread ...

[P35]

What I've posted was merely food for thought - We as the only people affected by laws that may deny us inalienable rights, or the freedom to exercise them, would be worse off not to consider the philosophy behind basic rights, what those basic rights are, and what the right to life means to us and our families.

Also consider what it means if we alienate your basic rights, or distance ourselves from natural law and international law when new legislation is drawn up to control society.

Responsible gun owners are not those most likely to misuse them in society.

The State has obligations to protect vulnerable groups, including victims of domestic violence, from abuses with small arms, edged weapons etc.

You as the head of your home have the obligation to protect your family from, torture, any form of terrorism and harms way. The State does not carry that primary responsibility at all.

---------- Post added at 11:13 ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 ----------

I read this interresting comment from the University of Pennsylvania Law School USA.

Consider the USA is a capitalist democracy; and in many ways similar to ours.

Transferring the right of self defence to another would mean abandoning the right with respect to that person.

The right to self defence plays an indirect role in ensuring the civil liberties of citizens of any state. Because the right follows from the fundamental law of nature, and society would have a moral obligation to respect it even in the absence of political obligation to citizens to respect the right as such.

Now here is the conundrum.

It is not implausible to suppose that a state (sovereign) who fails to respect the citizens' right to self defence, would be a state to whom citizens no longer owned their allegiance.

[F a n i e]

I think there is a misperseption regarding the term 'protect'.

Nobody can 'protect' you ok, not the police or anybody else (defend perhaps). The police's slogan is 'Protect and Serve', meaning they have to protect your Rights and Serve the individual(s) hence the community when the individual(s) get into a difficult situation.

If you are not willing to protect yourself you are already a victim. If you do not use the rights then you are a victim. It is demanded by society that you exersize those rights otherwise the community just becomes a lot of helpless victims that has to be nursed by the police. Can never work. Imagine if the police also become helpless... then what.


Like the woman whose big toe got stuck in the bath tub, hubby calls police for help.
They won't come ! (As usual) No vehicles, all on duty elsewhere... Sorry sir...
*click*
The guy phones again and say please, my wife is NAKED and we can't get her toe out ! We need help !
Two minutes later half the metro trafic and police force arives with sirens and lights... the works ! Looked like a massive national operation.