In case you have forgotten the true purpose of the FCA

[Jack]

This was written in 2001

Creation of the FCB - Governments deception

Before we can really discuss the Firearms Control Act we need to clearly
understand the ideology at work. Too many gun owners fail to grasp the
true meaning of the FCA and believe it to be a misguided attempt at
controlling crime or reasonable legislation to ensure the safety of the
public. We must understand the threat to firearms ownership before we
can try to counter it. Forget for a moment the content of the Act and
let's look at it's context.

The FCA has nothing to do with controlling crime. This was repeatedly
stated in parliament by various ANC speakers.

It is simply the first step in the ANC's stated goal of a civilian
gun-free society. The ANC's position on this was spelled out to the
Goldstone Commission in 1993 by Azar Cachalia, Cachalia later became the
head of the Secretariat of Safety & Security responsible for direction
and control of the SAPS. He was one of the leading forces behind the new
Act.

This policy clearly stated the ultimate goal of a total ban on private
possession of firearms, including sportsmen and collectors. It also
stated that the general population would not accept this at the moment.
Therefore it would be necessary to achieve this gradually with
incremental legislation and in concert with other programmes to convince
the general public that firearms are undesirable.

This policy has been confirmed at every ANC convention since then. This
was also confirmed in public by both the past Minister, S. Mufamadi, and
the current Minister, S. Tshwete.

Mufamadi created a committee to investigate new legislation. His
instructions were, and I quote, "to formulate progressive legislation
that would result in a drastic reduction in the number of LEGAL
firearms". Not illegal, not criminal but legal licensed firearms were
the target.

This committee consisted of South African Police Services (SAPS)
members, Gun Free South Africa (GFSA), SA Communist Party (SACP), the
Secretariat of Safety and Security and the Attorney General's office.
Adv. John Welch represented the Attorney General and managed to get this
changed to include the South African Gun Owners Association (SAGA) as
well, despite the Minister having initially refused this.

The committee progressed very slowly with SAGA countering GFSA and the
Secretariat and the SAPS in the middle while the SACP member simply
never attended.

The Secretariat for Safety and Security was unhappy with this lack of
progress and without anyone's knowledge or cabinet authority they
employed ISS to draft a new Bill. Both A. Cachalia (Safety and Security)
and Sheena Duncan (GFSA) serve on the board of ISS. Because this was
done without approval there was no funding in the budget to pay for this
so the Secretariat went overseas to obtain the funding. The two main
sources were the UK and the UN who both provided direct funding for this
project of around R300 000 each. Canada and George Sorros amongst others
also sponsored ISS. It is know as the "Potgieter Report" and J.
Potgieter (ISS) mentions writing this draft of the Firearm Control Bill
in his CV.

Parts of this draft were given to 3 groups, dealers, hunters and
collectors with one week to provide comments. It was made perfectly
clear that the intention was to have the Bill become law within a matter
of weeks and that firearms groups had not been informed as the goals of
the Bill were not negotiable.

This was in July 98 and the Bill was scheduled to become Law by October
at the latest.

This draft was a wish-list for the anti-gunners. Amongst other things it
would have banned;
Any handgun with more than ten shots
Any firearm originally designed for military use
Anything of .50 or larger calibre
And a multitude of other things.

The Firearms Control Act is a reality all South African citizens will
have to face. The almost certain increases in crime from a government
backed guarantee of a safer criminal workplace. Nobody will be spared.
The potential for abuse by the police is even greater than the old law.
The Department of Safety and Securities study found that daily there
were many abuses of the Act in warrentless searches and entering peoples
property. Firearm owners will have to face draconian penalties for just
forgetting to carry a licence. Giving up treasured or inherited
firearms or sporting firearms because of the limits placed on
"non-dedicated" firearms owners. Significant increases of costs of
ownership can be expected from increased renewable licensing fees,
training and membership of accredited organisations. Governments stated
intention is to increase the difficulty in retaining or purchasing
firearms and 500,000 firearms are expected to be collected in the first
year. Obviously those with more than 2 handguns or 4 rifles have the
most to lose.

All firearm owners will be adversely affected in vastly increased
licensing costs, training, joining of associations, limited numbers of
firearms and ammunition and considerably less chance of being issued
with a firearm licence. While criminals will enjoy less attention from
the police as personnel and huge amounts of TAX (more than R1.2 Billion)
are funnelled into gun control. Control that will not place one criminal
behind bars or funds that could be better spent on upgrading the
under-resourced police. Most of these are out outlined in the pamphlet
available from the SAFF.

What is painfully obvious is that many organisations have been
incredibly reluctant to get involved either directly or by informing
members of the implications of the Firearms Control Act. Which simply
means that the people who should be concerned the most by the new
legislation have not been informed of the implications or how they could
help in fighting this legislation.

All is not lost unless we give up or do nothing and there are many that
have absolutely no intention of giving up the fight. Concerned people
wanting to make a difference and contribute towards obtaining sensible
legislation, lower crime levels and a safer environment for all South
Africans should join the SA Firearm Forum. [Regrettably and
unfortunately SAFF is now also party to the accept there is nothing we
can do chant so joining SAFF is not advised] You should also seriously
consider that doing nothing to help the fight is no different to just
giving up and excepting the eventual total loss of all firearms.

What is quite clear is that if you want something done then you have to
do it yourself. There are few organisations that are ideally placed to
take on this task. This possibly because they do not see any campaign
that attempts to influence public opinion as worth the effort. Or they
do not have the infrastructure and expertise to take on such a project,
as they were not convened for this specific task.

We cannot rely on sports and recreational organisations to take on the
mantle of firearm owners or public protector. The majority of such
organisations think that they are all right and look forward to
increased forced membership and the opportunity to further swell club
coffers with training and ammunition sales. A short-sighted view as
membership will decrease in a short time due to the additional costs and
difficulty of firearms ownership. Any growth will probably be negated
after the first round of re-licensing.

Some have even gone so far as to welcome the Firearms Control Act and
support it. Others are willing to sell their souls in the hope that
they will be the controlling body or have exclusive rights to training.
Money talks louder than sense for the greedy that care not about the
future of all firearm activities and possession of firearms, being more
concerned with their own greed than their future survival.

There is only one way of persuading firearm owners and organisations to
take a more proactive roll. That is to start the ball rolling.
Somebody had to make a start and sitting around waiting for that
somebody or something is a pointless waste of valuable time. Time that
we no longer have.

All we have to do is give people the will and desire to be proactive and
take an interest in how the Firearms Control Act will impact negatively
on their interest. Encouraging them to look after themselves because
nobody else is going to mount an effective counter to the present and
future situation.

There is absolutely no doubt that the new Act will increase the cost of
ownership dramatically. Be this from vastly increased licensing costs
or requirements of ownership, from payment of renewable license fees and
training, to bureaucratic demands of evidence of good character and safe
storage.

License fees will be several hundred Rand per firearm and ongoing
depending on the period for that class of firearm. The government is
determined to extract the cost or a major part of implementation of the
Central Firearms Registry from firearm owners.

Membership of suitable organisations requires payment of annual
membership fees. This will not just be a once off payment as ownership
is dependent on membership.

Many believe they will simply have to join an organisation to get a
license. Not so as any accredited organisation must keep a register of
members and forward this data to the Central Firearms Registry. Where a
member has been certified as dedicated you can be sure that it is in the
interest of the certifying organisation to report to the CFR of any
change of circumstance. So fake or bogus registrations will be found
out.

No organisation is going to put its accreditation status at stake just
for the convenience of people who want to own more firearms but could
not be bothered to take part in club or organised activities.

Safes will become more expensive to meet the new SABS specification.
There is a grandfather clause but how long it will last and apply to new
license applications is open to debate.

The cost of training has not been accurately estimated because the
regulations are not complete. However there is little doubt that this
will also be several hundred Rand and payable for each class of firearm
licensed.

As dealers sales fall due to decreased demand (there is a direct
relationship between cost of ownership and rate of ownership) there will
probably have to be an increase of profit margins to compensate. When
order quantities fall, the price increases, as there is less benefit
from bulk buying.

The future of firearm ownership is in the balance and all the influences
that decrease demand are well known to anti-gun organisations and
government. All these influences will be used to decrease both the
demand and desire for ownership.

There are many examples of how simple and relatively insignificant
changes have had a major impact on firearm ownership. Cadets and
shooting skills in schools for example will have major benefits to
future potential firearm owners. Stopping or reducing such training and
exposure to firearms will impact negatively in the future. The lack of
conscription for military training will also remove many hundreds of
thousands of people who have been trained or exposed to the use of
firearms and could be considered firearms friendly.

All of these factors unless some concerted effort is made to reduce and
counter the affects, will eventually lead to the demise of firearm
ownership. When combined with the propaganda effort of gun control
organisations and proponents including government, then unopposed it
will happen all the sooner.

There is only one alternative if we wish to succeed and that is to take
up the challenge of gun control, counter the propaganda and promote
public safety. How we react will determine not only our future but also
the future generations of South Africans, our children, in having the
ability to enjoy sports of choice and retain the right to self-defence
with the best means possible.

Peter Moss 2001.

[garyh@info-logic.co.za]

The lack of response is overwhelming ? This was written 10 years ago, many would have not seen it before today and while the author may not be popular on Gunsite, there can be no doubt that what he wrote has substance! I have seen many views, rewrite the FCA, live with the FCA, adhear to the FCA. The first proposal of the FCA came about in 1993, thats 18 years ago and what was done to counter it? In this war of attrition, we have sat back and "shot the breeze" and only now do some of use see the severe consequences that we are facing!

[Crimefree]

http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/traps...to-gun-owners/

“The FCA is a magnificent piece of legislation” Dir J Bothma (SAPS)


There is nothing wrong with the FCA, just the implementation is flawed (SAGA, SAHunters, Collectors, the entire consultative forum of firearm organisations)

So it seems firearm owners representatives are quite happy with this law and think is is a “magnificent piece of legislation” since not one of them has complained or mobilised members to object to this law. Their only complaint is about service delivery.


Why did you bother Traps none of these organisations or firearm owners are interested. If they were the letters columns, websites and message boards would be full of objections.


Thoth on September 2nd, 2011 at 5:16 pm

[camouflage762]

Thoth: Post an intro!

[garyh@info-logic.co.za]

The Firearms Control Act seeks to punish the innocent and not inclined to crime with administrative hardship and punitive consequences, it the SAPS with administrative tasks aimed at law-abiding citizens at the expense of investigating crime and ensuring safety for citizens. It forces the SAPS to expend huge amounts on manpower, resources, budget and time on what will not put one criminal behind bars. There is no useful value to the SAPS in reducing crime, the supply of guns to criminals or increasing public safety. Crime figures are manipulated to suite the regime! Its a token gesture at most..... Does our crime rate and lack of safety and security warrant this waste of time and uncivilised punishment of the innocent? It has no use to anyone but the ANC government.

[SA Glocker]

Eish! Ok so what to do? I for one am willing to fight? But who will stand with me? & why are all the clubs & associations & what have you so very quiet? This is the first i hear of this & thanks to Jack for the post. I for one get the moer-in when they talk of taking away my toys!! But its the strategy of the ANC same as with the abalone poaching! Stop the legal guy that you can easy find & punish but the criminals eish baas its like too much work man! The soft targets make it look like we are doing our job sir!

[Logan Bruwer]

Eish! Ok so what to do? I for one am willing to fight? But who will stand with me?

I will.

I feel the pain. Have also started joining associations (including class action, what's happening there by the way?), engaging people in debate and writing my "concerned citizen" letters to all and sundry. Feels like we are going backwards.

When you do figure out effective methods, please let me know.

[Crimefree]

That pain is frustration and I feel it as well. From what I see these organisations have no intention of fighting this legislation. They welcome it, see no problem with their efforts and all they will do is complain about service delivery. What has changed, they are as ineffective as they were 10 years ago. We are going backwards, that is not in doubt.

What do you think they are doing any different now? Have they learnt from their mistakes? Have they improved or got worse? Have they simply given up or are they just stupid and don't see what was tried did not work and find out why? What are the answers to these questions? I cannot find any.

What is quite clear is that if you want something done then you have to do it yourself. There are few organisations that are ideally placed to take on this task. This possibly because they do not see any campaign that attempts to influence public opinion as worth the effort. Or they do not have the infrastructure and expertise to take on such a project, as they were not convened for this specific task.

We cannot rely on sports and recreational organisations to take on the mantle of firearm owners or public protector. The majority of such organisations think that they are all right and look forward to
increased forced membership and the opportunity to further swell club coffers with training and ammunition sales. A short-sighted view as membership will decrease in a short time due to the additional costs and difficulty of firearms ownership. Any growth will probably be negated after the first round of re-licensing.

I am concerned about what is happening to firearm ownership. How many firearm owners have been deprived of firearm ownership by this law? How many have spent a fortune and got nothing in return? How many have supported and contributed and got more legislation, costs, legal costs and bureaucracy for their effort and money?

Government claimed 500,000 expected, what is the correct figure up to now?

I am having difficulty in understanding how any of these organisations do not have a problem with this law when every firearm owner does. What purpose does it serve? These organisations need to answer that. Have they?

Can anyone tell me or answer these simple questions? Is there any organisation that can?

If you had looked 762 you would have seen it. Where is yours?

Google "Thoth" and realise Thoth is considerably older than what Wiki thinks. Ningishzidda

[Jack]

Government relies on two things,

1. Gun owners are full of talk and very little action, expecting others to do the work.
2. Fear. Fear that if one speaks out and come to the attention of the SAP they will be victimised, so they stay quiet and keep their heads down.

[Crimefree]

I will but only if you want to fight. The moment you give up and accept defeat I'm gone, SA Glocker.

---------- Post added at 09:47 ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 ----------

Government relies on two things,

1. Gun owners are full of talk and very little action, expecting others to do the work.
2. Fear. Fear that if one speaks out and come to the attention of the SAP they will be victimised, so they stay quiet and keep their heads down.

Are you trying to define cowardice or a lack of leadership?