New license app and SAP350 confusion

[Starstreak]

In the vast majority of the cases the paperwork has been done. If the dealer has done his return and submitted it to CFR and CFR has not captured the data how do you expect the dealer to "sort out the paper work" and force CFR to do their job reasonably quickly and accurately? Court Action? - dealers will constantly be involved in getting court orders.

Over and above the returns dealers submit to CFR they are compelled by the inefficient system to duplicate the paperwork and provide the customer (on the insistence of DFO's) with a copy of the dealer stock return with each and every licence application they are involved with.

Imo the dealers association should put CFR on terms and if CFR does not comply the dealers association should consider getting a court order to compel CFR to give the service required.

The capturing of dealer returns are discussed at every meeting between the dealers and CFR.

Imo CFR is at fault for not providing the service rapidly and correctly.

The FCA provides for a system of electronic submission of returns by dealers but SAPS has not been able to implement the system since the FCA came into operation. Imo getting the system and software into operation would solve a lot of problems.

Why doesn't the dealer do a check during the sales process? What's happening now, from particular dealers, is that the first time a customer finds out there is a problem is from the DFO or CFR and he/she has to rush around trying to fix the problem. By that time, it is difficult to return the FA or the dealer doesn't want it back, so there is a motive.

[Craven]

In the vast majority of the cases the paperwork has been done. If the dealer has done his return and submitted it to CFR and CFR has not captured the data how do you expect the dealer to "sort out the paper work" and force CFR to do their job reasonably quickly and accurately? Court Action? - dealers will constantly be involved in getting court orders.

Over and above the returns dealers submit to CFR they are compelled by the inefficient system to duplicate the paperwork and provide the customer (on the insistence of DFO's) with a copy of the dealer stock return with each and every licence application they are involved with.

Imo the dealers association should put CFR on terms and if CFR does not comply the dealers association should consider getting a court order to compel CFR to give the service required.

The capturing of dealer returns are discussed at every meeting between the dealers and CFR.

Imo CFR is at fault for not providing the service rapidly and correctly.

The FCA provides for a system of electronic submission of returns by dealers but SAPS has not been able to implement the system since the FCA came into operation. Imo getting the system and software into operation would solve a lot of problems.

Please don't get me wrong, I can relate to the headaches dealers are having in terms of this, but for a customer to have just spent a small fortune and then discover that they can not apply can leave a bad taste in the mouth. Wouldn't it be better from a service perspective - as Starstreak mentioned - have the dealer do a check to see if everything is in order before handing over the papers and or finalise the sale ?

This would be an extra administrative procedure for the dealer but it may then allow the dealer to issue a different serial number which is registered correctly and also in stock.

[DS]

Why doesn't the dealer do a check during the sales process? What's happening now, from particular dealers, is that the first time a customer finds out there is a problem is from the DFO or CFR and he/she has to rush around trying to fix the problem. By that time, it is difficult to return the FA or the dealer doesn't want it back, so there is a motive.

And to do what if CFR is not up to date with capturing 350 returns data.

Dealers get accustomed to the fact that CFR data is not up to date and pro-actively comply with the requirement by DFO for a 350 return to be made available with each application.

The 350(a) required by the DFO (and provided by the dealer to be pro-active although there is no such requirement in the FCA and the fact that the information is anyway completed on every 271) is to circumvent the problem of the firearm not showing as recorded on the stock of the selling dealer on the system when the DFO want to capture the application. That means the DFO can verify from the duplicate 350 that the dealer who completed the licence app is in fact the dealer with that firearms on his stock register.

[DS]

Please don't get me wrong, I can relate to the headaches dealers are having in terms of this, but for a customer to have just spent a small fortune and then discover that they can not apply can leave a bad taste in the mouth. Wouldn't it be better from a service perspective - as Starstreak mentioned - have the dealer do a check to see if everything is in order before handing over the papers and or finalise the sale ?

This would be an extra administrative procedure for the dealer but it may then allow the dealer to issue a different serial number which is registered correctly and also in stock.

Updated 350 returns for batches and whole orders of firearms are not captured soon enough by CFR so imo in my circumstance as dealer/importer, providing another serial number, is not going to alleviate the problem.

[Starstreak]

And to do what if CFR is not up to date with capturing 350 returns data.

Dealers get accustomed to the fact that CFR data is not up to date and pro-actively comply with the requirement by DFO for a 350 return to be made available with each application.

The 350(a) required by the DFO (and provided by the dealer to be pro-active although there is no such requirement in the FCA and the fact that the information is anyway completed on every 271) is to circumvent the problem of the firearm not showing as recorded on the stock of the selling dealer on the system when the DFO want to capture the application. That means the DFO can verify from the duplicate 350 that the dealer who completed the licence app is in fact the dealer with that firearms on his stock register.

Sumbit a copy of the 350 with the application obviously.

[DS]

Sumbit a copy of the 350 with the application obviously.

I do not understand your post - Did you actually read my posts ?

[Craven]

Thanks for explaining Nortier and Khumba, in terms of attaching the import permit to an application like my DFO did, do you know if the CFR would accept this ?

[PeaceOfficer]

Playing the blame game doesn't help anyone. As a dealer you don't want stock taking up space in your storeroom and as a consumer you don't want your firearm anywhere but with you. In other words, a resolution is in everyone's favour with one notable exception - CFR. And unfortunately it is the CFR that ultimately has all the power in this situation.

As a consumer I look to the dealer I purchase from for guidance as to how to go about resolving any firearm-related licencing issues. It is in both of our interests to get this fixed as previously mentioned.

I acknowledge that dealers aren't to blame. All that I as a consumer am asking for is help from the experts (dealers) in overcoming these obstacles.

[Starstreak]

I do not understand your post - Did you actually read my posts ?

Many times. As I said, if CFR hasn't processed the 350 (or the dealer failed to do it and is only doing it now), then it would help to provide a copy, especially one with the PI number. You may have to ask the original dealer for this if the FA has been forwarded to another.

[DS]

I refuse to provide a copy of my import permit to anyone other than the people who need to clear the firearms with SAPS when a shipment arrives in the country.

My import permit is confidential and there is no way that I am going to make that info and all the serial numbers public.

When required I will provide the import permit number so that the DFO can verify what he needs to verify and with that he is able to "track" the origin of the firearms and serial number.