Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
  1. #1

    Default Can it be used lawfully?

    I have a question from those better versed than me on the FCA. Some of my rangers have their own DG rifles and use them when taking walks/drives etc. The DFO has told them that they may not use their personal rifles as they are licenced as occasional hunting mostly. (sect 15 on the licence card) He said look its unlikely they would get bust but if there was an incedent there may be K@K and rifles get confiscated etc.

    The FCA says that if its held for business purpose it may only be used for the purposes stated, but occasional hunter says "any lawfull purpose".

    Is the DFO wrong? What is the deal here.

  2. #2
    User Paul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    on the edge of the gene pool, playing with an open container of HTH
    Posts
    15,621

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushboy View Post
    The FCA says that if its held for business purpose it may only be used for the purposes stated, but occasional hunter says "any lawfull purpose".
    Interesting...

    Yet another apparent hole in the legislation scrawled on the kindergarten walls in crayon...
    "Always remember to pillage before you burn"
    Unknown Barbarian

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushboy View Post
    I have a question from those better versed than me on the FCA.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushboy View Post
    The FCA says that if its held for business purpose it may only be used for the purposes stated, but occasional hunter says "any lawfull purpose".
    I am not saying that I am better versed but this is the same argument that I have made previously in another topic / theat but just from a different angle.

    Yes...the FCA is a nightmare and not properly thought through and if loooked properly is full of holes and contradictions. On one hand the issue for "any lawfull purpose" should cover you as long as you are "lawfull". With this I do not have a problem.

    My previous argument was with the issue regarding a Firearm for Self Defence compared to carrying a Firearm that is licensed for Sport (either occational or dedicated) in a Self Defence role. I was shot down with the issue of "any lawfull purpose". I am not arguing this and I would say that me being 'shot down' was not totally incorrect but I still reserve my opinion that we are possibly in for some surprises like using a specific Firearm outside the 'licenced use' as indicated on the license.

    Thus using a 'Occational Hunting" firearm in performing business duties can be a issue IMO. Yes, I do believe that in a court of law you will be able to 'get away' but it might be easier said and done and many moolas later.

    So from one angle of the FCA you are safe but from another contradicting angle of the same FCA you are in the firing line??????? It does not make sense but I do think that more and more DFO's are going to get this picture in their heads and that the CFR is going to push this matter and try to get people caught and prosecuted on this matter.

    The plus side to this...it just give you (money permiting) more reasons to have more firearms for all the different possible needs / uses!!!!!!

    I will once again take cover for the incoming fire on my view on this matter.....

  4. #4
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    4,141

    Default

    I chatted to my DFO about this a while ago and basically got him to state that I could not use my SD pistol for sport or even to practice shooting with it (assuming we use the restrictive interpretation). Doesn't make that much sense now does it I say?

    If they want to clear it up they could get rid of licences for specific purposes (can only hope) or introduce a hierarchy within licence types.

  5. #5
    User Paul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    on the edge of the gene pool, playing with an open container of HTH
    Posts
    15,621

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shooter View Post
    I chatted to my DFO about this a while ago and basically got him to state that I could not use my SD pistol for sport or even to practice shooting with it (assuming we use the restrictive interpretation). Doesn't make that much sense now does it I say?
    Hit your head against the wall!

    Now hit it again. Does it hurt yet?

    Do it a couple more times. Now stop!

    See? The pain stops when you stop smashing your head into the wall.

    Same with asking the SAPS about the law. The pain continues until you stop doing it!

    The SAPS and your DFO in particular HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT WHAT THE LAW SAYS.

    In the very best circumstances they operate according to regulations which may or may not be loosely based on the law. Where the regs don't specify anything they suck really hard on their thumbs until they get an idea... and then they bliksem on in their ignorance and apply what seemed like a good idea at the time. Until they send a docket to court and get laughed out of the room by a prosecutor or a Magistrate!

    "Always remember to pillage before you burn"
    Unknown Barbarian

  6. #6

    Default

    A similar situation would be a security guard who carries his own self defence piece on duty. This seems to be ok?

  7. #7
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Age
    46
    Posts
    29,307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushboy View Post
    A similar situation would be a security guard who carries his own self defence piece on duty. This seems to be ok?
    Nope if he is an employee there are AFAIK serious hoops to jump through for him to carry his private pistol.

  8. #8

    Default

    surely there must be some prcedent in that scenario?

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul View Post
    Hit your head against the wall!

    The SAPS and your DFO in particular HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT WHAT THE LAW SAYS.

    In the very best circumstances they operate according to regulations which may or may not be loosely based on the law. Where the regs don't specify anything they suck really hard on their thumbs until they get an idea... and then they bliksem on in their ignorance and apply what seemed like a good idea at the time. Until they send a docket to court and get laughed out of the room by a prosecutor or a Magistrate!

    Paul,

    True but unfortunately that is the person that you are going to deal with initially. This SAPS or DFO member is the one that is going to charge you and confiscate your firearm. Yes he is going to get to the prosecuter or magistrate and they are going to laugh or throw the case out but in the meantime you are the one that is going to battle. Also when it comes to firearms, the SAPS / DFO's /CFR does not have a good track record in keeping your firearm safe, in a good condition and adhering to court orders to give it back.

    I do not think that the matter is a clear or should I say muddles as you make it to be. I do think that there is a definate hazard for the firearm owner in this regard.

    Yes I would say that saying you cant go and 'practice' with your SD firearm is absurd and that person saying it should have his head examined. I would say that it goes without saying that 'pratice' with any 'class' of firearm goes without saying as the object is to enable you to be a better 'firearm operator' that is to the benefit to whatever type of license you have. However we are facing potential problems with this issue. My reasoning remains that to obtain a specific type of license (say Occational Hunting) you had to satisfy the CFR of your need for this type of license. You have not satisfied the CFR of your need for "professional purposes" and thus there could be a problem.

    I personally do not agree with this situation but it is one that we are facing and I hear these types of noices more and more. Fortunately the 'any lawfull purpose' contradicts this issue and gives us a 'back door' but I do see potential problems in this.

    A lot of people advice to rather go for a sporting license when it comes to hand guns and steer clear from a license for SD. My advice reamins to rather go for a SD License for at least one of your Handguns and other for Sporting use. Thus you have satisfied the CFR of your need for SD even if you carry say a sporting firearm.

    I do not agree with the current FCA but prefer to rather play it safe and keep what I have. On some issue I will say F**K whatever the CFR or DFO say as it is total BS but be carefull and look at the what the end result will be. Yes, maybe we need a test case to go court but I personally am not prepared to be the test subject for such a event.

  10. #10
    User
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    4,141

    Default

    Corne, yes I agree with you on the reasoning that if you have a SD licence you should be able to "more" legally carry your sporting handgun (assuming again the strict interpretation of licence types).

    The only problem here I see (nit picking) is that you satisfied the CFR that your SD firearm is suited to the purpose of SD and with the sporting gun that it is suited for sporting purposes. The sporting gun is not necessarily suited to SD (technically - it may be).

    I cannot believe I have just actually reasoned with myself about the technicalities of such an absurd set of rules and typed it out!

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •