Parliamentary Portfolio on Police

**Zoo Keeper** · 20-05-2016, 14:02

I have just scanned GFSA's twitter and they're tweeting from the PC on Police. Major anti-gun stuff coming out of it (from their handle obviously). Seems that the NFP is very anti-gun.

Have we got anybody there?

**AshleyR** · 20-05-2016, 14:14

Originally Posted by GFSA Twitter

Police PC heard 3 presentations: SAPS on the turnaround strat for the CFR; SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association; f/arms Appeal Board

Apparently SAHGCA is there.

Originally Posted by GFSA Twitter

MPs asking questions at Police PC meeting: National Freedom Party - as long as there are guns, our people will be mercilessly killed.

MPs asking questions at Police PC meeting: National Freedom Party - a lot of guns used in crime were once legal.

MPs asking questions at Police PC meeting: National Freedom Party - What is the rationale of having so many guns?

NFP: as long as there are guns our people will be mercilessly killed. The only way to go is a gun free SA

NFP: a lot of guns used in crime were once legal; I do not understand the rationale of having many guns.

National Freedom Party: what can the PC do to help SAPS limit the no. of guns in circulation? Does it require a strengthening of the law?

The National Freedom Party sounds like a GFSA echo chamber. They're relatively minor, with 1.57% of the national vote in 2014, so just 6 of 400 National Assembly seats.

Originally Posted by GFSA Twitter

Firearm Appeal Board: the 90 day turnaround to deal with applications is not realistic.

Firearm Appeal Board: More time is needed [than the 90 days] to make sure we do not compromise on background checks.

Firearm Appeal Board: shortcoming of the FCA is that there is no provision for determining mental health fitness to possess a gun.

Firearm Appeal Board: shortcoming of the FCA is no definition of self-defence making it imp 2 assess factors when reviewing applications

Firearm Appeal Board: Sections 14,16,16(a),17 allow individuals to possess restricted, unlimited & prohibited f/arms. This cannot continue

Chair of appeal board: we must not allow people to be made technically fit to own a firearm when they are unfit due to poor Saps training

Firearm Appeal Board: poor training of staff is a prob in CFR. They need to assess if approve or refuse a licence.

Firearm Appeal Board: we must not allow people technically unfit to own a f/arm when they are unfit due to poor SAPS training.

The Appeal Board is clearly anti-firearm, but I suspect this isn't news. How is it that bias like this is permitted in an administrative government body? Also, interesting falsehoods on Sections 14, 16, and 17, but you know what they say about the best lies.

**Zoo Keeper** · 20-05-2016, 14:28

Originally Posted by AshleyR

Apparently SAHGCA is there.

The National Freedom Party sounds like a GFSA echo chamber. They're relatively minor, with 1.57% of the national vote in 2014, so just 6 of 400 National Assembly seats.

The Appeal Board is clearly anti-firearm, but I suspect this isn't news. How is it that bias like this is permitted in an administrative government body? Also, interesting falsehoods on Sections 14, 16, and 17, but you know what they say about the best lies.

Hopefully SAHGA is calling them on it - or someone!!

The statements by the NFP shows we need to engage with our parties

**Paul** · 20-05-2016, 16:17

Ludwig is there for us.

Just for everyone's info this is a session where the public (you and I, or GOSA and GFSA) don't get to participate, only observe... so neither he, nor SAHGCA will be able to say a word.

**PeaceOfficer** · 20-05-2016, 16:31

Getting a whiff of "common sense gun laws" there. Not good.

**curious george** · 20-05-2016, 18:50

Originally Posted by AshleyR

The National Freedom Party sounds like a GFSA echo chamber. They're relatively minor, with 1.57% of the national vote in 2014, so just 6 of 400 National Assembly seats.

So there are more licensed firearms owners than people who actually voted for this bunch ?

Ps: Thats even more than the "we know whats best for SA" party's membership...

**Marc05** · 21-05-2016, 05:17

Portfolio committee's "ideas " got airtime on the news last night with "section 16 hunters and sport shooters owning 100 guns, why do they need 100 guns? This must stop". So the motivation why a person needs to have a certain firearm for sport or hunting is not sufficient? Again the mindset of "why do you need more than one gun to sport shoot" clearly the portfolio committee has no clue of sport shooting and hunting requirements , again thinking why do you need a whole bag full of golf clubs, won't a 3 iron and a putter do the same job? GOSA has done a lot for us, but we need to be more proactive. The ease of these misleading statements getting airtime is alarming, GOSA must be the first group the media must request a response from before the broadcast a story. Just as they contact AK to make a statement, GOSA must be seen as the voice of the firearm owning community.

**Wanderin' Zero** · 21-05-2016, 08:52

Marc, please let's not start this debate all over again. Those people who license excessively large numbers of guns under S16 are putting everyone else at risk and it will result in a change in the legislation to the detriment of all. I've pleaded time and again on this forum for people to act with significant restraint (both as to quantity and type) when licensing items under section 16, regard being had to political sensitivities but its fallen on deaf ears. In this regard I also blame those hunting and sports shooting associations who have taken no steps at all to curtail abuse by some of their members. I'm probably going to get flamed for this but its the naked truth, like it or not.

**CorditeCrazy** · 21-05-2016, 09:10

WZ what is considered excessive?

A hunter who has 10 different hunting rifles? A sports shooter with 10 different sports guns?

A hunter and sports shorter with 10 guns?

It's all subjective. What does the government consider excessive. More than 0?

**Wanderin' Zero** · 21-05-2016, 09:22

Cordite, its obviously relative and a matter of context (the discipline or disciplines, the level of participation etc). But a hundred guns? How many of us realistically need more than a dozen or so?

You'll note that concerns have not been raised about people who have ten or twelve - but some folk have gone totally overboard. And now everyone is going to get the same haircut.

Let me add that the FCA created, despite the hurdles, on the whole a far more liberal dispensation for sport shooters than had been the case under the old Arms and Ammunition Act. People have really been given a great deal of room within which to achieve their aspirations as sports shooters and to licence those things which they legitimately need for their sport shooting activities. Leaving aside the United States, which is always the outlier on all things gun related because of the Second Amendment, there are not many countries in the world where people have as liberal a dispensation to licence firearms for sport shooting as we have here in South Africa. Unfortunately however, a certain coterie within the field of sport shooting (and, I assume hunting, albeit I know less about that) have pushed the thing way beyond the parameters of what was reasonably contemplated by the comparatively permissive legislation.

Those who know my track record on this forum will know that for years I have been saying to the sport shooting community (with reference to the firearms approved of by the associations for sport shooting purposes and the number of firearms being licensed by members of sport shooting associations) "regulate yourselves or you will be regulated". It appears that we are moving ever closer to the latter situation.