Parliamentary Portfolio on Police

[Wezza]

[Wanderin' Zero]

You can eat all the popcorn you want – it is not going to change the naked reality of matters and the political environment in which we subsist.

[Wezza]

Ouch. I'm on your side here WZ.

Jeez!!

[Wanderin' Zero]

LoL.

It wasn't meant in an unpleasant tone Wezza; rather quite neutral.

[CorditeCrazy]

WZ I agree with you, but how many Dedicated folk have a hundred guns? Most chaps I know - collectors aside - who are dedicated have between 5 and 15.
This includes hunting, so rifles and shotguns
Sports shooting, so pistols, shotguns, rifles and semis
Self defense.

I guess what really concerns me is;its being touted that some people have 10 or more semi auto long guns and "excessive" amount of guns but no definitive churns have been given. I don't trust the government and think this is a red herring.

BTW I agree with you on the freedom given in the new act for DSS

[Wanderin' Zero]

Cordite agreed. But then the associations need to grab the wayward guys by the proverbial and get them to behave fairly.

The problem has been that the associations contend that that is not their role but the role of the SAPS (to manage the number of firearms held by an individual under section 16); then on the other hand they cackle with glee about the fact that once they have signed off an approval, the SAPS have little choice but to issue the licence. The outcome of that is inevitable – that the SAPS will persuade parliament to impose legislative limits on section 16 – which it appears is what is now happening. It also explains why the SAPS have been refusing additional section 16 licences on the basis that "you already have a 9mmP". In this last regard, GOSA has been doing a great job and in particular the Foundation for the Defence of Democracy, which has been effectively assisting the SAPS in approving those items which are genuinely justified (as opposed to those where the applicants are effectively trying to take advantage of the system.

I do not have a concern if the legislature imposes a limit of say, 15 firearms under section 16, although I do recognise that some people might genuinely have legitimate reasons for needing more than that. I think though that there is a realistic possibility that we may end up with a far greater restriction that effectively ends up "cramping everyone's style" when it comes to sport shooting.

That said, based upon the last round of proposed amendments, it appeared that the thinking was rather to increase the threshold for justification of additional firearms beyond a certain level (I think four was the number in question) as opposed to simply knocking them out of the picture altogether beyond a certain threshold. That proposed amended legislation was drafted by an individual within the SAPS who himself and his sons are keen sport shooters. He is however close to retirement and I have no idea what his replacement may propose to the SAPS and Parliament as an appropriate amendment to the legislation.

[Kayback]

The problem is what crime are those people with 100 guns comitting? Why is it a problem they have 100 while that guy has 3?

I don't get the need for having 100 guns, there are only so many shooting days in the year, but if you can then go for it.

I'm certain this is where the recent crop of "already own suitable firearm" rejection comes from, even when applied to MSR and the owner has manual rifles.

For example I shoot SADPA. I enjoy shooting CDP so that is my main avenue. I recently bought a Glock 17 to shoot ESP. I just scored a rolly I will be using as well. There is still BUG, SSP and CCP I could shoot in. In SSP I can shoot Glocks which are basically DAO striker fired and I can shoot a Z88 in DA/SA. And how about a single action 9mm like a Vector SP1? In revolver I can shoot a tricked out old ESR gun.

Moving on to DMG I have a need for a pump and a semi shotgun. I can use a minor or major centerfire in 3 or 4 categories and a rimfire/pistol caliber or two, some with optics some without.

Is shooting in this sport now no longer enough? Must I specialise in one small sliver of the sport and only have the one handgun, one rifle and one shotgun?

As I said last time this came up a 20" rifle gas tube/buffer AR will shoot differently to a 16"carbine setup. Same with a 10.5". Throw in an LM4/5/6 for example. Or a 7 62x51mm vs all of them and a 7.62x39mm for fun. And a BXP compared to an MPX.

And this is just one sport. What about the guys who also shoot 3GN or IPSC? Some guns will cross over but other won't.

[Gunservant]

The amount of firearms criminals have access to has never really been part of the agenda: the one variable that the Government can control is the amount of legally owned weapons. So they are going to control that, because it makes them appear proactive in addressing a problem they otherwise have no control over.

[PeaceOfficer]

Goes back to self regulation or let else someone else will do it for you. That someone else being government.

Reducing crime is the lie that's being sold to get the masses to get onboard with civilian disarmament.

[CorditeCrazy]

The amount of firearms criminals have access to has never really been part of the agenda: the one variable that the Government can control is the amount of legally owned weapons. So they are going to control that, because it makes them appear proactive in addressing a problem they otherwise have no control over.

You are right regarding the easy to control part. It's not about crime though, it sure as hell is not about appearing to do something about it though it is a convenient smoke screen

The government does not like its citizens armed, they don't trust us. When I say us I mean everyone and couldnt give a fuck if we are affected by crime. They see about a 1000 "service delivery protests" a year. They don't think "ooh we better remove hand from cookie jar and finger fro anus" they think "thank goodness they didn't have guns and let's make it moer hard for them to legally get, in fact how can we get rid of the legal ones too?"

That's the long and the short of it.