Parliamentary Portfolio on Police

[uBestRi]

There is an expressed concern by the SAPS and the authorities that large numbers of firearms held by sport shooters may become sources of modern weapons for criminals. I was informed first-hand that crime intelligence analysis and prediction indicates that sport shooters are likely to become targeted by criminal gangs; indeed, that this may already be in process. One should bear in mind in this context that sport shooters and hunters are not required to store their firearms in an inoperable state and nor are they required to have category 2 safes. I cannot tell you how genuine this is or to what extent it is a pretext. I simply mention it for what it is worth.

It doesn't help that the evil folk like Kirsten are involved, and getting into bed with SAPS more and more, they love the narrative about criminals getting their guns from licensed firearm owners. I bet they are selling that story hard.

[Marc05]

Of course get the focus of SAPS & SANDF lost/sold /stolen firearms.

[Meteor]

They should be glad S16 "collectors' are more able to defend the guns.

[MTTSS]

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.

I am opposed to any arbitrary limit being placed on ownership of firearms by the legislature or the state administration, or for that matter the shooting organizations (where rationality in consideration of the issue is expected).

As the law now stands, we already have an arbitrary limit as far as section 13 is concerned, for example. This issue is on our agenda to be addressed. It does not make sense to, in principle allow a person to exercise his right to life and not to be tortured etc., but then to limit him to the possession of one device, to try and achieve the purpose. One size here does often not fit all the circumstances.

Self defense firearms are routinely confiscated for ballistic testing after a shooting incident, say a house robbery. And they are often only returned after a prolonged time, at a time when you may really need such a firearm even more than under "normal" conditions. So a second similar firearm, expressly licensed for the exact same purpose, makes so much sense, to use as a substitute for when the other firearm has been confiscated.

If you commute between George and JHB or any other city on the airlines, you will find that you are not allowed to transport your f/a on the airlines, because George has no firearm handling facilities. So in other words, you would have been able to make out a perfectly good case in law, that you needed a second similar firearm, but the Act eliminates that. In fact, in law you may have had a perfectly valid case that you needed two similar firearms in two locations (a substitute if the other one was confiscated for ballistics in each location).

Then we can go on with examples such as back - up guns. I may very well be able to convince the administration, and also the court of the notion that, if I was in principle allowed a G19 / 17 / 34 as my "primary" self defense gun, it makes no rational sense to disallow me a G43 under section 13, in case my primary f/a becomes inoperable during a self defense shootout.

In regards to the legislation as it now stands, the Registrar still has a remaining discretion to consider the purpose for which a section 16 firearm is to be licensed, on the facts of the application. I will personally not be involved in the appeal or court case (or preparation of a motivation for an application) on behalf of someone who actually attempts to license the exact same type of AR under section 16, after he already has 99 other similar AR's. (I play to win - not loose - such a thing is already untenable in law - no need to accept any further restrictions on numbers). In any event, I still need to see the proof that such a thing has ever taken place. And in any event, if it did, then the Registrar did not exercise his discretion correctly, as was allowed to him, in terms of the current legislation.

(As to safekeeping - there are already standards in place in relation to how many firearms can be stored in what quality of safe by individuals - so that has been addressed by the legislature - also, in regards to owning multiple firearms, there are processes where your security clearance background checks are progressively being increased from a certain number of firearms owned - I believe this to be 20 and up).

Will I assist someone who applies for his 100th Garand under section 17? Yes indeed. And be very happy for him.

Should sport shooting and hunting organizations now also require from their members to provide them with a list of their other firearms before considering an endorsement letter? I believe not. The applicant in her motivation discusses why her other firearms are not suitable for the purpose, which the new firearm is being applied for. If the applicant made out a proper and convincing case, then the Registrar should issue. If an "abuse" is allegedly taking place, the Registrar can refuse, and the court has the ultimate discretion.

All being said, WZ has a very valid point in sounding a general warning for self restraint and discipline by individuals and organizations, within the above context. We can expect more and more of these assaults on our rights in principle, if you try and license multiple SLR's, under say an organization that does not have that many divisions...

But then again, those organizations have been accredited by the SAPS, and in other words their rules have been accepted by SAPS, and will be in place, unless their continued accreditation becomes problematic for SAPS.

As to self control, on the other hand, we should always also not become so paranoid ourselves, that we for instance go to the level where an accredited SAPS Shooting Organization tells its member that she can't have a MP5, because "Bothma" said that "those firearms are reserved for task force use", despite the fact that the MP5 conformed to all the requirements of the specific division, and out of fear that we can upset the SAPS / "Bothma" / Maboelie.

[Wanderin' Zero]

A very sane post…

[curious george]

Ludwig C. says this on GOSA fb page:

"Hi any person seen the Friday news regarding the Police Portfolio Committee meeting?


I was at the meeting and did not see the news. I recommend that you try to see the meeting broadcast on channel 408, the Parliamentary channel. I have set my timer for 01:05 this Sunday evening 22 May. I would welcome comments on the news and the PPC broadcast as there is much to be aware off.


Matters discussed included Green Card licenses, Expired licenses, reasons for rejections of applications amongst other matters. I am afraid it did not go well. How bad did it go?

Well let me put it this way. A Kirsten of GFSA was there, and she LOL a number of times in glee. At one stage a number of the audience and the members also laughed.



I am busy with some urgent submissions to try and repair damages. I will update as and when I can after this coming Wednesday meeting. Please inform me if GFSA brings out any press releases etc as they have lots to crow about."

[Zoo Keeper]

In the current climate it is really one of sound-bites. So someone has 100 firearms? OK, show us. No need for his identity but prove how widespread this is or is it simply 1 or 2 guys being a little too keen. The media are awful in this because they simply parrot the claims (being anti-gun on the whole themselves) and never ask the hard questions of those making the claims.

Like MTTSS I do not believe there should be any arbitrary numerical limits. In fact, the very low number of 4 is exactly why we have this situation. If (considering politics and between grinding teeth) the limit was 15. Any gun of your choice up to a limit of 15 - semis and stuff no full auto because of the Hollywood terror these things hold. That would cover about 95% of the folks out there. You could buy a number of SDs, shotties, hunting rifles and a MSR or two and easily fall within the 15. The CFR's load would be hugely lightened. Collectors should have no limit once you are a registered collector. Non-collectors would have to justify stuff over the 15.

Just a practical idea.

And if you haven't noticed, in the EU, collectors are being targetted. Yes, those nasties in Paris used reactivated firearms. So all those deactivated firearms are in line for destruction.

There is no logic - just a determined push to ban.

With the EU Superstate in full swing, the last thing the power-brokers want are citizens deciding they want to rule themselves for a change. Just look at the Establishment roll-out of heavy-hitters trying to ensure a Remain win the UK referendum?

[AshleyR]

And if you haven't noticed, in the EU, collectors are being targetted. Yes, those nasties in Paris used reactivated firearms. So all those deactivated firearms are in line for destruction.

I haven't been following the aftermath, but is that what actually happened? Did they actually use re-activated firearms? Or is it just more FUD?

[Wanderin' Zero]

They were reactivated. But if you see how lightly they were deactivated, its hardly surprising. The EU has never established a common deactivation standard and some deactivated items out of the old Comm bloc are really dodgy.

[Zaraki]

I haven't been following the aftermath, but is that what actually happened? Did they actually use re-activated firearms? Or is it just more FUD?

Pardon my ignorance, but how does one even re-activate a deactivated firearm? And why would you go through all that effort and expense if you could simply go to your black market pals and buy a smuggled kalashnikov?