WZ's argument on non-gazetted FA-free zones

[Skaaphaas]

WZ has maintained that criminal criminal charges can be laid against someone carrying a firearm on private property, where right of admission is reserved and the owner as forbidden firearms to be carried on the property.

Someone has had the exact same thought. Spotted this in Dullstroom today:

[Wanderin' Zero]

Crikey! My past comes back to haunt me. I can't even remember that anymore! :-)

What forfeiture are they talking about? Screw them. As for arrest by the owner of the property, trespassing is not in Schedule 1.

[Kayback]

Interesting development and wording.

Do the no syringes prohibit diabetics taking insulin injectors or eppipens? Surely they only prohibit the use of illegal drugs ( already illegal but....)

Firearm signs are the same, they only prohibit illegal ones or the illegal use of firearms, not their carriage, legal and lifesaving use.

That being said where is this location so we can avoid giving them our money?

[sa-shooter]

Is trespassing a criminal offense though? Sure, you could be arrested, but criminal charges?

[FNBROWNING]

What would they charge you with?
If your firearm is licenced and carried in accordance with the law you are in compliance with the law in terms of the firearms control act.Looked into something similar yrs ago and learnt that one of our major companies had got SC,opinion on what rights they had on dealing with members of the public with firearms. The gist was that unless there is a specific law preventing them and assuming that they are in compliance with the law your rights to dictate are very limited.

[Pirate]

Interesting. The wording does not seem made up by a complete luddite, but thought through with a supporting argument (which, of course may be flawed).

But just to help out the complete luddite, what does "forfeiture" mean in this context?

[jdkey]

trespassing is not in Schedule 1.

Technically...Trespassing is in schedule 1 strange as it seems.

[SSP]

As for arrest by the owner of the property, trespassing is not in Schedule 1.

It doesn't have to be in Schedule 1.

Section 42(3) of the Criminal Procedure act empowers the owner or person in charge of property to arrest any person committing any offence on or in relation to that property.

[SSP]

Technically...Trespassing is in schedule 1 strange as it seems.

No it isn't.

Breaking or entering with the intention to commit an offence is not trespassing.

[Epsilon]

Lets start to nit-pick...
Reduction to the absurd follows.
What item(s) do not constitute weapons, and/or can never be used as weapon(s)?