Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43
  1. #21

    Default Re: WZ's argument on non-gazetted FA-free zones

    Quote Originally Posted by Skaaphaas View Post
    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:

    It would not have been OK if they stated that people with dreadlock hair or an advanced martial arts traing background were not allowed.

    That would have been unconstitutional and they may have been subjected to receive penalties imposed upon them by the HRC.

    How can this then be constitutional if you exercise your right to life by carrying your licensed EDC?

  2. #22
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boland, Western Cape
    Age
    49
    Posts
    1,263

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Leigh View Post
    So reading Section 24 then. Walking into said establishment with a concealed and licensed firearm will leave you legit.

    If you are carrying an unlicensed firearm then technically they can take action under section 24 as you do not comply with laws relating to firearms. But as stated, how could they do this if they were not licensed?

    Some clarity, related but unrelated. Why can I not have any say over who enters my private property. You come to my house you must smoke outside. If I was antigun have I no right to insist that you do not bring a firearm onto my property. Is a restaurant private or public?
    A no smoking sign means I may have my cigarettes and lighter with me, but I'm not allowed to use them.

    I view no firearm signs the same way.

  3. #23
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Noord van die biltong gordyn.
    Age
    56
    Posts
    9,116

    Default Re: WZ's argument on non-gazetted FA-free zones

    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew Leigh View Post
    So reading Section 24 then. Walking into said establishment with a concealed and licensed firearm will leave you legit.

    If you are carrying an unlicensed firearm then technically they can take action under section 24 as you do not comply with laws relating to firearms. But as stated, how could they do this if they were not licensed?

    Some clarity, related but unrelated. Why can I not have any say over who enters my private property. You come to my house you must smoke outside. If I was antigun have I no right to insist that you do not bring a firearm onto my property. Is a restaurant private or public?
    As was already said, it all come down to the owner's right to allow you on his property or not. So if you smoke, carry or do whatever offends him, he has the right to deny you entry, or ask you to leave. Failing to comply could lead to you being arrested and charged for trespassing, and any illegal objects can be confiscated, to be handed to the police. (Not quite forfeiture, that implies the owner takes possession as his own property.) Legally posessed objects, like your licensed FA, do not fall in this category. At least that is how I understand it at this point in time...

  4. #24
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Roodepoort
    Age
    42
    Posts
    839

    Default Re: WZ's argument on non-gazetted FA-free zones

    It is really simple, don't support these establishments.

  5. #25

    Default Re: WZ's argument on non-gazetted FA-free zones

    Quote Originally Posted by SSP View Post
    No it isn't.
    Not to quote the entire Schedule 1 list
    "Schedule 1
    (Sections 40 and 42)
    .................
    Any offence,
    except the offence of escaping from lawful custody in circumstances otherthan the circumstances referred to immediately hereunder, the punishment wherefor may be a period of imprisonment exceeding six months without the option of a fine."











    Now the real answer lies in the penalty clause of the Trespassing act....

  6. #26
    Moderator SSP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,988

    Default Re: WZ's argument on non-gazetted FA-free zones

    Quote Originally Posted by jdkey View Post
    Now the real answer lies in the penalty clause of the Trespassing act....
    So still not in schedule 1 then.

    The Trespass Act provides for an option of a fine.
    Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal:
    But I know one thing that never dies,
    the glory of the great dead.
    Havamal

  7. #27

    Default Re: WZ's argument on non-gazetted FA-free zones

    So, while in theory it *might* amount to a trespass, they certainly may not arrest you themselves. And were someone to call the SAPS it seems unlikely, that were they to show any interest at all, they would do anything other than check your license and tell you to leave. It's probably also unlikely that the owner of the premises would call the SAPS unless you refused to leave when asked to do so.
    Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit: occidentis telum est.

    Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD)

  8. #28

    Default Re: WZ's argument on non-gazetted FA-free zones

    SSP Most of the offences in Schedule 1 has an option of a fine but do have the direct imprisonment exceeding 6 months.

    WZ i've seen plenty of people in police cells arrested (by police) for trespassing.

    I however agree that the police would not be so helpful in above circumstances.

  9. #29
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Cape Town
    Age
    46
    Posts
    9,403

    Default Re: WZ's argument on non-gazetted FA-free zones

    Quote Originally Posted by jdkey View Post
    SSP Most of the offences in Schedule 1 has an option of a fine but do have the direct imprisonment exceeding 6 months.

    WZ i've seen plenty of people in police cells arrested (by police) for trespassing.

    I however agree that the police would not be so helpful in above circumstances.
    Someone's trespassing with a gun? I expect you'd see a rather quick response.

  10. #30
    Moderator SSP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,988

    Default Re: WZ's argument on non-gazetted FA-free zones

    Quote Originally Posted by jdkey View Post
    SSP Most of the offences in Schedule 1 has an option of a fine but do have the direct imprisonment exceeding 6 months.
    Except that those offences are specifically enumerated and are not contained in a catch all.
    Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal:
    But I know one thing that never dies,
    the glory of the great dead.
    Havamal

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 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
  •