If y'all aren't scared yet...

**Paul** · 11-07-2017, 15:20

“The learned judge ought to have found that a forfeiture of a firearm as a result of a failure to comply with the act is not a deprivation; and that any deprivation that does arise is in accordance with a law of general application, and is a legitimate exercise of power because it’s purpose is to protect health, welfare, safety and security for everyone’s benefit.”

This is the SAPS's argument in their appeal document against the North Gauteng High Court judgement of Judge Tolmay last week.

1984 anyone?

These are the words of the Minister's legal advisors!

**Tetelestai** · 11-07-2017, 15:22

Do you think that argument will stick? What does the legal experts say?

The wording sure is ominous.

**Paul** · 11-07-2017, 15:30

Originally Posted by Tetelestai

Do you think that argument will stick? What does the legal experts say?

The wording sure is ominous.

I think they've actually blown it. I think they are over-reaching and I think the ConsCourt will be repulsed by this line of argument.

I think they may have snatched defeat from the jaws of any possible victory they may have aspired to in the sense of the ConsCourt limiting Judge Tolmay's order.

**tobie** · 11-07-2017, 15:32

Originally Posted by Paul

I think they've actually blown it. I think they are over-reaching and I think the ConsCourt will be repulsed by this line of argument.

I think they may have snatched defeat from the jaws of any possible victory they may have aspired to in the sense of the ConsCourt limiting Judge Tolmay's order.

Paul, these legal arguments go over my head, can you please explain in PLAIN ENGLISH SLOWLY...?

**Paul** · 11-07-2017, 15:51

There is a feeling... that Judge Tolmay was forced to make her judgement wide-ranging, more so than may have been actually prudent (in some views)... for example she binned the whole of S24 when all that may have been required was the addition of a clause to cover late renewals.

The view has been expressed that this may have given the ConsCourt something to think about and thereby consider watering down her order.

It is my speculative view that the Minister is now tearing the ring out and may very well be instrumental in the ConsCourt taking a hard line on the Minister's appeal.

**Glockster** · 11-07-2017, 15:53

Translation: "Well your worship, we're entitled to confiscate these here guns because we're keeping the public safe, secure and happy. And we're not really depriving anyone, since they failed to comply. Besides, the way the law is generally applied it's well within our power to do so (or should be)."

**tobie** · 11-07-2017, 15:56

Thanks Paul and Glockster

**Hoodlum** · 11-07-2017, 16:01

That.....Is Not Good!!!

**Gunservant** · 11-07-2017, 16:04

Originally Posted by Hoodlum

That.....Is Not Good!!!

No. It is fantastic. They have torn off all masks and attempts at obfuscating their intentions. We see them for what they are now. And hopefully so does the CC.

**shooty** · 11-07-2017, 16:13

One of my friends who owns a dealership in CPT area. Who's bookkeeping I do. Has told me that the DFO who does his inspections have told him. That he has received instruction to carry on as normal. Nothing has changed due to ruling regarding anything at SAPS.

He told me this. I can not confirm if its true. Maybe someone else also with reasonable contacts to DFO's can maybe comment if they have heard similar.

As this will in fact be against current court ruling.