I don't want to start a panic, but...

**Skaaphaas** · 13-07-2017, 13:35

It cannot be interlocutory, this application wasn't made during the litigation of a main case?

**batman69** · 13-07-2017, 13:52

I don't agree that it's interlocutary. On another reading of section 18 it would appear that the party who seeks that the order be enforced notwithstanding the appeals process would have to prove irreparable harm on a balance of probabilities. The irreparable harm effect of expired licenses being regarded as illegal could be:

1. People being arrested for possession of illegal firearms (SAPS have given a directive this won't happen)
2. Firearms handed over to SAPS being destroyed (no directive on this specifically, except that these firearms will not be handed back to the owners, presumably pending the appeal outcome to a full bench).
3. An owner, loved one or person deserving of lawful protection losing life or limb in circumstances where the use of firearm would have been the only lawful means of private defence.(Where guns have been handed in to SAPS).

2 above could be avoided if SAPS could give an undertaking/directive that guns handed in, won't be destroyed?

3 above is difficult to successfully dispute.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

**Tetelestai** · 13-07-2017, 14:23

batman69, I believe 2 is already in place as communicated by SAPS. Not on legal/court documents though.

**gwj DICKDEKOCK** · 13-07-2017, 14:55

Originally Posted by Skaaphaas

It cannot be interlocutory, this application wasn't made during the litigation of a main case?

I can see no reason at all why this is an interlocutory order, and as such see no reason why section 18 can come to our assistance in keeping the judgment in effect. "Interim" and interlocutory are not synonyms.

This would mean that the argument of whether it is interim or not, is irrelevant for purposes of the discussion. I do not however agree that it can be an interim order simply because it has been referred to the Constitutional Court or because this wasn't "the final say". Section 15 of the Supreme Courts Act and the Uniform Rules determine that any finding/judgment of unconstitutionality must be referred to the CC for confirmation. I don't see how that makes this an interim order, and that would mean that every order that falls under section 15 would thus be an interim order.

The interim orders I've seen, also clearly state that it operates as an interim order, pending a certain date/event (like with the 2009 green licence-order).

Judge Tolmay's order simply states licences remain valid until the statutory process of CC confirmation has been complied with (because she declared legislation unconstitutional), not that the order is an interim one or that it will only remain in effect until x, y or z. EDIT: It does say that it remains in force until the act is amended, and thus it is not going to be in force forever, but that still doesn't make it an "interim order", as if the matter will come back to court after x, y or z happens. It is her final judgment on the matter. And obviously the noting of an appeal or application for leave to appeal after a judgment was passed, or the CC referring it back to her on its discretion, (a POSSIBILITY of this not being the final say) doesn't turn such judgment into an interim one.

But like I said, I don't see the relevance of this debate for as long as we agree it's not an interlocutory order.

**Skaaphaas** · 13-07-2017, 15:04

You know what, it could be seen as interlocutory as it is not a final order as the CC still needs to pronounce on it.

But even then, still, S172 of the Constitution applies.

**Gunservant** · 13-07-2017, 15:08

What concerns me is the perceptive lack of discomfort (or prickling of fear) among members of the firearm owning community regarding this matter. The potential consequences appear to be, at worst, completely cataclysmic. Sure, we do not have a final opinion as of yet, but there is a massive fucking dark cloud and not a sliver of silver lining in sight at this point. I would feel better personally if we were a little bit closer to manning our battle stations collevtively.

**Captain Hook** · 13-07-2017, 15:17

Originally Posted by Manservant

What concerns me is the perceptive lack of discomfort (or prickling of fear) among members of the firearm owning community regarding this matter. The potential consequences appear to be, at worst, completely cataclysmic. Sure, we do not have a final opinion as of yet, but there is a massive fucking dark cloud and not a sliver of silver lining in sight at this point. I would feel better personally if we were a little bit closer to manning our battle stations collevtively.

Donations on the way to GOSA. What else do you need?

**Gunservant** · 13-07-2017, 15:25

Originally Posted by Captain Hook

Donations on the way to GOSA. What else do you need?

And those are greatly appreciated!

The converted already understand the seriousness of the situation: I am trying to get it to penetrate through the ether and touch the others on their studio. What do I need? I need an awakening!