spouses with matching calibre SD FAs "sharing"

**Zeekus** · 27-05-2018, 20:13

Hello all,

A spin on the ol' spouses sharing FAs topic that I don't believe has been covered yet, though I do stand to be corrected.

Hypothetical situation as follows: husband and wife each have their own legal SD FA in matching caliber, aaaah ka-yoot..

1. May they share a single safe or are they required to each have their own safe for storage that only they can access separately?
2. Are they able to interchange what they carry, based on fitness-for-purpose, i.e.: husband wants to occasionally carry wife's smaller subcompact, with her permission, but without her being present, when it would be more suitable?
3. What are the limits of "presence" in pt. 2 above? Or put another way, where does direct control end? For example, if only one carries when they go out together but they separate at some point (wife in one shop, husband in another or more likely, waiting patiently on the benches outside like the well trained stud he is, etc etc)?

I look forward to your responses.

Cheers.

**Gbyleveldt** · 27-05-2018, 20:21

1. Interesting question. I’d say yes they can share. This could be a grey area though.
2. Nope, not legal unless they have shared license per firearm
3. Under direct supervision. It could be argued that FA owner should have direct visual supervision of FA.

**Bowhunter** · 27-05-2018, 20:35

Originally Posted by Gbyleveldt

1. Interesting question. I’d say yes they can share. This could be a grey area though.
2. Nope, not legal unless they have shared license per firearm
3. Under direct supervision. It could be argued that FA owner should have direct visual supervision of FA.

1. No grey area. Read the FCA. Unless they both have shared licenses for both FA's, each has to have their own safe.

**GORBY** · 27-05-2018, 21:05

Hello Zeekus.

1. May they share a single safe or are they required to each have their own safe for storage that only they can access separately?
Each must have own safe.
FCA 60/2000 Sec 120(8):
(8) A person is guilty of an offence if he or she-
(a) fails to lock away his or her firearm or a firearm in his or her possession in a prescribed safe, strong-room or device for the safe-keeping when such firearm is not carried on his or her person or is not under his or her direct control; or
(b) loses a firearm, or is otherwise disposessed of a firearm owing to that person's failure to-
(i) lock the firearm away in a prescribed safe, strong-room or device for the safekeeping of a firearm;
(ii) take reasonable steps to prevent the loss or theft of the firearm while the firearm was on his or her person or under his or her direct control; or
(iii) keep the keys to such safe, strong-room or device in safe custody.

2. Are they able to interchange what they carry, based on fitness-for-purpose, i.e.: husband wants to occasionally carry wife's smaller subcompact, with her permission, but without her being present, when it would be more suitable?
You may only use your spouse's weapon under direct supervision.
FCA 60/2000 Sec 22:
Despite anything to the contrary in this Act but subject to section 120 (5), any person who is at least 21 years of age and the holder of a licence to possess a firearm issued in terms of this Act may allow any other person to use that firearm while under his or her immediate supervision where it is safe to use the firearm and for a lawful purpose.

3. What are the limits of "presence" in pt. 2 above? Or put another way, where does direct control end? For example, if only one carries when they go out together but they separate at some point (wife in one shop, husband in another or more likely, waiting patiently on the benches outside like the well trained stud he is, etc etc)?
Here you are asking for interpretation, and the answers will depend on the curcumstances and too many other factors to roll the dice on. If, for example you waiting on benches, gets reported as a suspicious character and SAPS approaches you and asks about firearm [Sections 107 & 108] you will not technically be in illegal possession of the firearm. When your wife joins you and explains the situation and produces her licence, hopefully the SAPS will accept it as such (although she technically did not comply with Sec 120). The dice can however roll many different ways on this one and me personally would not take this bet.

Above is not legal opinions and I am not a legal professional. I just learned the stuff when I did my competency.

Personal opinion is that your firearm is not an accessory, but a tool. Get the right tool that will suit you in most curcumstances, or get some extra tools (as it was stated elsewhere on the forum, a FA is not comfortable, but comforting). Learn to shoot your own FA well and feel comfortable with it, and the same for your wife and her own firearm.

Kudos for both of you being armed and taking responsibility.

**Zeekus** · 27-05-2018, 21:26

@GORBY: I enjoyed how in your extension of my hypothetical mall scenario you assumed I was the one carrying, also that I was flagged as dodgy rather than being pressed into some form of heroic intervention. I suspect you must have met me before but not my wife. Points well made though.

**Zeekus** · 27-05-2018, 21:32

To Bowhunter's point: I wonder what the chances of getting 2x shared licenses for 2x FAs in the same household is? The flexibility it would allow would be quite useful. I imagine it would be trickier in the SD category than in the occasional hunting category, though this might just be a reflection of my negative conditioning about the whole licensing process.

**Ωhm** · 28-05-2018, 01:51

Originally Posted by Zeekus

To Bowhunter's point: I wonder what the chances of getting 2x shared licenses for 2x FAs in the same household is?

Chances are higher than getting off on charges of possessing a firearm that is not licensed to you.

Originally Posted by Zeekus

The flexibility it would allow would be quite useful. I imagine it would be trickier in the SD category than in the occasional hunting category, though this might just be a reflection of my negative conditioning about the whole licensing process.

This is why we need to get rid of the silly license categories and limitations on number of firearms, it creates more problems than it solves (if any).

**Gbyleveldt** · 28-05-2018, 06:32

Originally Posted by Bowhunter

1. No grey area. Read the FCA. Unless they both have shared licenses for both FA's, each has to have their own safe.

Thats why I mentioned it’s an interesting question. I’m aware of what the FCA states and thank Gorby for quoting it above. Reading the last sentence, the FCA states that keys should be kept in safe custody, but doesn’t state in who’s custody it should be kept. That’s why I said it can be a grey area. If it stated that keys should be kept in sole custody, that would be less grey don’t you think? Granted, it come down to whom interprets it and could be interpreted as the spirit in which it’s intended, but if said safe has two keys and both custodians of those keys are legally licensed FA owners it’s not expressly forbidden based on the quoted FCA section? Surely that’s also safe custody, or can be interpreted as such? Obviously, I cannot handle an FA that I don’t have a license for, unless under direct supervision of licensed owner of FA.

Im no legal expert but it looks grey to me. Anyway, not arguing for the sake of arguing but it’s still an interesting question, as in practice I’m sure many couples do share a safe in such circumstances. I’d also like a definitive answer to the question.

**Toxxyc** · 28-05-2018, 07:31

To answer the OP: Both questions are illegal. Don't do it. Point 3 - The law states "direct supervision". To me that means she can't leave your sight or presence.

**Cockroach** · 29-05-2018, 08:46

Originally Posted by Gbyleveldt

Thats why I mentioned it’s an interesting question. I’m aware of what the FCA states and thank Gorby for quoting it above. Reading the last sentence, the FCA states that keys should be kept in safe custody, but doesn’t state in who’s custody it should be kept. That’s why I said it can be a grey area. If it stated that keys should be kept in sole custody, that would be less grey don’t you think? Granted, it come down to whom interprets it and could be interpreted as the spirit in which it’s intended, but if said safe has two keys and both custodians of those keys are legally licensed FA owners it’s not expressly forbidden based on the quoted FCA section? Surely that’s also safe custody, or can be interpreted as such? Obviously, I cannot handle an FA that I don’t have a license for, unless under direct supervision of licensed owner of FA.

Im no legal expert but it looks grey to me. Anyway, not arguing for the sake of arguing but it’s still an interesting question, as in practice I’m sure many couples do share a safe in such circumstances. I’d also like a definitive answer to the question.

It is not grey. Read regulation 86