SAPS 350 woes

**Paul** · 12-06-2019, 11:00

Originally Posted by Ridwaan87

Why are dealers stocking firearms that cannot be licensed by buyers? Sell guns that are ready to be licensed.

Really?

You've managed to ignore the entire hullabaloo over this over the last few years and NOW you see fit to throw the dealers under the bus?

Some people shouldn't own guns, maybe...

**Koebelwagen** · 12-06-2019, 11:19

Originally Posted by Paul

Really?

You've managed to ignore the entire hullabaloo over this over the last few years and NOW you see fit to throw the dealers under the bus?

Some people shouldn't own guns, maybe...

Just a question for people/ dealers like you who are in the know.

Whilst I can understand the dealer's point of view in pointing out they are not to blame for the lack of action from CFR, the simple truth of the matter is the client who buys the firearm, does so from the dealer, not the CFR. He/ she expects to be able to apply for a license for their new property as soon as possible and like it or not, right or not, the dealer will almost always be held responsible by the customer for delays suffered.

My question then becomes, what is the remedy for this situation? Have dealers got a medium to long term plan to force the CFR to do their work in a timely fashion? Is it going to require yet another lengthy and expensive court battle? Is there something the clients need to do/ understand in order to get their applications moving?

These are genuine concerns for people, like me, who want to continue purchasing firearms but don't want to wait for months before even being able to start the licensing process which in itself is once again an onerous and lengthy affair.

**Toxxyc** · 12-06-2019, 11:25

Koebel I had the same argument. First thing that popped into my mind was "I didn't pay for this shit" and "they should give me one that I can licence - NOW". Then I thought about it, read this thread twice and imagined myself on the receiving end of it. It's just not fair. Yes, CPA will probably cover my ass and I can demand a replacement that suits my needs, but what would that make me? Just another selfish guy who doesn't really think about the greater problem here. So I won't make it more of a problem than it already is.

**Cockroach** · 12-06-2019, 11:55

Originally Posted by Koebelwagen

My question then becomes, what is the remedy for this situation? Have dealers got a medium to long term plan to force the CFR to do their work in a timely fashion? Is it going to require yet another lengthy and expensive court battle? Is there something the clients need to do/ understand in order to get their applications moving?

There is already a court date set for the SAAADA case, 05 August I think it is

**Elmar Burger** · 12-06-2019, 12:01

Originally Posted by Toxxyc

Koebel I had the same argument. First thing that popped into my mind was "I didn't pay for this shit" and "they should give me one that I can licence - NOW". Then I thought about it, read this thread twice and imagined myself on the receiving end of it. It's just not fair. Yes, CPA will probably cover my ass and I can demand a replacement that suits my needs, but what would that make me? Just another selfish guy who doesn't really think about the greater problem here. So I won't make it more of a problem than it already is.

This is the mentality that we need. If they split gun owners (soon to be) and gun dealers then there is no longer a united front. Waiting for a gun is a lot less stressful than having a business (gunshop) that is struggling to pay the rent.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Paul** · 12-06-2019, 12:13

Originally Posted by Toxxyc

Koebel I had the same argument. First thing that popped into my mind was "I didn't pay for this shit" and "they should give me one that I can licence - NOW". Then I thought about it, read this thread twice and imagined myself on the receiving end of it. It's just not fair. Yes, CPA will probably cover my ass and I can demand a replacement that suits my needs, but what would that make me? Just another selfish guy who doesn't really think about the greater problem here. So I won't make it more of a problem than it already is.

Whilst your position is laudable and thank you for that, it is also not quite true.

There is a basic misunderstanding involved. The guns ARE on dealer stock the moment the dealers take delivery. The moment the dealer submits his 350 (which marries with the 350 that the supplier has also sent into CFR) the dealer is out of the mix. Capturing the 350 onto the EFMS (Enhanced Firearms management System... the Register at CFR) is an ADMIN function. There is no approval required from SAPS/CFR, or decision-making at all on their part. In fact, that's not even how it is supposed to work.

Per the Act the SAPS should have established 'electronic connectivity' so that each dealer could update the EFMS with the novements of all firearms and ammunition themselves. But SAPS has been ignoring the Act ever since the Act was assented to by Parliament. This is also part of the ask by the Dealers Association in their court case. To force SAPS to obey the Act and implement the electronic connectivity.

And there's more!

Sometimes guns can be on the correct dealer code this morning, and be moved to another dealer's code or back to the import permit (Government Dept 29) by the afternoon.

**Toxxyc** · 12-06-2019, 12:19

Originally Posted by Paul

Whilst your position is laudable and thank you for that, it is also not quite true.

There is a basic misunderstanding involved. The guns ARE on dealer stock the moment the dealers take delivery. The moment the dealer submits his 350 (which marries with the 350 that the supplier has also sent into CFR) the dealer is out of the mix. Capturing the 350 onto the EFMS (Enhanced Firearms management System... the Register at CFR) is an ADMIN function. There is no approval required from SAPS/CFR, or decision-making at all on their part. In fact, that's not even how it is supposed to work.

Per the Act the SAPS should have established 'electronic connectivity' so that each dealer could update the EFMS with the novements of all firearms and ammunition themselves. But SAPS has been ignoring the Act ever since the Act was assented to by Parliament. This is also part of the ask by the Dealers Association in their court case. To force SAPS to obey the Act and implement the electronic connectivity.

And there's more!

Sometimes guns can be on the correct dealer code this morning, and be moved to another dealer's code or back to the import permit (Government Dept 29) by the afternoon.

Correct. What I mean with "not on dealer stock" is actually "not reflecting as it is at CFR".

This brings up another question - What's the legal implications of Gunshop A being in possession of firearms on Importer A's name? I mean if SAPS where to decide "hey, I want to confiscate that gun", where the hell do they go looking?

**Elmar Burger** · 12-06-2019, 12:20

Originally Posted by Paul

And there's more!

Sometimes guns can be on the correct dealer code this morning, and be moved to another dealer's code or back to the import permit (Government Dept 29) by the afternoon.

This is the crazy part of the decent into darkness. The system does not only move in jerky and incomprehensible ways forward but sometimes moves actively backwards.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Skaaphaas** · 12-06-2019, 12:21

It’s nothing other than deliberate sabotage by CFR.

The saying that you shouldn’t ascribe to malice that which can be adequately ascribed to incompetence does not apply here, the stuff that’s being done (like Paul says, moving it BACK to the import permit after it has been captured as dealer stock) is intentional. Stupidity simply does not cover such acts.

**Skaaphaas** · 12-06-2019, 12:23

I miss the days when Nortier still worked for CFR. Something was right back then, I got the idea there was a will amongst CFR staff to make things better.