Malema shooting assault rifle into the air.

**SSP** · 02-12-2019, 15:27

Originally Posted by julian

It also states where it is safe to use the firearm and a lawful purpose

Of course, but in the context that is not relevant. The guard could not have given possession to another person, regardless of whether it was safe or for a lawful purpose.

If, however, the firearm in question was licenced to a natural person then it could be relevant as the licence holder could have given possession under supervision but only then for a lawful purpose and where safe to use it.

**KK20** · 02-12-2019, 15:35

Assuming the gun is owned by the company, can the individual be declared unfit to possess?

**julian** · 02-12-2019, 15:39

Originally Posted by SSP

Of course, but in the context that is not relevant. The guard could not have given possession to another person, regardless of whether it was safe or for a lawful purpose.

If, however, the firearm in question was licenced to a natural person then it could be relevant as the licence holder could have given possession under supervision but only then for a lawful purpose and where safe to use it.

That makes perfect sense, but wasn't Snyman involved the owner of the company who I would think is the responsible person for the firearms then the safe and lawful comes in to play. Just trying to understand for my own reasons as I am also responsible for company firearms

**SSP** · 02-12-2019, 17:03

Originally Posted by julian

That makes perfect sense, but wasn't Snyman involved the owner of the company who I would think is the responsible person for the firearms then the safe and lawful comes in to play. Just trying to understand for my own reasons as I am also responsible for company firearms

Ownership of the shares in a company is not the same as being the responsible person, as you know.

In addition, the responsible person cannot avail himself of Section 22. The responsible person is not the licence holder.

**julian** · 02-12-2019, 17:08

Originally Posted by SSP

Ownership of the shares in a company is not the same as being the responsible person, as you know.

In addition, the responsible person cannot avail himself of Section 22. The responsible person is not the licence holder.

Ok thanks now I understand a lot better

Sent from my S60 using Tapatalk

**holdingthezero** · 03-12-2019, 08:14

Originally Posted by SSP

Ownership of the shares in a company is not the same as being the responsible person, as you know.

In addition, the responsible person cannot avail himself of Section 22. The responsible person is not the licence holder.

Apologies if this question is off topic, but how does that differ from a FA training academy's responsible person allowing the instructors and learners to use the companies firearms during the proficiency course?

**SSP** · 03-12-2019, 08:28

Originally Posted by holdingthezero

Apologies if this question is off topic, but how does that differ from a FA training academy's responsible person allowing the instructors and learners to use the companies firearms during the proficiency course?

Section 20(5)(a) allows for the provision of firearms licence for business purposes to other persons subject to prescribed conditions.

Section 20(5)(b) imposes a further condition on security companies - they may only provide a firearm for use by a security guard who holds a competency certificate who is in their service.

**holdingthezero** · 03-12-2019, 08:36

Originally Posted by SSP

Section 20(5)(a) allows for the provision of firearms licence for business purposes to other persons subject to prescribed conditions.

Section 20(5)(b) imposes a further condition on security companies - they may only provide a firearm for use by a security guard who holds a competency certificate who is in their service.

Thank you for clarifying that.

**JhbBoy** · 24-02-2020, 10:30

https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/...alema-43352008

East London - The East London Magistrate’s Court has issued a warrant of arrest for EFF leader Julius Malema for failing to show up in court.
The warrant has been stayed until May 8 when Malema is due to appear in court again.(So what's the point of the warrant?)

Malema is set to appear for a charged brought by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for his alleged discharge of a firearm in a public space. The incident took place in 2018 at the EFF's rally in East London.
Footage of the incident surfaced in social media which appeared to show Malema discharging the firearm at the rally while celebrating with supporters.
The case had been previously postponed.

Malema explained in September last year how police had contacted him regarding the incident.

**shooty** · 24-02-2020, 10:46

Honestly sometimes I think our court system works slow. Or I just dont understand the leeway they give.

He and zumi does not appear for dates they clearly know about.

Then arrest warrants get issued. Instead of punishing them now for their failure. The dates are made for 2 months into the future.

So now they by not attending got it right to postpone their cases by another 2 months with no punishment at all for failure to appear or dare I say showing the middle finger to the court on these days.

Pretty sure a normal person does not get these benefits.