CFR's "Own Rules" and non-compliance with the FCA

[Zoo Keeper]

I am merely concurring with a learned friend. :)

[Davidc]

The truth is that there are many DFOs' who want to do their work properly as required of them in terms of the FCA, but they are prevented from doing so by someone in top management. IMHO this obstruction of the DFO by management is a transgression of section 120 (12) as per the OP. It turns out that at least some DFOs' are just as frustrated as the public is about this. Currently one of the biggest issues are that the DFOs' are prevented from capturing applications for licenses due to the fact that the CFR's records are not updated to record the correct entity that has possession of the firearm. This has become known as the "350's issue".

The 350 issue stems from a directive given by Bothma who is no longer there, why not revoke the directive and go back to the system where a 350 is attached to the application and the necessary data is corrected when the application is processed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[shooty]

The 350 issue stems from a directive given by Bothma who is no longer there, why not revoke the directive and go back to the system where a 350 is attached to the application and the necessary data is corrected when the application is processed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe this is intentionally done by CFR in away to make dealers struggle with Sales. As alot of buyers go back to dealers and cancel sale when DFO tells them its on Dept 29 or not on Dealer stock yet from previo0us dealer. So Dealers are sitting with lots of capital in firearms they now struggle to sell.

[MTTSS]

The 350 issue stems from a directive given by Bothma who is no longer there, why not revoke the directive and go back to the system where a 350 is attached to the application and the necessary data is corrected when the application is processed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem started with the failure by the Registrar to introduce the e-connectivity system as it was (and still is) his duty in terms of the FCA. By its own, that is a transgression of the FCA.

Because this system was not introduced, everyone had to use the default position in terms of which the 350's were manually sent to the CFR by the importers and dealers and where it would then be captured manually on the system.

Once again, CFR transgressed the FCA by regularly not capturing the information on the 350's that they receive. In my experience we are now seeing a situation where only about 20% of 350's are being captured when the CFR receives them.

Attaching copies of the 350's to the applications was a measure / unofficial process (that is not provided for in the FCA) that was devised to make it possible for the CFR to update their records at the (late) stage of the license applications (where they have not done so previously as they should have).

The FCA indeed allows for a situation where any person including the SAPS and the DFO can complete the official form "Notification of Incorrect Information" when it comes to their attention that the records of the CFR are not correct. So yes, indeed, the "new" practice that they now follow where an applicant is denied the opportunity to submit his application, because the records of the CFR is not accurate as to in whose possession the firearm is, is once again an example of conduct in obstructing the working of the FCA, which appears to amount to an offence in terms of the FCA.

It is time that the SAPS be held accountable to perform their functions properly in terms of the FCA and to do their work right the first time.

[MTTSS]

I believe this is intentionally done by CFR in away to make dealers struggle with Sales. As a lot of buyers go back to dealers and cancel sale when DFO tells them its on Dept 29 or not on Dealer stock yet from previous dealer. So Dealers are sitting with lots of capital in firearms they now struggle to sell.

It is hard not to think that this is indeed intentional and that it effectively comes down to denying people the exercise of their rights in terms of the law. As such, the conclusion is hard to escape that it is indeed illegal and done with an ulterior motive.

[Davidc]

The problem started with the failure by the Registrar to introduce the e-connectivity system as it was (and still is) his duty in terms of the FCA. By its own, that is a transgression of the FCA.

Because this system was not introduced, everyone had to use the default position in terms of which the 350's were manually sent to the CFR by the importers and dealers and where it would then be captured manually on the system.

Once again, CFR transgressed the FCA by regularly not capturing the information on the 350's that they receive. In my experience we are now seeing a situation where only about 20% of 350's are being captured when the CFR receives them.

Attaching copies of the 350's to the applications was a measure / unofficial process (that is not provided for the FCA) that was devised to make it possible for the CFR to update their records at the (late) stage of the license applications (where they have not done so previously as they should have).

The FCA indeed allows for a situation where any person including the SAPS and the DFO can complete the official form "Notification of Incorrect Information" when it comes to their attention that the records of the CFR are not correct. So yes, indeed, the "new" practice that they now follow where an applicant is denied the opportunity to submit his application, because the records of the CFR is not accurate as to in whose possession the firearm is, is once again an example of conduct in obstructing the working of the FCA, which appears to amount to an offence in terms of the FCA.

It is time that the SAPS be held accountable to perform their functions properly in terms of the FCA and to do their work right the first time.

I agree that it is a work around for a broken CFR system but at least it worked.
The SAPS must be held accountable but even when they get a hiding in court it is back to the old tricks and we plod along.

[MTTSS]

I agree that it is a work around for a broken CFR system but at least it worked.
The SAPS must be held accountable but even when they get a hiding in court it is back to the old tricks and we plod along.

Yes indeed, this is highly frustrating.

The problem is that they clearly have no intention to make their own system work and to abide by the law, so it will take something more than merely falling back on a situation where they capture 350's as part of the licensing process.

This is because they had a free ticket to litigate in civil law matters with taxpayer's money as they pleased even though I don't know of any case out of the more than 100 that they did not lose.

There are currently two initiatives to address this issue. In the one matter that was reported elsewhere on this Forum damages are being claimed against the relevant members of the CFR management, this is in addition to personal costs orders.

In the latest initiative criminal charges have in fact been laid with IPID as was reported on another platform. Personally I am very much delighted about this.

[MSW2]

Yes indeed, this is highly frustrating.

The problem is that they clearly have no intention to make their own system work and to abide by the law, so it will take something more than merely falling back on a situation where they capture 350's as part of the licensing process.

This is because they had a free ticket to litigate in civil law matters with taxpayer's money as they pleased even though I don't know of any case out of the more than 100 that they did not lose.

There are currently two initiatives to address this issue. In the one matter that was reported elsewhere on this Forum damages are being claimed against the relevant members of the CFR management, this is in addition to personal costs orders.

In the latest initiative criminal charges have in fact been laid with IPID as was reported on another platform. Personally I am very much delighted about this.

Can you please supply more details on the charges laid. I missed that somewhere/somehow.

[MTTSS]

Can you please supply more details on the charges laid. I missed that somewhere/somehow.

The specific details have not yet been made public by the person who referred a case to IPID, only the fact that it did happen. I suppose more details will be disclosed when the person deems it appropriate. Be that as it may, I am struggling to contain my excitement that this has eventually happened.

[BBT]

What about the fact that before, we could apply for our competency and licence in one go. Now we have to do it separately