Firearm amnesty in December

[Davidc]

[QUOTE=GK21;1342450]

All amnesties in the past had this provision, it’s not specific to expired licenses and there is no guarantee it will be successful.”

That may be so but my point was that you could apply to relicence a firearm in respect of which the licence has expired since section 139(4) specifically allow for this.

As for no guarantee of a successful application, there have never been guarantees for any application i.t.o the FCA

At least under normal circumstances if the application is unsuccessful you could appeal, re apply or sell the FA and whilst all this is on going the FA is relative safe. With the SAP 13 store I’m not so sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GK21]

[QUOTE=Davidc;1342453]

At least under normal circumstances if the application is unsuccessful you could appeal, re apply or sell the FA and whilst all this is on going the FA is relative safe. With the SAP 13 store I’m not so sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree its not ideal. But I’m not sure this exchange answered my original question - see above in the thread.

[Davidc]

[QUOTE=GK21;1342455]

I agree its not ideal. But I’m not sure this exchange answered my original question - see above in the thread.

The main difference is licensing vs re-licensing. I always understood this clause to allow for example a application for a FA from a deceased estate where the paperwork may have gotten lost to be legally licensed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GK21]

[QUOTE=Davidc;1342457]

The main difference is licensing vs re-licensing. I always understood this clause to allow for example a application for a FA from a deceased estate where the paperwork may have gotten lost to be legally licensed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why read in a limitation that is not there?

[Davidc]

I’m not reading anything into this, merely stating that there has always been a provision for licensing of unlicensed (emphasis on unlicensed) firearms under previous amnesties. As far as I understand it expired licenses are protected under the interim order and this amnesty may just be a underhanded way of our government to circumvent the interim order?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GK21]

I’m not reading anything into this, merely stating that there has always been a provision for licensing of unlicensed (emphasis on unlicensed) firearms under previous amnesties. As far as I understand it expired licenses are protected under the interim order and this amnesty may just be a underhanded way of our government to circumvent the interim order?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not sure I follow the logic. The interim order is merely interim pending a final decision as to whether green cards are still valid at all.

If SAPS is offering those with expired licences a way to regularise their position by applying for a new licence, I fail to see the problem with the amnesty.

I’m not saying that there is nothing underhanded by CFR, I’m just failing to understand the “plot” by declaring an amnesty which is allowed by the FCA?

Perhaps someone who understands the “conspiracy” behind the amnesty can explain it to me.

[GK21]

PS Section 139 relating to amnesty refers to “illegally possessed firearms” which includes expired license firearms. Section 139 has never distinguished between unlicensed and expired license firearms. They are both illegally possessed firearms.

[Davidc]

I’m not sure I follow the logic. The interim order is merely interim pending a final decision as to whether green cards are still valid at all.

If SAPS is offering those with expired licences a way to regularise their position by applying for a new licence, I fail to see the problem with the amnesty.

I’m not saying that there is nothing underhanded by CFR, I’m just failing to understand the “plot” by declaring an amnesty which is allowed by the FCA?

Perhaps someone who understands the “conspiracy” behind the amnesty can explain it to me.

Ok I see where the confusion is. The interim order has nothing to do with the green licenses. It protects owners of firearms with expired licenses. This is partly due to SAPS refusing to accept late renewals even though the FCA allows for this as well as SAPS deliberately sabotaging the system to not accept late renewals.

Now the amnesty is a work around the interim order by government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Davidc]

PS Section 139 relating to amnesty refers to “illegally possessed firearms” which includes expired license firearms. Section 139 has never distinguished between unlicensed and expired license firearms. They are both illegally possessed firearms.

And yet the SAPS issued a directive after the interim order to stop accepting firearms into SAPS 13 stores and even return ones to the owners that have already handed in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GK21]

Ok I see where the confusion is. The interim order has nothing to do with the green licenses. It protects owners of firearms with expired licenses. This is partly due to SAPS refusing to accept late renewals even though the FCA allows for this as well as SAPS deliberately sabotaging the system to not accept late renewals.

Now the amnesty is a work around the interim order by government.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry I thought you were referring to the first interim order relating to green licenses, not the GOSA interim order. Sorry for the confusion.

Yet (in theory) I still don’t see how the amnesty undermines the GOSA interim order, SAPS stupid directives aside i.e. practical issues aside.