GOSA Interdict??

**GK21** · 09-11-2018, 15:28

Originally Posted by DirkB

Does that mean that they are actually supposed to accept renewals but have not been doing so and that the court found it unlawful but haven't ordered the CFR to accept renewals, just recognized that it is indeed unlawful?

Sent from my BV8000Pro using Tapatalk

All the court found was that it is arguable in the main (as yet unheard case), that SAPS has to accept applications for late renewals and so until then, they cannot force people to hand in their firearms. That’s it.

He made no final pronouncements on unlawfulness or anything else.

BTW he did mark the judgment on the interim order reportable. But it remains an interim order. Only when the main case is heard will we know whether SAPS has to accept late renewals and consider them.

**DirkB** · 09-11-2018, 16:21

Now that clears it up nicely, thank you Paul and GK21!

Sent from my BV8000Pro using Tapatalk

**Electrix** · 09-11-2018, 18:26

Has GOSA ever responded to the Gunsure thing going south? I was stupid enough to take out the “insurance” at that time and only realized it was nonsense later. Some weird and wonderful assertions were also made about what Gunsure/Gosa would cover, but then people on Gunsite started pointing out that the policy wording was totally different. Looks like they don’t bother to read properly...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**curious george** · 11-11-2018, 21:55

Someone way more clever than me suggested that the naysayers should go re-read p19 - 21.

**Paul** · 12-11-2018, 07:08

Originally Posted by Electrix

Has GOSA ever responded to the Gunsure thing going south? I was stupid enough to take out the “insurance” at that time and only realized it was nonsense later. Some weird and wonderful assertions were also made about what Gunsure/Gosa would cover, but then people on Gunsite started pointing out that the policy wording was totally different. Looks like they don’t bother to read properly...

The insurance underwriting company jerked us around endlessly and eventually GOSA carried our own cover for EVERY SINGLE CLAIM that was made during the period. IOW, GOSA made good. Nobody was inconvenienced and nobody got anything less than what they paid for.

At the end of the year we reorganised the membership and took on the form we have now whereby we contract attorneys to provide services at seriously reduced rates to our members.

Electrix, if you'd like to discuss this with me you can reach me on paul@gunownerssa.org.

All of this was reported on Gunsite and on the GOSA Facebook group at the time. From this year we have been sending out direct emails to all our members when we have something significant to report.

**Paul** · 12-11-2018, 07:11

Originally Posted by GK21

All the court found was that it is arguable in the main (as yet unheard case), that SAPS has to accept applications for late renewals and so until then, they cannot force people to hand in their firearms. That’s it.

Thank you for that GK21.

I have always understood prima facie (Prinsloo J found that our evidence showed a prima facie case that late renewals on good cause shown were intentionally part of the Act) to mean that 'it is obvious'... In other words, it stands until the opposite is proven.

Remember I'm just a lay person. Not a legal beagle.

**Electrix** · 12-11-2018, 07:42

Appreciate, Thanks Paul. I’m good.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**ARM505** · 12-11-2018, 07:43

I'm all for any organisation that advances the cause of private firearm ownership in the public, political and legal spaces. Opinions may vary, but the overall objective remains valid and worthwhile. Thank you GOSA.

**Katlagter** · 12-11-2018, 09:39

I have in the past been dismayed by how often disagreements between members and organisations in the firearms community turned into acrimonious conflict. I appreciate the fact that in this case there seems to be civil debate and interaction between most of the parties to the issue. As a member of GOSA and a founder and current member of SAGA, as well as having close links with SA Hunters, I applaud Paul's attitude of not throwing other organisations under the bus, despite differences. The fact is that in politically fluid environments the optimum strategy will not always be clear and mistakes may be made. Having said that, I trust that in future there will be greater cooperation and consultation between the different organisations involved in pro-firearms lobbying.