Confrontational politics. What have they got to lose? Who must compromise?
Printable View
In any event, she needs to do the competency, if she will be getting a license (or dual license).
As things now stand, you will in any event have to get yourself another safe for the .45, cause if she is not also a dual licensee on that firearm, she "should not have access thereto".
What we (?) are saying, is: Why should the law force you to pass your desire to own another firearm, that you want to use for self defense, off as a desire to participate in a particular level of sport shooting, when all you really want to do, is own another firearm for self defense?
I understand, but why should the law force you to limit a handgun to either self defense or sport shooting? I can understand if they frown upon a 30-06 being used a self defense weapon but a handgun is a handgun and you should be able to use it for sport shooting and Self defense regardless.
What I'm trying to say is that I should be able to use all three my Handguns for either sport shooting or self defense and they should only be licensed as a handgun, not S13 S15 or S16.
Yes, and then you get the different requirements of those sections as well, that need to be satisfied before you will get a license.
Currently, you need to prove a "need" for section 13, as per the letter of the law. And then a practice has developed whereby some DFO's at least (ultra vires and illegally) refuse to accept applications in terms of section 13, if it is not accompanied by crime stats, for instance.
We cannot exclude the possibility that we may work ourselves into a position, where we can actually improve at least certain parts of the FCA, whilst they have stirred the issue up in any event, with their proposed amendments.
The "benefit" of the different categories of license holders comes in where you argue the case of the different categories of owners, and where you organize them.
It's more than convenient to have the dedicated sport shooters organized under section 16. It helps when you advance their case to the SAPS, government, and the broader public. Then you are not confusing the issues.
It is also convenient when you argue the case of the self defense owners, that still by far form the overwhelming majority of firearms owners out there.
The same principles apply for the collectors, hunters, and business purposes (security for instance).
That camping off has served us well in our efforts, but to the point where we need the NFA to speak collectively on behalf of all those organizations / factions.
Some of us may also argue that we don't want to be forced to be using our sports guns for self defense, because those sports guns take a hammering with the amounts of rounds they see through, we want something dedicated for self defense, that will be less likely to break due to the hammering otherwise received.
So we won't mind being "forced" to get a similar Glock 34 for self defense, whilst we have one for sport shooting already, and vice versa.
My point of view.
If you are proven competent to own a firearm, and have the required secure storage, then there should be NO limits on how many you may own. I also believe having specific sections is bollocks, because you should be allowed to use ANY of your firearms for SD. There should be NO specific section just for that use case, with it's own specific laws. I have no problem with the registering of said firearms.
Hi Guys,
Has anything changed with regards to this post since 2015, has anyone here experienced a different scenario when stopped by SAPS whilst carrying your Sect 16 Handgun ?
This was a very informative topic
https://www.facebook.com/groups/guno...60479494265087
The PDF (can't upload here) on the GOSA FB Group is the latest Directive from SAPS Legal telling SAPS officers to leave you the hell alone no matter what licence you have.
https://www.gunsite.co.za/forums/ima...AASUVORK5CYII=
Thanks for the link , I will download the pdf file now to my cell and print a copy or 3