Amendments to the FCA: More gun control coming our way

**janfred** · 07-11-2025, 04:18

If the dedicated orginisations use the funds they get paid by members, it would go a long way. Then to get said organisations to all sing from the same hymn sheet.

**snakker** · 07-11-2025, 05:48

Originally Posted by janfred

If the dedicated orginisations use the funds they get paid by members, it would go a long way. Then to get said organisations to all sing from the same hymn sheet.

Some of these funds could probably go to this but you have to understand that most of that money is going towards paying salaries to their regular staff. This needs to be a separate push (contribution) towards fighting these new proposed amendments .

Sent from my 23090RA98G using Tapatalk

**Branden88** · 07-11-2025, 10:07

Originally Posted by snakker

If someone close to the litigation could just coordinate this and set up a go-fund-me (or some other mechanism) for the contributions.

If 2.5 million firearm owners
If 25% of these contribute only R100 each
Equals R62.5 million

This should go quite a ways to cover cost of litigation?

Sent from my 23090RA98G using Tapatalk

Let me know when the above-mentioned is up and running, I'll happily contribute R100-00 as you say, but I won't hold my breath for this...

**oafpatroll** · 07-11-2025, 10:33

Originally Posted by snakker

If someone close to the litigation could just coordinate this and set up a go-fund-me (or some other mechanism) for the contributions.

If 2.5 million firearm owners
If 25% of these contribute only R100 each
Equals R62.5 million

This should go quite a ways to cover cost of litigation?

Sent from my 23090RA98G using Tapatalk

Getting 1 in 100 000 licensed firearms owners to write in to a publication to challenge a GFSA puff piece is all but impossible so getting them to go to the enormous effort of tossing a buffalo in the pot is unlikely.

**Branden88** · 07-11-2025, 10:45

https://www.fpc.org.za/let-us-talk-a...&sfnsn=scwspwa

The video being referenced:

**Zuku** · 07-11-2025, 11:21

Originally Posted by oafpatroll

Getting 1 in 100 000 licensed firearms owners to write in to a publication to challenge a GFSA puff piece is all but impossible so getting them to go to the enormous effort of tossing a buffalo in the pot is unlikely.

Agree, when mouthing needs to change to action you have fewer than few left who's willing to do it.

What works well if there is link to an already drafted response which only need your contact details, you can get a little more people to respond.

**Branden88** · 07-11-2025, 19:17

Long story short, I've created a thread on mybroadband forum, regarding this, for more exposure, information, education, outreach etc..
Feel free to browse, or if you wish to dip your toes in that forum, do register and comment if you wish.

Link to forum thread:
https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thre...#post-34103459

**Branden88** · 08-11-2025, 13:29

MESSAGE FROM Martin Hood. TIME TO DIG DEEP AGAIN AND OPPOSE

Afternoon All

So a new draft of a FCA amendment bill has surfaced , four years after the last one.

It is still a policy document for the eventual eradication of private firearms ownership and is simply riddled with technical errors and policy driven drivel.

There are some positives.

Firstly , it has changed substantially from the previous draft [ not positively , just changed ] so this means we were at least listened to in some respects.

Secondly , it proposes that all competency certificates are valid for 5 years thus disposing of the nonsensical definition and linking of the validity of competency certificates to a license period.

As for the rest , it makes me believe even more fervently that some people in government live in a parallel universe out of touch with my reality.

We have an obviously thoroughly corrupt and criminal police force at the highest level with near zero service delivery . The head of saps ballistics testified at the Madlanga commission of a three year backlog in ballistic testing , and having 41000 firearms on hand to test with chronic personnel shortages.

Many of us know that ballistic testing is not science , has limited use in crime prevention and detection and does not result in convictions without external corroborating evidence.

BUT some drafter of the proposals wants compulsory ballistic testing of all firearms , not once but whenever it is sold or transferred . There are radical restrictions on self defense as a reason to possess a firearm in the immediate context of the public meltdown of our police service.

Many of the proposals limit access by the security industry to firearms , yet saps cannot tell me how many firearms have been stolen from security companies, how many times a security company firearm has been used in a crime and how many security officers have been convicted of using a security company firearm in a criminal offence.

Without basic data such as the above , you cannot propose such restrictions when you cannot identify the problem and justify it.

Such proposals to limit security industry use of firearms is akin to compulsory male castration: you have the tools and may use them to rape so let's stop you doing so by making you incapable of doing so.

Dedicated persons will be limited to a total of six firearms . To me this means three for hunting and three for sportshooting. No way. Period. No access to firearms by anyone under 16: there goes all our junior shooting. You may not transport more than five firearms together. My son and I use more than three each on a hunting or sportshooting trip. I know , lets burn more fossil fuels and increase congestion on our roads by making people travel individually to a hunt or shooting range.

And so the proposals go on.

Folks it's time to dig deep again and oppose these frankly stupid and ill considered proposals .

Martin Hood