Media statement by JASA

[FrankH]

Gunsite will by tomorrow donate ( with the help of one of our members ) R5000.00

Gunsite will by tomorrow donate ( with the help of two of our members ) R6000.00

[Paul]

Gunsite will by tomorrow donate ( with the help of one of our members ) R5000.00

Good show!

[FrankH]

Gunsite will by tomorrow donate ( with the help of two of our members ) R6000.00

Done.

[jackw]

JASA appeal -See statement below:

JASA Media Release Justice Alliance of South Africa 069-600-NPO SARS PBO 930 034 981 1 Ruskin Road, Bergvliet, Cape Town 7945 Tel: 021-713-3259 Fax: 0866 727474 office@justicealliance.co.zawww.justicealliance.co.za

Embargo: None Enquiries:John Smyth QC
20November 2012 083 653 8804

SUPREMECOURT OF APPEAL TO HEAR JASA’S CASE RELATING TO THE ISSUE OF COMPENSATION FORSURRENDERED FIREARMS ON THURSDAY 22 NOVEMBER 2012 AT 10 am IN BLOEMFONTEIN

Tensof thousands of citizens are affected and millions of rands worth ofcompensation are at stake in this matter which JASA has been pursuing throughthe courts for over 4 years on behalf of those who have voluntarily surrenderedtheir firearms to the Police.


Background:

In2008 JASA filed papers in the Cape HighCourt seeking declarations that the refusal to pay compensation to persons whosurrender firearms as required by the Firearms Control Act, 2000 offendsagainst the Constitution.

Forover 5 years since the relevant legislation came into force the Minister andNational Police Commissioner (Registrar of Firearms) have refused to complywith section 137 of the Act. JASA alleged in its affidavit that the State acts ‘unreasonably and arbitrarily, andwithout procedural fairness, in that most applications are rejected out ofhand, ignored or simply filed away’, contrary to section 33 of the Constitutionwhich requires just administrative action for all persons.

Bothindividuals and dealers have suffered financial hardship; in one of severalsupporting affidavits filed in court it is alleged by one dealer that shesuffered a loss of over R.2m as a result of refusal by all three Respondents toassist her after she had surrendered her stock of firearms. In anotheraffidavit a lady of over 70 years of age tells of how she was treated withdisdain and discourtesy, and repeatedly told she was not entitled tocompensation, when she surrendered one firearm at her local police station.

JASAlays the blame for this state of affairssquarely on the shoulders of the Minister (at the time Minister Nqakula) and SAPS Commissioner ( Jackie Selebi) who, on 8 June 2005 and 12October 2005 respectively, stated in Parliament, in defiance of the Act, that no compensation would be payable tothose surrendering firearms.

Webelieve Parliament intended that s.137of the Act should encourage the surrender of firearms, a aim which JASA whollysupports in our crime-ridden society.

Thematter came to court on August 31 2009. After 9 years of delay since theFirearms Control Act 2000 was passed, the deputy Judge President took barely 15minutes to hand down a draconian order against the Minister of Policecondemning the action of his predecessor as “unlawful and inconsistent with theConstitution.” Deputy Judge President Traverso peremptorily dismissed anapplication for a postponement by the State, and directed the Minister toprovide guidelines as required by the Act within 90 days, and then report backpersonally to the court by affidvait. The State were ordered to pay JASA’scosts (advocates and attorney) of the whole action including the costs of 2counsel. Peter Hodes SC and Anton Katz represented JASA and False Bay Gun Club.The State was represented by Kosie Olivier,SC.

TheCourt ORDER read as follows:

1.It is declared that the failure to establish guidelines as contemplatedby
section137(5) of the Firearms Control Act No 60 of 2000 ("the Firearms
Control Act") is unlawful andinconsistent with the Constitution;
2.The Minister of Police is ordered to establish guidelines ascontemplated
by section 137(5) of the Firearms Control Act within 90 days of this order
and to inform this Court by way of an affidavit by the Minister within120
days of this order that he has done so; and
3.The Ministerof Police is to pay the Applicants' costs of suit, which costs
are toinclude the costs attendant upon the employment of two counsel.

Subsequently on November 5 2010, Mr Justice Saldanha ruled that gunssurrendered voluntarily and then destroyed by the State do not attractcompensation. This ruling perpetrated a huge injustice on those who wereencouraged to hand in their guns and presented with a form to apply forcompensation.
TheAppeal to the SCA is against this ruling. Peter Hodes,SC and Adv David Simonsz will represent JASA inthe SCA on Thursday.
Forfurther information see: www.justicealliance.co.za

JASA

UpholdingJustice in the public square

Kind regards,

The Team
Justice Alliance of South Africa(JASA)
1 Ruskin Road, Bergvliet
Cape Town, 7945

Tel +27 21 713 3259
Fax +27 866727474
Mobile 083 653 8804

office@justicealliance.co.za
www.justicealliance.co.za

[Skaaphaas]

Thanks for the update.

[JS4]

Break a leg!

[Martin Hedington]

Firearm compensation appeal heard.

http://www.iol.co.za/news/south-afri...0#.UK9JL-RlKW0

Bloemfontein - Putting into law a system dealing with compensation for firearms surrendered implies that such compensation should be fully paid, the Supreme Court of Appeal heard on Thursday.

“Clearly these provisions were not set up for exceptional aspects, but for large numbers that would apply for compensation,” said Peter Hordes, counsel for Justice Alliance of SA (Jasa). The SCA heard an appeal by Jasa on aspects of market value compensation for firearms surrendered to police. The appeal relates to 2009, when the Western Cape High Court gave the minister for safety and security 90 days to establish guidelines for the payment of compensation.

At issue are firearms voluntary surrendered to the State in circumstances as contemplated in section 137(5) of the Firearms Control Act (FCA). Hordes (sic) submitted the purpose of the FCA by the legislature was to get people to have fewer firearms. He said the act also indicated how the state should dispose of excess firearms in cases of forfeitures, seizures and voluntary surrenders.

Hordes submitted Section 137 of the act made it clear that firearm owners who surrendered firearms to the state voluntarily under this provision would be compensated.

It even prescribed the procedures for claiming.

Andrew Breitenbach, for the Minister of Police, submitted the compensation aspect in the act only arose in the instance of a firearm of “special value”.

The Central Firearms Registry (CFR) would receive a firearm by voluntary surrender, or a consignment of firearms, and decide it would have a “special value” to the state. Then the issue of compensation arose. Breitenbach submitted someone who handed an unwanted firearm in was not entitled to compensation, except if the state could get value from it. Referring to the guidelines, Breitenbach submitted it should be treated only as guidelines.

He said the basis amounts for possible compensation, set out in the guidelines, were there to reach a goal of getting firearms out of the public domain. He said market value was irrelevant to this aim and was not the overriding criteria of the guidelines. Earlier, Jasa contended that the guidelines were a refusal to pay compensation, not a guideline to pay compensation. After the hearing, Jasa director John Smyth said the case was important to thousands of citizens in South Africa.

“Thousands of people who surrendered their firearms between 2005 and 2009 had been led to believe by police, because they filled in a form, that they would receive compensation.” - Sapa

[curious george]

http://afrikaans.news24.com/Suid-Afr...naars-20121204

Where to from here?

[Paul]

http://afrikaans.news24.com/Suid-Afr...naars-20121204

Where to from here?

Quite frankly... JASA choked.

They failed to grasp the Constitutional nettle which was dangling in front of them. Very sad.

This case is done and dusted. Best we pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and take on the next challenge.

[JS4]

Motherfarkers!

How the hell can it be seen as voluntary surrender with the law requiring surrender and all the threats about arrest and criminal records!?

Let this stand as an eternal lesson: even the courts see abiding of the law as acceptance of and agreement with said law.

Remember this lesson when the pressure to purchase an e-tag mounts, and if (or when, as they may now be emboldened) they come for those remaining green licenses...

>:o/