License refusal on specious / fallacious reasons - apply again or appeal?

**MTTSS** · 27-09-2015, 10:16

So we have seen, and we have heard, of applications for firearms licenses being refused based on these irrational reasons, including that "you have a rifle that you can use", when you have a FAL, and you have applied for a Type 56 (lighter rifle, minor caliber - different category and class all together, etc.), for example.

There are even better examples out there.

The question is asked over and over again on this forum: Re-apply or appeal?

Perhaps it is time that we reconsider this, in particular in the context of the current spate of refusals coming through with similar reasons being put forward for the refusal.

My suggestion is not to hesitate to appeal, if your motivation was sound, in fact, and in law. If, on the other hand, your motivation was poor in fact and in law, then you may very well have no choice, but to submit a new application.

**Pirate** · 27-09-2015, 10:23

If we DON'T appeal, there's no record of these fallacious refusals. But I agree as well, if the motivation was deficient in the first place, just re-applying is probably the best course of action.

:- P

**Plinker** · 27-09-2015, 10:49

If your motivation is/was sound, is there not a stronger legal course of action that can be taken??!!
I had a refusal for my MSR app end of last year, appealed & the same ridiculous reason was actually upheld!
I currently have another application processing right now as a result.

**AshleyR** · 27-09-2015, 11:03

Can't appeal without a refusal letter, and if they refuse to send you one...

I realize I can pay to obtain the refusal reasons, but that really does feel like salt in the wound. There's also the purported multi-year turnaround time for appeals - I'm not willing to wait that long.

Or should we be filing an appeal and re-applying at the same time?

**nortierd** · 27-09-2015, 11:50

@MTTSS

Just my 10c worth, it would be prudent to also try and take on the refusals at the source, as it were.

Im sure you will find that some deciding officers still continue refusing on the G1, G2, GX and G last reasons. These are the generic reasons that is usually found in the beginning and end with perhaps one extra reason thrown in for good measure, usually something that doesn't really make sense, eg the example you used in your opening post.

The problem is there is no accountability and even if the appeal board does eventually overturn the refusal, these officers will still continue to refuse applications willy nilly.

What should happen is that once an appeal has been overturned the applications should go back to the original officer who refused it so that he/she can realize that they are wasting every bodies time.

The way the system currently works there is no accountability against the refusing officer, it's a pity that the appeal can't work in a similar fashion to taking them to court where you can name the refusing officer as a respondent and hold him or her personally accountable for cost and time wasted.

Perhaps only then will some of them realize that with a little power comes a lot of responsibility and they might actually bother to learn the act as well.

**Plinker** · 27-09-2015, 11:58

Originally Posted by nortierd

@MTTSS

Just my 10c worth, it would be prudent to also try and take on the refusals at the source, as it were.

Im sure you will find that some deciding officers still continue refusing on the G1, G2, GX and G last reasons. These are the generic reasons that is usually found in the beginning and end with perhaps one extra reason thrown in for good measure, usually something that doesn't really make sense, eg the example you used in your opening post.

The problem is there is no accountability and even if the appeal board does eventually overturn the refusal, these officers will still continue to refuse applications willy nilly.

What should happen is that once an appeal has been overturned the applications should go back to the original officer who refused it so that he/she can realize that they are wasting every bodies time.

The way the system currently works there is no accountability against the refusing officer, it's a pity that the appeal can't work in a similar fashion to taking them to court where you can name the refusing officer as a respondent and hold him or her personally accountable for cost and time wasted.

Perhaps only then will some of them realize that with a little power comes a lot of responsibility and they might actually bother to learn the act as well.

In a perfect world - ^^^^^^^^ what he said!!
Individual accountability is what would go along way to stopping the idiocy at CFR.

**Kayback** · 27-09-2015, 12:08

The way I understood it was appealing is the "correct" way to go about it, Re-applying is "easier"and "quicker".

There was a while ago that refusal letters took forever to arrive and appeals took 2 to 3 years to be heard, and re-applying was the short cut to get your story heard in 2-3 months.

**Plinker** · 27-09-2015, 12:19

Problem is in the current climate you'd be very fortunate to get any result within 2-3 months...

**Gunservant** · 27-09-2015, 12:38

If they don't finalise your appeal within 45 days, you can go to court. Unless I am mistaken.

**Chrisvw** · 27-09-2015, 15:09

From MJ Hood& Associates Facebook Page: Hi all,
We have now heard of another purported refusal reason along the following lines: “Because of the backlog your application will be returned to your station, you have to re-apply”. If you have been told that this is the reason for the refusal of your application, please get in touch! 0112347520 or anzebet(at)mjhood.co.za"

How silly is this refusal reason?