Carrying section 15 - RANT

**The Beast** · 12-10-2015, 08:50

Originally Posted by Cockroach

But that's easy, you carry just the barrel!

The ultimate condition butterscotch.

**boondog** · 12-10-2015, 09:17

Ag I have a friend who bought a new SIG, the guy who does his motivation (don't ask me why people cant do this themselves) told him same bull story.

Best part is told him the guys is talking junk and he should fire him and get his R450 back and write the bloody thing himself, guess what. His still R450 short.

Some people !!

**HvR** · 12-10-2015, 09:30

Originally Posted by Paul

Stop conversing with idiots...

Rich coming from the guy who regularly debates AK

**HvR** · 12-10-2015, 09:35

Originally Posted by AshleyR

I chatted to a former neighbourhood-watch member who is not a FA owner the other day. He shared how the neighbourhood watch had told them that, for an SD shooting to be legit, you have to fire a warning shot first, and that the BG must be facing you. There was also mention of having to sustain injuries first, etc. When I told him it was all nonsense, he didn't seem to want to believe me.

Maybe it's an issue of credibility; they would rather believe their neighbourhood watch than the EDCing firearm owner that they're talking to.

Or maybe people just want to believe what they currently believe, regardless of facts to the contrary.

I can one up that, at the NHW AGM two weeks ago had presentations by different Armed Response companies.

TWO of the three regurgitated the same crap, one is the owner of the company and the other regional manager of one of the biggest AR companies in the country.

**A-R** · 12-10-2015, 10:17

Originally Posted by HvR

Rich coming from the guy who regularly debates AK

These "debates" are usually very one-sided...

**Wanderin' Zero** · 12-10-2015, 10:33

Read this:

Originally Posted by MTTSS

From the Act:

"A firearm in respect of which a license has been issued in terms of this section may
be used where it is safe to use the firearm and for a lawful purpose."

From the Regulations:

"(11)
(a) Firearms other than those in respect of which a license for self-defense in terms of section 13 of the Act has been issued and muzzle loading firearms, must be stored unloaded in accordance with these regulations: Provided that a collector may keep one loaded firearm in the safe for purposes of self-defense."

Guys,

I know that some of you have strong views on this, but bear with me and take some free advice from someone who has been admitted to practice law and is still practicing law for close to 20 years, amongst others as prosecutor, defense counsel, Group Legal Advisor, and who has also acted as assessor with judges of the High Court, and someone who has also been around the gun scene in South Africa for almost double that time.

And from someone who has as recently as last week spent the better part of two days and one night with a client in police cells in order to see to his safety and release on bail. Particular client who was arrested and detained after defending himself against three armed attackers. Try convince the arresting officer that he should first investigate and get a decision to prosecute from the prosecutor and that arrest and detention are the last resorts: "That's your opinion". "No, that's the law". "Toughies. I am arresting him now and will be charging him within 48 hours". Yes, he may have a civil case against the SAPS, but he must first continue through the process of trial and ultimately I guess, no I am sort of confident, that if he had a choice he would have preferred not to have been going through this, even if he is awarded a million Rand for what a court may later decide to have been an unlawful arrest and detention and prosecution.

Point 1.

The Act as a whole, including the Regulations, could potentially be interpreted to be clear on the issue: against an interpretation to the effect that you can treat your f/a licensed under section 16 as if it was licensed under section 13. If someone is interested in getting a professional opinion on the issue, as SPP has said in a previous thread, pay in the money and you can have our various comprehensive and professional opinions. As we will differ, so will the various magistrates and the various judges, and if you really want to argue the matter you will find that the last court's decision will be final, and in the end the majority of the lawyers may have agreed with you down the line, but you could still walk out the loser. I do not intend to make a case out in writing here on the internet for the police or prosecutors to use against you. And no one is disputing the retention of the common law defense of "a situation of emergency / noodtoestand". On the contrary, that could perhaps be something that was explicitly retained...

Point 2.

If you want to take that risk, that's your case.

Point 3.

As a professional, I think it would be "unwise" to advice the gun shooting public that there are no risks in an interpretation going the other way to the one they like.

Point 4.

It is inherently wrong that the current Act should have limited the amount of self defense weapons for which licenses are issued, as it did (Limit of one in Sect. 13 and and even stricter limit in section 14). And this issue is one of the important issues that should be addressed whilst the representatives of the gun owning and using community is busy engaging with the government on their proposed amendments.

**264WinMag** · 12-10-2015, 11:01

Thanx WZ!!

**Paul** · 12-10-2015, 11:16

Originally Posted by HvR

Rich coming from the guy who regularly debates AK

I stopped debating GFSA about 10 years ago as soon as I realised that they had no interest in the truth... that they merely plug away at their false narrative, scoring sound-bites.

Now I call them liars and scorn them openly on air. That's why I don't get invited to appear anymore. The media, also, is interested only in sound-bites, not the truth.

**JoeDijeaux** · 12-10-2015, 11:20

Dialectic is useless against those who only understand rhetoric.

**Wanderin' Zero** · 12-10-2015, 11:22

Originally Posted by Paul

I stopped debating GFSA about 10 years ago as soon as I realised that they had no interest in the truth... that they merely plug away at their false narrative, scoring sound-bites.

Now I call them liars and scorn them openly on air. That's why I don't get invited to appear anymore. The media, also, is interested only in sound-bites, not the truth.

Its called a propaganda war. They play it better than we do.