The ConCourt battle on 8 February. Important!!!

**MTTSS** · 10-02-2018, 21:05

Originally Posted by Zoo Keeper

With respect for people developing behavioural issues and becoming a danger later on, there are plenty of existing legal remedies available to remove firearms from someone who has lost most of his crayons. Determination of someone's mental capacity is a determination of that person's status as a person. Thus it must be via due process in the High Court. A person has all their varkies unless proven otherwise.

So true. Once again a reminder of the simple principles of our law. A presumption of sanity.

Other simple principles that were overlooked in this case includes leaving evidence uncontested. It is one of the most basic principles of our law of civil and crimiminal procedure and the effect of such a decusion is clear: the evidence then becomes accepted as not being in dispute.

One shudders if one realises that the evidence of GFSA almost went in totally uncontested.

And the other unanswered question is why none of the other parties wanted to challenge the rationality of the relicensing scheme as such, up to the very end.

**JhbBoy** · 19-02-2018, 09:17

Originally Posted by Manservant

Well, if you see it please let us know? 'Cos it seems everyone except for us (the affected party) has had eyes on that thing. Nice, eh?

Has anyone managed to view this ConCourt dismissal yet? Seems it's a phantom document...

**Cockroach** · 19-02-2018, 09:32

Originally Posted by JhbBoy

Has anyone managed to view this ConCourt dismissal yet? Seems it's a phantom document...

I believe there was mention that they had misspelled the GOSA email address

**Paul** · 19-02-2018, 10:19

Originally Posted by Cockroach

I believe there was mention that they had misspelled the GOSA email address

I have a copy of the dismissal directive (in PDF... it's on the GOSA Facebook group, I can't load pdfs onto Gunsite). It was sent to a wrong email address by the Registrar of the ConCourt, so we never officially received it.

**BBT** · 19-02-2018, 23:13

I've got a silly question to ask, we all know why GFSA is involved in this, but my question is why was Fidelity???

**JhbBoy** · 20-02-2018, 07:39

Originally Posted by BBT

I've got a silly question to ask, we all know why GFSA is involved in this, but my question is why was Fidelity???

From what I understand, Fidelity, 'as the largest institutional owner of firearms in SA', had issue with loads of their firearms with expired/ expiring licences and it affected their ability to do their work, so they needed clarity on the licencing with regards to their 'work guns'...they wanted CFR to accept late applications, or to accept new applications for expired licences, or for CFR to issue S21 temp permits in the interim; failing which they stood to forfeit Rm's in weapons.

**Paul** · 20-02-2018, 07:46

Originally Posted by BBT

I've got a silly question to ask, we all know why GFSA is involved in this, but my question is why was Fidelity???

Their court papers (available at the ConCourt website, or on the GOSA Facebook Group) reveal that their Responsible Person forgot to relicense 700 of their firearms.

**Zoo Keeper** · 20-02-2018, 10:04

Originally Posted by JhbBoy

Has anyone managed to view this ConCourt dismissal yet? Seems it's a phantom document...

You can download it on www.constitutionalcourt.org.za

Its still on forthcoming hearings, go to full summary and all the papers, including the order of 6 Feb are there.

**BBT** · 20-02-2018, 19:01

Originally Posted by Paul

Their court papers (available at the ConCourt website, or on the GOSA Facebook Group) reveal that their Responsible Person forgot to relicense 700 of their firearms.

His boss must be extremely happy with his work performance!!

**driepootx** · 20-02-2018, 19:20

Originally Posted by BBT

His boss must be extremely happy with his work performance!!

We forget about one or two. Try working with thousands. A five year period slips by so quickly. This places a massive admin and expense at the security firms doorstep.