1. The bill is not meant for forcing a reduction of the abundancy of firearms in South Africa. It has often been confirmed that the aim of the Bill is as stated "to establish an effective system of firearms control"
2. In the preamble the right to life, the right to security and the right to be "free from all forms of violence" is emphasised.
3. The preamble however indicates the need to adequate protection of such rights. The same for section 2 – purpose of the Act.

THE BILL SHOULD THEREFORE IN NO WAY REDUCE THE PROTECTION THAT INDIVIDUALS OR COMMUNITIES ARE ENTITLED TO UNDER THE RIGHT TO SELF-PROTECTION.

I propose that this be accepted by the Portfolio Committee as a basic test to be applied during the deliberation on this Act.

4. The methods and instruments for protection are determined by the methods and instruments generally used by criminals. The greater the tendency by them to the

use of arms or other violent means such as sticks, knives, spears, etc. the greater the need for self-protection through weapons by the victims of crime. The liberal use

of the word "proliferation" in the Draft Bill is therefore to be challenged because of the well known crime situation in South Africa.

PROLIFERATION

5. The third paragraph of the preamble should therefore be reformulated.

I PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING:

AND WHEREAS THERE IS AN INCREASED OCCURANCE OF CRIME OF A VIOLENT NATURE IN SOUTH AFRICA AMONGST OTHERS BY THE ILLEGAL ABUSE OF EASY ACCESSABLE FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION AS WELL AS THE INABILITY OF LEGAL OWNERS OF FIREARMS TO SAFELY STORE AND USE SUCH ARMS EFFECTIVELY IN SELF-DEFENCE BY THEMSELVES;

6. Proliferation of firearms will be aggravated by the Draft Bill because as has been testified in the hearings, the reduction of the number of weapons per person and the possible selling of the weapons at cheap prices to get rid of the surplus weapons will add to proliferation and no doubt increase the number of points from where legal firearms could be stolen by criminals.

IT IS THEREFORE PROPOSED THAT EXISTING MULTIPLE LICENCE HOLDERS BE ALLOWED TO MOTIVATE KEEPING THE ARMS IF THEY SO WISH EVEN IF THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF WEAPONS ALLOWED BY THIS ACT IS EXCEEDED.

This will help to keep down proliferation.

7. The real argument is actually not about the spreading and abundancy of arms all over the country and the availability to thieves. This legislation cannot take away the basic right to own firearms for legal purposes. What is important are the following:

1. The safe storage;
2. Responsible gun-ownership;
3. The ability to use the arms effectively so that criminals be deferred by the knowledge that gun owners are better prepared to defend themselves and their arms.

I PROPOSE THAT THESE BE INCLUDED IN THE MEMORANDUM OF OBJECTS

1. Paragraph 2.1 of the Memorandum of Objects of the Firearms Control Bill 2000 on competency certificate will have to be extended in the last sentence……

"have to undergo training in the safe, efficient, and responsible use of a firearm. This competency training should be done thoroughly on the first application and be final."

IT IS PROPOSED THAT COMPETENCY TESTING BE DONE ONCE ONLY UNLESS A HOLDER OF A LICENCE CONTRAVENES SECTIONS OF THE ACT IN WHICH CASE THE REGISTER MAY ORDER THE REDOING OF THE COMPETENCY TEST BY THE OFFENDER

2. Competency Training could be privatised. Even testing could be privatised on the condition that the Registrar through DFO’s should have the right to monitor standards. The standards should be set in the Regulations.

PERIODS OF VALIDITY FOR LICENCES

3. This is another key proposal in the Draft Bill with great implications. The cost of testing and licensing will place a heavy burden on holders of legal licences. The cost might become prohibitive. How could this be justified if a simpler method of regular auditing can do the same. As it is not the aim of this Act to reduce the number of legally owned arms, but rather to properly control it, there is no sense in discouraging people to own firearms by enforcing excessive effort and cost of re-licensing. The money and effort in this proposed practice in the Bill is non-productive and a loss that could rather be used for creation of jobs.

IT IS PROPOSED THAT AFTER INITIAL LICENCING, EVERY TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUE, THE REGISTRAR CONDUCTS AN AUDIT ON THE LICENCE HOLDER INCLUDING WHETHER THE HOLDER STILL HAS THE NEED FOR THE FIREARM.

SEVERITY OF PENALTIES

4. This key proposal in the Memorandum of Objects in 2.4 suggests the trebling of a maximum penalty for unlawful possession from 5 years to a maximum of 15 years imprisonment. This could be justified for criminal offences and should be more harsh on unlawful possession. "Illegal weapons" should be a factor for heavier than usual punishment. But the Draft Bill has also prescribed very severe sentences

regarding offences by legal gun owners as well as for administrative transgressions. There should be a differentiation between punishment for offences with legal and illegal firearms.

IT IS PROPOSED THAT THE MAXIMUM PENALTIES IN SCHEDULE 4 BE REDUCED BY TWO THIRDS BUT THAT SPECIAL PROVISION BE MADE IN THE ACT THAT THE MAXIMUM PENALTY FOR ANY CRIME COMMITTED WITH AN ILLEGAL WEAPON BE INCREASED THREE TIMES OF WHAT IS PRESCRIBED. IT IS FURTHER PROPOSED THAT ADMINISTRATIVE FINES ALSO BE REDUCED BY TWO THIRDS.

5. So far the aim, objectives and key aspects of the Act have been covered. There are some major concerns that need more debating:

1. The powers of the Minister;
2. The very harsh prerequisites of exclusion of competency certificates in sec 11(2);
3. The discrimination against a semi-automatic rifle/shotgun where handguns are mostly semi-automatic already;
4. Licence for business purposes to include the farming business and its special requirements;
5. The tying down of a gunsmith to own premises;
6. The lack of penalties for official institutions contravening section of the Bill;
7. The harsh provisions for declaring persons unfit to possess a firearm;
8. Presumptions;
9. Composition and functioning of the Appeal Board;
10. Compensation;
11. Firearm Free Zones;
12. Amnesty processes;
13. Destruction only by the State;
14. Transitional provisions.

1. The problem with the major part of the Draft Bill is the fact that the policy document has never been discussed. This will have to be revised because many of the discussions and amendments, affect the policy document. The latter document is in any case too detailed and has tended to move away from policy to detail. This policy document will affect the regulations and will have to be revised before the regulations are drafted.