• What is Clay Target Shooting? It is enjoyed by millions of people all over the world, from a part-time hobby to a serious Olympic Sport. Clay Target shooting has been in existence for over 100 years and has enjoyed a reputation for being fun, safe, harmless and a true sport.
• What is a Clay Target? - The target is a saucer shaped object which varies in size and colour according to the different discipline. The target is launched from a machine known as a trap, which can send the target in varying directions and speed. Travelling at over 100km an hour, it takes considerable skill to intercept it and shatter it.
• Corporate Entertainment - Clay Target Shooting in South Africa is fast becoming an alternative sport for corporate entertainment – it’s safe, it’s fun and anyone can have a go.
• We don’t advocate that everyone should like our sport, but what we do strive for is the understanding that we exist, that we are perfectly normal, rational people and that we have a right to enjoy our sport.

We are sure that this is not what you intend, but the unintended consequences of this legislation will be to place unnecessary restrictions upon law-abiding people, without any benefits whatsoever.

After studying the bill, the policy document and conducting extensive research, the Clay Target Shooting Association of South Africa has reached the conclusion that the future of all shooting sports is in severe jeopardy because of the following points:-

1. It appears that there is a Ministerial view for a society where there are no firearms at all (reference: Servamus – June edition, see Appendix A).

2. It appears that the Government policy wishes to make us socially unacceptable (reference: Firearms Control Bill policy document – see Appendix B).

3. Lack of consultation over the drafting of the bill – we hereby state for the record that no consultation has taken place with either the CTSASA or the South African Shooting Sports Federation.

4. Serious technical problems in the proposed Firearms Control Bill.

5. Abstract or non-existent use of proper research

6. The net result of this bill will be to needlessly burden ordinary law-abiding citizens with a licencing procedure which will result in fewer and fewer entries to the shooting sports.

Everything contained in this submission is based upon facts and logic, not emotional desires

Every statistic used in this presentation can be easily substantiated

It is logical that the sport of Clay Target Shooting cannot exist in an environment where firearms are not allowed in civilian hands. Yet this is the vision which has been outlined by the Minister for Safety and Security. See Appendix A for quotation.

Furthermore, the sport of Clay Target Shooting cannot exist in an environment where we are socially unacceptable, yet it looks like this is what is desired. See Appendix A for quotation.

It is widely accepted, although perhaps not acknowledged enough, that sportspeople are responsible firearms owners. Our training methods are second to none in creating a safe, responsible group of people – and it seems that the Minister acknowledges that a culture of responsible gun ownership is important.

We understand the desire to rid our country of evil violence – we are all sick and tired of the high crime, poverty and corruption and wish to see positive measures for these key areas to be drastically reduced.

Whether this threat to our sport is real or perceived, in our minds it exists and we have to respond to this. Yet the currently available figures for negligence amongst licenced firearm owners show that there is no problem with licenced firearm owners:

0.003% of individuals owning firearms (6224 cases in 1998) were charged with negligence

Figures do not state whether these are individuals or state departments

These figures are also cases opened, not prosecutions - therefore the figure for negligent ownership of firearms is far less.

Source: Firearm Use and Distribution in South Africa, page 39

Only 4.5% of South Africans (2,027,411 individuals) own licenced firearms – the majority of whom are now non-whites.

Source: Firearm Use and Distribution in South Africa, page 39

Licenced firearm owners are neither negligent, nor do they commit statistically significant crime. Safety & Security figure for crime committed by licenced firearm owners – 0.05% (Sydney Mufamadi).

1. If the attitude towards firearms is to be changed so that the general public views the subject with more objectivity and rationality, then the involvement of all of the shooting sports associations in education and training must be guaranteed.

2. Associations like the Clay Target Shooting Association of South Africa must be included in the re-drafting of the Firearms Control Bill and the regulations.

3. Accurate information about the shooting sports must be made easily available to the general public via a co-operative media.

4. Financial grants from the government to the shooting sports to enable them to put a proper education and training program in place.

5. Involvement at school level for the teaching of firearm responsibility

The US Department of Justice has conducted its own study into the potential for children to abuse firearms and has that children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes (0%), while children who get illegal guns are very likely to do so (21%). See Appendix B

We created a six-point checklist and applied it to the proposals contained within the firearms control bill:

1. Is the proposal necessary? And on what evidence or research has the proposal been made?

2. Is the proposal technically sound?

3. Is it constitutional?

4. What are the real benefits to the proposal? Who would benefit?

5. If the benefits are real not perceived, could the proposal be made to work? If it could work, would it do so within the present structure? If not within the present structure, what would need to be changed? How could our association help? Would the benefits be cost effective for all parties concerned?

6. Would it achieve the governments’ goal of fighting crime?

• We welcome the introduction of a dedicated Firearms Officer who should be permanently stationed at their respective Police Station.
• However, we would like to see this taken a step further – licence the person.
• Once a person has been vetted and considered suitable, there should be no further unnecessary administration.
• It makes sense that if the Central Firearms Registry (CFR) has all the person’s details on record (i.e. fingerprints etc) that to go through this process again is a total waste of everyone’s time. Our solution is for the licenced individual to have a document which allows for the addition of further firearms. When a person already has this document, he/she can then go to a dealer or an individual and once the transaction has been made, the details of the newly acquired firearm can be placed on the licence document. Therefore, if a person is licenced to own shotguns, he/she can acquire further shotguns without burdening the administrative process. Notification to the CFR will then be made by the seller and the purchaser. A simple matter of updating the records.

• Once a person has been considered suitable and responsible to have firearms, why should there be any restrictions?
• Have not the 13,000 individuals who own more than 10 firearms shown themselves to be responsible?
• Have not the 662,140 with 2 or more firearms shown themselves to be responsible? Certainly the figures bear that out. (Figures courtesy of Firearm Use and Distribution in South Africa).

Ammunition:

• Section 94 – although the yearly limit of 2400 cartridges does not apply to dedicated sportspeople and hunters, the amount which can be possessed at any one time is still limited to 200.
• An afternoon pigeon shooting or clay shooting can set a shooter back in excess of double that
• We are simply opposed to any numerical limits
• Will criminalise previously law-abiding shooters
• Clubs are not licenced dealers
• No benefits to the security of South Africa
• This section should be deleted in its entirety for all firearms owners.
• Section 96 - Section 96 should remain covered in the Explosives Act.
• Many, many shotgun shooters reload their own ammunition for both financial and enjoyment reasons. They do so safely, without being a danger to anyone.
• Has any research been done on criminals who reload ammunition?
• We don’t believe it would be your intention to criminalise people in this way and to prohibit current practices which do not adversely affect anyone.

• This legislation fails in its attempts to define legitimate uses of firearms.
• The proposed law does not allow for previously legitimate purposes – e.g. shooting on farmland. Surely this is not the intention of the drafters?
• We are absolutely sure that the Committee does not want to criminalise previously law-abiding citizens, and that the intention of the bill is not to do this. But these are the unintended consequences of this proposed legislation.
• A person out shooting birds could be attacked and find himself/herself using their sporting firearm for self-defence purposes – resulting in a two year jail sentence.

• Our Solution: once a person has been licenced for a firearm, that person should be able to use it for all legitimate purposes. This should be placed into each section defining usage.

• The lack of understanding by the drafters has led them into believing that semi-automatic shotguns are in a different league from normal over-and-unders. This is not so.
• Semi-automatic shotguns are usually used by sports people who cannot handle the recoil of a normal over-and-under. This is because a semi-automatic shotgun loads the second cartridge with the energy expended from the first.
• Semi-automatic shotguns are not military-style firearms and should not be regarded as such. A semi-auto basically looks like an over-and-under shotgun but only has one barrel.
• Furthermore, it makes no sense to restrict a semi-automatic to a dedicated sportsperson (section 19 (c)), and not allow an occasional sportsperson the use of one. The only difference between the two people is that one will shoot more competitions in a year than the other!
• One very important point on this issue is that the semi-automatic shotgun is not barred from ANY international or domestic clay target discipline including the Olympic Games.
• We therefore advise that the semi-automatic shotgun is removed from the restricted list as there is no benefit whatsoever in keeping it restricted. Sections 15 (1) (a), 16 (1) (a) and 17 (1) (a) should therefore have the reference to semi-automatic shotgun removed.

• There is no provision in the proposed legislation for allowing visiting sportspeople.
• Section 24 deals with issuing a temporary authorisation to possess a firearm, but the conditions are not included. If we refer to Chapter 4, Section 8, only SA citizens or permanent residents may acquire licences. This effectively bans all visitors, whether they are hunters or sportspeople. Furthermore, it is impossible to apply the requirements of this Act to visiting shooters – many countries do not have licencing procedures and will be unable to comply.
• What problems have there been with visiting sportspeople and hunters? The answer is clearly NONE. If there is no problem, why waste time trying to fix it?
• Sportspeople and hunters all over the World, including South Africa, have proved time and time again that we are perfectly responsible people.
• We therefore recommend that Section 24 specifically includes the present system of temporary licencing for overseas visitors, i.e.:-

(7) Visitors to South Africa must declare their firearm(s) at port of entry and obtain a temporary import/export permit from the customs officer. This permit must be carried on the person at all times throughout the duration of his/her visit.

The age limit of 21 for a licenced firearm owner to teach another person is problematical. It means that a person who has gone through rigorous application procedures is still not considered responsible enough to teach another person. This defeats the purpose of the licencing procedure.

• Chapters 4 & 5 are highly regulated chapters yet no regulations have been written. It is impossible to comment on this fully without the regulations.
• Change the word "may" to "shall". If a person has gone through the vetting procedure and has complied with all that is necessary, there should be no reason why the person should not get a licence.
• Clarification on how long a competency certificate remains valid for is required. We assume that once a person has been granted a competency certificate that it must be utilised within 2 years, but the legislation does not state this.
• The CTSASA is opposed to compulsory competency testing, although we agree with training. Our association is self-regulating – all of our members go through training at our clubs and we experience no problems with this.
• In fact, in all our rulebooks, the procedure applied to a round of targets specifically states the safety regulations for that discipline. See Appendix E
• We have already established that licenced firearm owners are not irresponsible – this cannot be refuted because of the hard facts confirmed by government findings – and judging by the government’s own conclusion (See Appendix A), training actually doesn’t have any known effects on crime. That’s not surprising is it really, when criminals are not licenced firearm owners?

• We again respectfully request that we are included in the drafting of the regulations so that technical difficulties are overcome beforehand.
• The differences between the two categories are unknown and to all intents and purposes, from the viewpoint of the CTSASA, there are no tangible benefits to the safety and security of South Africans in creating a difference. The benefit to the shooter of becoming a "bona fide sportsperson" is simply that applications for additional licences are more smoothly made available.
• The bill will increase requirement for firearms, not decrease them
• With the average price of a shotgun ranging from R15,000 to R30,000 is there any wonder that sportspeople are responsible and look after their firearms?

• Section 19(2) requires an affidavit by the chairperson of an accredited sports-shooting association confirming that an applicant for a licence is a registered member of that association. Our proposal is leave the existing system in place.
• Failure to provide the information to the CFR will render a two year jail sentence, but for whom? Should the chairman be held criminally liable for the failure of an administrative officer? Should the administrative officer be jailed for an administration offence? This is clearly a problematical area and yet again, the drafters have not taken into account that most associations are run on a shoestring budget, without numerous employees.
• And how does one prove that the required information has been received? This section requires careful consultation and clarification. There is also the question of the privacy of our members plus the undue and unnecessary burden on our administrative staff.
• Who is going to verify the information that we send to the CFR?
• Clearly define the information required, the method of delivery and the timescale by which the information is needed.

• Section 34(2) is adequately handled at the moment by both the buyer and seller completing relevant application forms and dealing directly with the CFR.
• Section 62 is problematical. Many shooters "repair, alter or improve" their firearms on an amateur basis within the confines of the existing laws. These alterations include building new stocks; checkering wood (creating patterns in the wood); repairing ejectors; mending triggers; altering trigger pulls; adding recoil pads; etc. etc.
• Clearly this is not the intention of the drafters and therefore Section 62 should be radically overhauled to allow shooters to continue to perform legitimate work on their shotguns. A fifteen year jail sentence for checkering a piece of wood does seem pretty unreasonable.

• This is probably one of the most serious areas with which we have a problem. In essence, everything to do with the application process, the information required and the procedures surrounding becoming an accredited sportsperson is unknown.
• The progress from earlier drafts to the present document has resulted in a huge amount of clauses being taken out and left to the creation of regulations. This is of great concern because legislation by regulation is unconstitutional as it gives legislative powers to the Executive.
• Of tremendous concern to the Clay Target Shooting Association is that most of the areas affecting our members will be legislated via regulations. For example:

• Competency Certificates
• Chapter 4 – section 8(3) – what information is required?
• Chapter 4 – section 10(1) – there are no details whatsoever for the procedure for acquiring accreditation
• Chapter 5 (11(2)n) – no details on the prescribed test on the knowledge of the act
• Chapter 5 (11(2)o) – no details on prescribed training/practical test
• Section 17(4)(b) – what constitutes an accredited shooting range?
• Section 19 – Dedicated Sports Shooter – there are no requirements as to what constitutes a dedicated sports shooter except that the person must be a member of an accredited organisation.
• Section 19 – what constitutes an accredited organisation?
• Section 19 – what constitutes land suitable for hunting?
• Section 19 – what information does the accredited shooting association have to keep?
• Section 19 – what information in the report should the shooting association have to submit?
• Section 86 – no information given on how firearms and ammunition is to be stored

In other words, every requirement which applies to a sports shooter to enable him or her to obtain a licence is not given.

• We don’t know what defines competency
• We don’t know what defines suitability beyond that of not having been convicted of various offences
• We don’t know what information our member must give to the CFR on their application
• We don’t know what the shooter must know in order to pass a knowledge test
• We don’t know what constitutes a sportsperson
• We don’t know how or where our firearms and ammunition should be stored
• We don’t know what constitutes an association or a shooting ground
• We don’t know what information should be given to the CFR by the association

Our obvious solution to this is that our Association is fully consulted on the above requirements so that workable systems can be put in place. Furthermore, these requirements should be placed in the legislation and not left to regulation. If left to regulation, it would mean that the Minister has the power to legislate without parliamentary approval. This gives an incredible amount of power to the Minister.

The prospect of applying the new law to existing licences raises two major concerns.

• First, all current licences were issued according to a set of rules and were issued legally. To deprive a person arbitrarily of their property now is certainly unconstitutional and open to court action.
• Second, in effect, all licence holders will have to undergo re-application – something which the CFR could not possibly cope with without drastic and major upgrading. In fact, the CFR has said that they could not possibly do this.

Instead of re-application, we would strongly support the idea of an audit.

• The new legislation has been written so that the result will be to deprive lawful holders of firearms without any recourse to compensation. This is unconstitutional (refer to Appendix D).
• Where any lawfully licenced person has been deprived of a firearm, compensation must be payable and the amount must be determined by the court.

• Section 123 (9) requires clarification. As it stands, and in conjunction with section 87, a person may not take his or her firearm overseas or fly internally within South Africa. Section 86 simply says that firearms and ammunition must be stored and transported in the prescribed manner. Obviously this is something which has to be clarified because if not, it could prohibit our sportspeople from participating in overseas competitions, or from travelling on aircraft in South Africa.

• This is an incredibly dangerous area and one which all South African citizens should take note of. It is a principle of our common law that a person charged with an offence is presumed to be not guilty. The State has to prove every essential element of the offence before an accused can be convicted.
• I will now quote from the ANC’s own recommendations in 1993, commenting on the existing Arms & Ammunition Act:

The Clay Target Shooting Association of South Africa cannot accept this type of assumption under any circumstances. The current Arms & Ammunition Act covers this area adequately in that the accused only has to raise a probability that he/she did not in fact possess the article in question.

"Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have-

a) their personal home searched

b) their property searched

c) their possessions seized"

• The Bill grants sweeping powers of search and seizure to the police and other officials who are not qualified police officers. In essence, this means that the Registrar can appoint a totally unqualified person to invade our homes without a warrant. This is unacceptable.
• South Africa has fought long and hard to obtain rights for ALL it’s citizens, not just a select few. Must this be swept away now after fighting so hard? It is a trend both in the USA and Europe that essential liberty is being trodden upon to ostensibly serve the purpose of fighting crime, where citizens rights to privacy are being usurped every day. The trend is also to tamper with the symptoms of crime, not the causes.

safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". Benjamin Franklin.

The concept of administrative fines is alien to South Africa and will have the effect that citizens will not have access to the courts as is their right.

• Considering that the state loses more firearms than civilians, one wonders at the logic behind these sections. Even the policy document confirms this fact (refer to Appendix A).
• Essentially, all of the provisions of this act do not apply to police and the defence force.
• There is no mention of a person from an official institution being unfit through dependence on drugs, alcohol or narcotic substances, yet over 60% of firearms stolen from police are when they are off-duty and at shebeens.
• The problem here is not the firearm, it is the training and calibre of the police officer. Clause 101(5)(b) says that the officer must return the firearm to the place of storage after duty. This is problematical as police officers are essentially on 24 hour duty. More comprehensive training and vetting is required of police officers to negate this threat.

• Although the sentiments behind this are laudable, the actual reality of supposed ‘firearm free zones’ is vastly different from perceptions.

• They don’t work
• The logic behind it doesn’t work
• They are an infringement of a person’s rights to free movement
• Firearm free zones create ‘soft’ targets
• Firearm free zones do not stamp out crime at source

• Certainly in terms of the proposed clauses, there are practical problems. For example, private individuals who own firearms may find their property being declared a ‘firearm free zone’. This is clearly unconstitutional and unworkable.

• Who will obey a ‘firearm free zone’? Clearly only law-abiding people will obey the law.
• Who will police a ‘firearm free zone’? We are already in a situation where we have insufficient police.
• Where attacks have occurred in so-called ‘firearm free zones’, victims are defenceless because they are unarmed. The St James Massacre is but one example where a lawfully licenced individual prevented further murders due to the carrying and lawful use of his firearm. What would have happened had he not returned fire?

Clearly the intention is to make areas safe – but this cannot be done through the declaration of a ‘firearm free zone’. Our solutions to crime are contained at the end of this presentation.

The following two quotations aptly describe our feelings:

"We are fortunate that South Africa's first democratically elected President, Nelson Mandela, recognised the necessity for his government and for Parliament to yield to the values of the Constitution. When the Constitutional Court handed down judgments which were inconvenient to his government he promptly and publicly acknowledged his acceptance of the role of the court and the Constitution."

Judge Goldstone

There are still issues in the proposed legislation which remain unconstitutional –

a) deprivation of property

b) the right to presumption of innocence

c) rights to association

d) rights to privacy

The CTSASA strongly urges the Portfolio Committee to remain true to our Constitution and to seriously contemplate the direction which this legislation is taking us. If approved, it sets dangerous precedents for other areas of law making – is that where you wish to go?

But before many solutions can be implemented, the true nature of the PROBLEM has to be understood. We have established beyond any shadow of a doubt that the lawfully licenced individual is not the problem. However, what has to be understood is that we, as licenced firearm owners, can be part of the SOLUTION.

WE are the ones with the experience, the responsibility, the technical knowledge, the incredible safety record, the willingness to help government and above all, our track record of civil obedience is far superior to that of non-firearm owners.

The causes of crime stem from many areas:-

• Parental guidance
• Poor education
• Poverty
• Unemployment
• Abuse of alcohol and drugs
• Lack of law enforcement
• Corruption
• Insufficient deterrents
• Poor nutrition
• No respect
• for the law

• These are all inextricably linked and cannot be taken in isolation, but at the beginning of everything is the child and the way that child is brought up. We cannot hope to begin to bring crime and violence down until children are taught that it is wrong, that those committing crime will be punished and that there are better alternatives to crime.
• We certainly cannot do all of this by introducing a piece of paper known as the Firearms Control Bill.
• Removing an object from circulation will achieve absolutely nothing and will, in fact, have the reverse effect to that intended. This has been proven on many occasions – just refer to Prof Lott for conclusive evidence on this point.
• To prove my point, here is an Extract from the "Submissions by the African National Congress to the Commission of Inquiry into the ways and means of preventing the illegal importation, distribution and use of firearms, ammunition and explosives". June 1993

A system is only as good as the people operating it. What is going to change with the new Firearms Control Bill? In practical terms how much more training is going to be carried out and is the vetting of personnel going to be more rigorous?

• The CFR cannot cope with the proposals contained within this bill.
• As an example, the proposed system of licence renewal has not been analysed. At present the CFR cannot cope with the existing 180,000 applications. To cope with over 1 million renewals the CFR staff will need to be increased by nearly five times. Add to that the workload created with the annual reports of every hunter, collector and sportsperson. Add more to that: each new application will require at least four times the amount of processing with all the additional information.
• Canada: estimated cost of registration process – CAN$85, sum to date CAN$400.
• The required increase in capacity may well be beyond the sums budgeted, and according to our own preliminary assessment of the IT requirements, it will more than triple. We have to learn from the Canadian experience and judge whether or not the financial outlay is worth the perceived benefits.

1. Work with the Firearms Associations – we have the experience, make use of it

2. Send the bill back for a technical re-write - with the proviso that the drafters properly consult with the Firearms Associations

3. Support the Firearms Associations - the introduction of the Firearms Control Bill has alienated the most law-abiding sector of the South African community. Is this the desired effect? I’m sure that it is not. Yet this is exactly what has happened. There should be no ‘them and us’ situation. We all want the same goal of reducing crime.

4. Uphold the Constitution – whatever you feel about taking drastic action, it is imperative that each and every citizen upholds our constitution. Much is said about rights, but we also feel that it is the duty of every citizen to obey the law and to act in a moral and proper manner. It is every citizens’ duty to :

• abide by the law
• respect the police
• protect ourselves
• protect our families
• protect our property
• respect
• other people and their rights

5. An Audit – we fully support an audit of the CFR database. However, again we must stress that the accuracy of the database also rests with the competency of those who maintain it. There is no point in conducting an audit without a strict training program of staff to ensure accuracy. The accuracy of the database (or lack of!) is not entirely due to non-compliance. We know of many people who have errors on their licences despite the fact that the correct information was sent to the CFR.

6. Uphold the Law – if the law states that a safe is required, then a safe is required. If the law states that the safe must be bolted to a wall, then it must be bolted to a wall. If the law states that a person must have no prior convictions, then a criminal must not be granted a licence. There can be no exceptions to this. But the execution of the law depends upon those doing the executing.

7. Take heed of the experience of others – there is a glut of international research which appears to have been ignored. Why try to re-invent the wheel? Learn from the mistakes of others. Worldwide research cannot find a correlation between high ownership of civilian firearms and high crime. The following will give you more of an idea of the failures of strict civilian gun control.

• Population: 56million; 3658 firearms per 100,000 people; 1.4 homicides per 100,000.
• Despite the removal of 162,000 firearms (from 57,000 sports people) from UK society in 1996 as a direct result of the Dunblane incident, a steady flow of the underworld’s supply of illegal firearms has not been stopped. In 1998 overall armed crime rose 10%. Latest statistics show violent crime rates exceeding those of the US.
• Since 1870 there have been 25 pieces of legislation which have gradually removed any rights to firearms and self-defence for the British people. Whereas at the beginning of the 20^th century, all British subjects had rights to firearms and self-defence, now there are none. The crazy thing is, that until now, Britain has never had a firearm crime problem!
• This is the advice which British people are given by the Home Office for self-defence:

• Is it any wonder that crime is on the rise in Britain? Where intruders know that no-one is armed and that no-one is going to defend themselves for fear of prosecution for murder as is the case with Tony Martin?
• Since 1988, the number of legal firearms owners in Great Britain has dropped by almost 19%, yet in the same period robbery with a firearm doubled, and the overall violent crime rate increased by 29%. In 1996 violent crime rose by 10%.

• 5860 firearms owners per 100,000 population; 16% of households have firearms; homicide rate 2.4 per 100,000 population.
• 1993 – there were 296 murder victims. In 1999 there were 342 murder victims. A 15.5% increase. The firearm buy back scheme failed to work – 650,000 firearms were confiscated – and it cost the tax payer A$500 million and failed to stem the rising crime. The murder rate is running at a six year high and Australia is now at a situation where they were the year before the Port Arthur incident.

• Those opposed to civilian firearm ownership often refer to Japan as a ‘firearm free society’. Japan itself is heavily involved in trying to curb worldwide civilian firearm ownership. Yet Japan has an atrocious human rights record and abuses its civilians with impunity. Japan is not ‘firearm free’ – it allows a certain amount of hunters and sportspeople to own firearms. Japan’s lack of crime is the result of the very extensive powers of the Japanese police. Unlike other countries, prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. The trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%. The police can search anyone, almost anytime.
• Japan is a unified society without significant immigration; Japanese people work together in the community; 70% of all Japanese crimes end in a conviction; only 19.8% of American crimes end in an arrest. If firearm control really was the major cause of low Japanese crime rate, it would be impossible to explain why Japan’s non-firearm crime rate is so much lower than America’s non-firearm crime rate. America’s non-firearm robbery rate, for example, is 60 times Japan’s.
• Shogun Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1536-1598) decreed "the people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to foment uprisings".
• Japan’s low crime rate has almost nothing to do with firearm control, and everything to do with people control.

• 26% of households have firearms; 10203 owners per 100,000; homicides per 100,000 = 1.99. On 1^st January 1998 Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, came into force. C-68 has been the most hotly contested bill since the Conscription Act of World War II. The bill required Canadians to register their firearms and obtain licences to possess. The Canadians were promised that the costs would not exceed $85 million. They were promised that in the unlikely event the costs would exceed $150, the legislation would be scrapped. They have spent $400 million so far and the system is not working.
• Since January 1^st 1998: Licensing – 183, 353 done, 129,000 backlogged. They need to process 469,441 to meet their deadline of 31^st December 2000. At this rate though it will take between 140 to 422 years to register firearms in Canada. At this rate it will cost $37,574,810,000 to register 7 million firearms.
• This is the system which Canada has offered South Africa.
• Yet Canada doesn’t have a firearm problem, despite being "heavily armed" – (five times as much as South Africa). In 1993, there were 73 firearms related crimes.
• The basis for this bill were lies told by Dr Ted Miller and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) who inflated crime figures involving firearms and the cost of firearm related deaths. Only when an affidavit was required to confirm the figures did the lies come to light – but then it was too late, C-68 had been enacted almost two years earlier.

• Last year, Botswana was held up as the shining light of how firearms control works to reduce crime. This was the result of anecdotal findings by Katharine McKenzie. McKenzie conveniently ignores findings which disproves the need for firearms control to reduce crime. McKenzie does not test her theories and where data disproves her theories, she ignores it.
• Botswana has a completely different structure from South Africa and has an efficient law enforcement system. Furthermore, Botswana does not have a total ban on handgun licences – several of our members are resident in Botswana and can testify to this fact. Botswana has only 1.6 million people whereas South Africa has 43 million people.
• Compare Botswana to Namibia: similar populations (Botswana 1.6m, Namibia 1.62m); both poorly industrialised with fairly dispersed populations; Botswana has a very strict licencing system; Namibia allows up to 4 licences per applicant; yet the murder rate in Botswana is three times that of Namibia. Namibia has also recently come out of conflict, which Botswana has not.
• How can we now determine that the murder rate is linked to high ownership of firearms?
• Despite tight controls and law enforcement, crime is increasing in Botswana.
• Unfortunately, statistics for the SADC countries is sparse to say the least, and dubious at best.
• A brief comparison of murder rates strongly suggests that there are differing factors at work between all SADC countries. Swaziland, for example, has a higher murder rate than South Africa at 80 per 100,000, yet ownership of firearms is only 1.1%. Furthermore, traditionally very few of these murders are committed with firearms.
• Compare Botswana to the UK and Botswana has half the number of firearms per 100,000 population, yet their murder rate is 10 times higher.
• Refer to Richard Wessons’s report in the NFF submission for a detailed analysis which totally refutes McKenzie’s findings. Refer to Appendix F for questions which remain unanswered.

Quoting from the ANC’s report: "An over-reliance on statute as a principle mechanism of restricting and controlling the circulation of firearms is well illustrated in Nigeria. The manufacture, importation and dealing in firearms is legally prohibited in Nigeria and the legislation relating to firearms, the Firearms Act 7 of 1958 of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, is extremely restrictive. However, these restrictive laws have not prevented the widespread proliferation of firearms, principally through the growth of a lucrative black market in firearms. One commentator has argued that: "…. while armed robbers seem to have an unlimited flow of illegal arms and therefore systematically violate arms control laws with impunity, the ordinary citizen has no such access".

An information session was held during the evening of 3 February where the Minister for Safety and Security, Mr. Steve Tshwete, presented a long term vision of a Gun Free Society, and combined this ideal with realistic policy objectives for the short and medium term. The Minister outlined his expectations of the communication campaign to reduce firearm violence.

Servamus – June 2000 edition

"A medium to long-term programme to change the public’s attitude towards firearms and the use of firearms, with a view to making firearms socially unacceptable in society as a whole and in particular within certain key target groups, such as young men".

"To address the irresponsible use of licensed firearms as an increasing contributor to firearm violence, especially homicide, attempted murder and aggravated assault. Responsible firearm ownership must be enforced and must become the dominant culture. (Knowledge of and competency in the use of firearms is a part of this requirement. However, there is no research available to the best of our knowledge which indicates that normal, non specialist training in the use of firearms greatly enhances either the responsibility or the ability of a user to defend him or herself. Training can improve knowledge of and compliance with the law and may avert unintentional injury. The effects on crime are less clear)."

The (conservative) estimate for the size of the current pool of illegal firearms is calculated by adding 200,000 state owned firearms missing, 150,000 stolen from private owners, 20-30,000 home-made firearms, illegal imports from neighbouring states, and reported losses from all sectors. The authors feel that it is unlikely that the pool is much larger than 500,000 on the basis of the available evidence.

Do guns turn children into criminals?
Myth-shattering federal study says: No

WASHINGTON, DC -- Want to dramatically reduce the chance that your child will commit a gun-related crime or -- heaven forbid -- go on a shooting spree? Here's a surprising suggestion from the Libertarian Party: Buy your youngster a gun.

"The evidence is in: The simplest way to reduce firearm-related violence among children is to buy them a gun and teach them how to use it responsibly," said Steve Dasbach, national director of the Libertarian Party.

"When it comes to preventing youthful violence, the Second Amendment apparently works better than the so-called solutions being proposed by politicians, such as a ban on assault weapons or mandated 'child-proof' safety locks on guns." Says who? Says a detailed study by the federal government entitled "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse."

The study was conducted from 1993-1995 by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. In an attempt to determine the relationship between "problem behaviors" like drug use, teen pregnancy, and crime, child psychologists tracked 4,000 boys and girls aged 6 to 15 in Denver, Pittsburgh, and Rochester, NY.

The findings were a slap in the face to "conventional wisdom" about children and guns, said Dasbach -- and a sharp rebuke to the recent vote by the U.S. Senate to enact new gun-control laws that impact on teenagers.

According to the study:

• Children who get guns from their parents don't commit gun crimes (0%), while children who get illegal guns are very likely to do so (21%).
• Children who get guns from parents are less likely to commit any kind of street crime (14%) than children who have no gun in the house (24%) -- and are dramatically less likely to do so than children who acquire an illegal gun (74%).
• Children who get guns from parents are less likely to use drugs (13%) than children who get illegal guns (41%).

"Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use [than boys who own illegal guns] and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns," the study reported.

If the federal government knows that children and guns are not -- in and of themselves -- a dangerous combination, why are so many politicians demanding that new laws be passed to "protect" children?

"Politicians are apparently more interested in demonizing guns -- and repealing the Second Amendment on the installment plan -- than they are in facts," suggested Dasbach. "But as this study shows, if gun ownership by kids is not the problem, banning gun ownership by kids can't be the solution."

So are Libertarians saying that every parent should buy their child a gun?

"Of course not," said Dasbach. "Deciding whether to give your son or daughter a gun is a serious decision that every parent will have to make. Many parents may decide that their children are not mature enough to responsibly and safely learn how to use a gun, and you have to respect that decision.

"But the point is: Parents are better able to make that decision than a bunch of poll-driven politicians in Washington, DC. Parents seem to understand that the best way to reduce gun crimes by juveniles is to promote more responsible gun ownership -- not more irresponsible gun bans."

 
APPENDIX D – Constitution – Property

25. (1) No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.

(2) Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application ­

for a public purpose or in the public interest; and

subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court.

(3) The amount of the compensation and the time and manner of payment must be just and equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including ­

the current use of the property;

the history of the acquisition and use of the property;

the extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property; and

the purpose of the expropriation.

(4) For the purposes of this section ­

the public interest includes the nation's commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources; and

G. SAFETY PRECAUTIONS

The safety of competitors, field personnel and spectators is of primary importance and requires continuous attention and self-discipline. On any part of club grounds, as well as on the shooting field, particular attention must be given to the safety procedures outlined in the following paragraphs and to other safe gun handling techniques. Caution must also be used in moving about the field and club grounds. Where self discipline and attention to safety procedures is lacking, it is the duty of the field personnel to enforce them and the duty of competitors to assist in such enforcement.

1. Eye and Ear Protection - All persons (including shooters, referees and trap personnel) must wear some form of eye and ear protection on a skeet range at a shoot sanctioned by NSSA.

2. No gun shall be loaded until the shooter is on the shooting station. Loading is considered as putting any part of a loaded shell in any part of the gun.

3. As a safety precaution, test shots will not be permitted without permission of the Field Referee. Such permission shall not unreasonably be withheld.

4. The loaded gun shall be kept pointed in a direction that will not endanger the lives of shooters, field personnel or spectators.

5. When not on the shooting station, the gun shall be carried with breech open and empty. Pumps and semi-automatics will have the bolt open. Fixed breech (double barrels including over and unders and side-by-sides) will be broken open.

6. When the shooter is on the shooting station and ready to shoot and a delay occurs, such as equipment breakdown, the gun shall be opened and all shells extracted.

7. During the shooting of single targets, management may permit the loading of two shells. However, no one will be allowed to load two shells to shoot their last singles target on any station. Management cannot compel the loading of two shells in the shooting of singles.

8. The loading of more than two shells in the gun shall not be allowed at any time.

9. A gun may not be used that will accept more than one (1) gauge of shells at the same time.

10. A shooter will not be permitted to use a gun with a release-type trigger unless the referee and the other members of the squad are notified. Extra caution must be exercised if the gun is given to a referee who is unfamiliar with its operation.

11. Any shooter whose gun accidentally discharges twice within one round for mechanical reasons shall be required to change guns or, if time permits, have his/her gun repaired, before continuing to shoot the round or subsequent rounds.

12. When a shooter intentionally fires a second time at the same target, he/she shall be warned by the referee. The second time the shooter intentionally fires a second shot at the same target in any event, the penalty shall be automatic disqualification from the event.

13. The placement of markers other than those specified in NSSA Rule Book shall be deemed illegal.

14. In the interest of safety, interference and time, only the club management’s personnel shall be permitted to pick up empty shells from the grounds during a registered shoot, and extreme care must be exercised to prevent interference with other squads shooting.

15. No spectator shall be allowed on the skeet fields, and the referee shall be responsible for the enforcement of this rule.

McKenzie Report - 1999

Why were these issues not discussed in the report? Was it because it disproves McKenzie’s arguments?

2. Why was the comparison of Botswana and Namibia ignored? This comparison thoroughly disproves the writers conclusion to the report.

Compare Botswana to Namibia: similar populations (Botswana 1.6m, Namibia 1.62m); both poorly industrialised with fairly dispersed populations; Botswana has a very strict licencing system; Namibia allows up to 4 licences per applicant; yet the murder rate in Botswana is three times that of Namibia. Namibia has also recently come out of conflict, which Botswana has not.

3. Why could McKenzie not answer the discrepancy between South Africa and Swaziland where Swaziland’s murder rate is higher than SA (80 per 100,000) yet firearms are not involved in these murders? Licenced firearms ownership is only 1.1% of the population as compared to 4.5% for SA.

These three very pertinent questions totally disprove McKenzies conclusions, yet they are all ignored.