As a corporate citizen De Beers acknowledges and supports the objective of having an effective and practical set of laws and regulations to govern the firearms industry, which includes the possession of firearms by private and corporate citizens for security, self-defence, sporting and recreational purposes. With the view to achieving the objectives of the Bill, De Beers submits that greater emphasis should however be placed on ensuring that:

(a) firearm legislation that gives fair recognition to the rights of citizens to own and use firearms is rigorously enforced so that wrongdoers are brought to book and appropriately punished

(b) law enforcement agencies are adequately resourced so as to be able to effectively combat the proliferation of illegal firearms

(c) the wrong kind of persons are not granted licences for the possession of firearms (i.e. persons who, for the reasons stipulated in the Bill, are considered unfit for the purpose of possessing a firearm)

Additionally, the proposed legislation should seek to protect the legitimate interests and rights of law-abiding citizens who have demonstrated their competency and fitness to possess and use firearms. Conversely, legislation should not have the effect of compromising and frustrating such law abiding citizens by limiting the number of firearms which they may own and by restricting their legitimate use thereof. Furthermore, the rights of such law abiding citizens to own and possess firearms for legitimate purposes should not be subject to the discretionary powers of a State official as contemplated in the Bill. It is also noteworthy that sporting rifles and shotguns are seldom, if ever, used in the commission of violent crimes.

Chairperson, your committee has heard, by way of the various oral and written submissions, that the firearms industry is a legitimate industry which contributes to the national economy in various ways and at various levels. You have also heard that sport shooting is a legitimate and popular recreational activity which allows South Africans the opportunity to compete in international competitions such as at the Olympic Games; and that hunting game and gamebirds is not only a legitimate and popular recreational activity but it also makes significant contributions to regional and local economies and helps promote South Africa’s image abroad as a desirable tourist destination.

Regrettably, it is also a fact that ordinary citizens are victims of criminal activity and are in need of some or other means of self-protection. Businesses too, such as De Beers, are preyed upon by criminals to the extent that they are compelled to provide their own security measures, frequently by means of armed security personnel, or through the medium of specialist security companies.

De Beers’ interest in the proposed new legislation arises from:

A its need to provide its own security measures at its various mining operations

B the fact that firearms are used in its game culling and commercial hunting activities which form part of its game management programmes on its nature reserves; and

C the need from time to time to provide firearms of suitable calibres to guests which include fee-paying foreign hunters who undertake trophy hunting safaris on the Company’s game reserves.

De Beers submits that certain provisions of the Bill which will have a direct effect on its operations are unclear as to the actual intentions of the proposed legislation and that these may create difficulties of a practical nature viz.,

1. ad section 9(1) This subsection has been interpreted by some to mean that a juristic person is restricted to nominating only one natural person while others believe that it will be permissible for more than one person to be nominated. De Beers believes that it would be impractical for a large corporation consisting of many divisions to be restricted to nominating only one person. It recommends that this section be amplified so as to make it clear that more than one person may be nominated by a juristic person for the purpose of applying for firearm licences on behalf of a juristic person.

2 ad section 23(5)(a) This subsection stipulates that the holder of a licence issued in terms of section 23 may only provide the firearm for use by another person subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. However, there is no indication whatsoever as to what conditions may be prescribed and by whom. It is not possible therefore to comment on the efficacy of this provision.

It is recommended that section 23 of the Bill be amended so as to make it legally possible for the holder of a licence to possess a firearm for business (hunting) purposes to provide the firearm for use by:

(a) an employee who holds a certificate of competency; and

(b) a guest who will hunt in the company of, or under the direction of, an employee who holds a certificate of competency.

3. ad section 24(1) This subsection stipulates that the Registrar may issue a temporary authorisation to possess a firearm to any person including a non-citizen (presumably this is intended to mean a non-South African citizen). It is presumed that this provision is intended to cater, inter alia, for foreign hunters who bring their own firearms with them and who are required to be in possession of a temporary authorisation to possess a firearm.

However, Section 24 does not provide for the delegation of the Registrar’s authority to a Designated Firearms Officer and foreign hunters will no doubt experience difficulties on arrival at their South African port of entry. Consideration should be given to remedying this situation.

4. ad section 25 This section stipulates that ..."the holder of a licence to possess a firearm issued in terms of this Act may allow any other person to use that firearm while under his immediate supervision...". The question arises as to precisely what is meant by the word "immediate"? For example, on a shooting range it is indeed possible and feasible for the licence holder to be in attendance ‘at the elbow’ as it were, of the ‘other person’. However, in a hunting situation this is not always feasible. Very often the ‘other person’ may be required to stalk an animal with the assistance of a professional guide or tracker who may not be the licence holder contemplated in this section.

5. ad section 15(4) Firearms such as handguns that have been issued for self-defence purposes to Farm Managers who reside on farms are frequently used by them for dispatching wounded animals. Section 15(4) of the Bill will prohibit such secondary use.

It is submitted that if a person has been found to be a responsible and competent person for purposes of being granted a firearm licence, such person should be entitled to use the firearm in question for any lawful purpose. The restriction relating to the use of firearms as stipulated in this section of the Bill is considered to be unnecessary and illogical.

In closing we should like to express our appreciation for the opportunity to make these representations. We are also willing to participate in any further debate on this subject.

HLM SWEETNAM

17 August 2000