Revised Submission on Firearms Control Bill (5 June 2000)
Request for a verbal representation on the Firearms Control Bill
It is with great trepidation that I write this letter to you. Having sent through five different submissions between November 1999 and January 2001I have yet to receive a response from yourself.
Having watched a lot of comments and statements being passed back and forth over the last few months it would appear that the Government is continuing to deny the democratic rights of its citizens. The Government maintains that this Bill will contribute to the reduction of crime in our country knowing full well that it has done everything in its power to hide the fact that it will never be able to prove it.
Let me put it to you another way. To reduce crime and violence you are targeting responsible gunowners who have had to incur personal expense to obtain a firearm in order to protect themselves and their families because the current police force is too understaffed to do so.
Furthermore, your approach has NOT been one of transparency. Your department has not engaged in meaningful dialogue with the Firearm bodies despite their numerous attempts to be involved. There is no research from the Government to prove that the Bill will accomplish crime reduction, in fact there is numerous research to prove otherwise and still you chose to ignore it. The timing of submissions, the constant changing of addresses, contact names, difficulty in obtaining the Regulations, all smacks of underhandedness on the Governments behalf.
One would also have to question the qualifications of the committee, who drafted this Bill as even though there is merit in some of the proposed legislation, if one looks at the Competency Act, I strongly question the States ability to administer, police and invoke this. It is purely an attempt to dissuade people from possessing a firearm.
Looking at Point 15(2)(b), does the State honestly expect my family to be assaulted, maimed or killed while the State ascertains if there was another means by which we could have defended ourselves. If I was not granted a license and my family is killed would I then be in a position to sue the State?
How am I more dangerous if I possess two firearms? What is the necessity to relicense a firearm every two years?
I could go on and on but, this request is not purely based upon the fact that the Bill is a poor attempt filled with glaring inaccuracies and insufficient research, nor that it attempts to make criminals out of law abiding citizens, but in essence there is something deeper at stake here than just another Bill.
This is quite simply the disarmament of civilians, and of course the question Government must answer, is WHY?
- Why does the Government feel so threatened by responsible and law abiding gunowners? - When have they ever been a threat to society?
- Why are our basic rights to defend ourselves being threatened?
- Why has the Government's approach been one of deceit when it comes to consultation and the deliberate refusal to accept the 2000 submissions already made?
- What proof can the Government supply to substantiate a link between crime and licensed gunowners?
I believe the Portfolio Committee should immediately engage in meaningful and fair discussions with all relevant parties as I believe the NFF could be beneficial in coming to a favourable resolution.
For the record, I fully support responsible ownership of firearms and request to be given the opportunity to be heard, as I believe this is my democratic right.