I would like to thank the Portfolio Committee for giving the opportunity to make a submission on this Bill.

The revised Bill appears to be an improvement on the Draft Firearms Control Bill. In this the drafters must be congratulated in making some effort to improve it.

It should be noted that insufficient time and notice has been given on this bill for a full submission. That reliance had to be made on an unverified electronic copy because a printed copy if ordered from Cape Town could not be delivered by the post office in time. The Bill is also lengthy and complex requiring many days of study and just as many to respond. Days that working people do not have to spare.

Careful examination however shows that changes made have been solely to get the Bill signed by the State Legislators. It is noted that some of the more ridiculous provisions have been altered. What is quite apparent is that the policy and premise of the Bill remain unchanged in spite of the Dept Safety and Security receiving 2000 submissions on the Draft Bill. Why were
these submission not incorporated?

This submission follows the form of the bill and quotes the section numbers.

Quotes are indented and attributed.

[Almost every scholar who has studied the Jamaican crime situation shares the conclusions of criminologist William Calathes' [WC1] award-winning analysis, which found that the gun restrictions, as well as the other restrictions on civil liberty, were the result of "highly developed skills of political management" which were designed not to reduce crime, but to distract public attention from the underlying problems of Jamaican society, including economic inequality. [DBKl]]

[WC1] Calathes W. Criminal Justice and Underdevelopment: A Case Study of the Jamaican Gun Court Act. J Carib Stud 1988; 6:323-358.

[DBK1] Pennsylvania Legislature, Select Committee Investigating the Use of Automatic and Semiautomatic Firearms, September 8, 1994, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Written Testimony of David B. Kopel
Research Director, Independence Institute, Golden, Colorado
Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C.

It is admitted by the police that they have insufficient records of the number of licenced firearms used in crime. Therefore the presumption that control of licenced firearms is ipso-facto the control of illegal firearms is without evidence of police statistics. It is therefor an ideological belief of gun control organisations that has no place in legislation. That dreams and pure conjecture can be combined to form the basis of legislation defies reason other than the politics of diversion.

A great deal of time and trouble has been spent by the Department of Safety and Security in convincing government structures by combining irrelevant facts and figures with emotional argument in an appeal to save lives. When in reality the evidence that lives will be saved is totally lacking or has not been proved. Further the experience of every country, state or town that has enacted such legislation as been the dramatic increase of all crime.

Safety and Security have ignored every study and every example of the failed policy of gun control in reducing crime or the supply of guns to criminals. They have neither studied the problem of crime control in a holistic manner examining all facts and presenting honest argument of the failings of any control measures or the lack of control measures. How then is it possible to draw up legislation that will impact on the life and well being of every citizen in South Africa without proper examination of all the facts available?

That this can not be done by starting with preconceived ideas is evidenced by the mandate on which this legislation was initiated. Crime and the well being of citizens were not of concern then nor are they now. Once again governments ideological desire to remove all licenced firearms from licenced citizens has been confirmed. [SWE1] A denial of such objective will only convince the weak of mind or those with preconceived ideas placed in their minds.

[SWE1 Spier Wine Estate workshop addressed by Min S. V. Tshwete

b.. The dream of a safe South Africa, without guns and gun violence;

Summarised by B. L. Fanaroff (NCPS) in a "motivational campaign" of police as reported in Servamus, Reducing Gun Violence in South Africa, complied by Mandie Huisamen]

In reading the Servamus report it is impossible to tell the difference between it and the publications of fringe lunatic organisations. It quotes the aims and intentions of Gun Free South Africa to the extent that one may wonder if the Department of Safety and Security is an extension of Gun Free South Africa. It is committed to the same beliefs and methods of propagating these beliefs by the use of propaganda as Gun Free South Africa. That the Bill promotes exclusively the demands of Gun Free South Africa is evidenced by the statements of the Gun Control Alliance on the Bill. Wherein it is expressed complete satisfaction that their aims and intents have been incorporated fully.

It would appear that government is well aware of the results of gun control but either has no regard for the constitution it helped draft or for democracy it fought so hard to obtain. What other conclusion can be drawn than this Bill is a diversionary tactic using highly developed skills of political management?

Theft of firearms from licenced owners has been promoted in an atmosphere of hysteria and emotion by Safety and Security ignoring the premise upon which such blame is attached to the victim of a crime for the crime. Such dark age thinking by the Department of Safety and security will no doubt bring horror to all women and especially the victims of rape. Who have fought for so long and hard to get such stone age thinking from the closed minds of preconceived ideology. That such thinking is believed by people is mind boggling.

If it had been said the cars cause death or that the theft of cars was responsible for bank robberies then no doubt everyone would have laughed at such preposterous statements. Of deep concern is that when it comes to the same statements exchanging the word car with gun they are not only believed by form the basis of legislation. That such belief is held and used in the making of legislation is tribute to the power of propaganda.

This legislation has as its main theme the ISS generated Gastrow report that was soundly refuted on many occasions. That ISS helped draft the gun control legislation of Brazil is not in question. That this legislation has failed to contain or reduce crime or the supply of guns to criminals as promised in Brazil is not in doubt. It should be questioned as to what purpose the legislation was introduced in Brazil.

A government that had failed dismally sought to draw attention away from this failure instead of correcting those failures, since it was the cheapest option available to them. Thus practising once again the skills of political management noted in the failed attempt of Jamaica by William Calathe.

Such political management or the politics of distraction have been noted in the recent introduction of all gun control legislation.

As long as the public continues to tolerate politicians promoting gun control as the top item on the public safety agenda, politicians will continue to evade the difficult task of enacting legislation that addresses the root causes of South African crime crisis. A sad state of affairs indeed when human life is held so cheap in comparison to the evasion of responsibility of government.

The National Crime Prevention Strategy acknowledged that combating crime would not be a simple task and sought to address the problem with the correct approach.

We accept that some of the causes of crime are deep rooted and related to the history and socio-economic realities of our society. For this reason, a comprehensive strategy must go beyond providing only effective policing. It must also provide for mobilisation and participation of civil society in assisting to address crime.

To effectively reduce crime, it is necessary to transform and reorganise government and facilitate real community participation. We need to weave a new social fabric, robust enough to withstand the stresses of rapid change in a new-born society. To expect this to happen too quickly is to sabotage proper planning and solid construction of a new criminal justice machinery.

Most fundamentally this strategy requires that government moves beyond a mode of crisis management and reaction. Government must ensure that effective planning and sustainable success in reducing crime will reach well into the next century.

[ National Crime Prevention Strategy, 22 May 1996: Department for Safety and Security]

All of which has been forgotten in crises management by distracting from the root causes of crime with "gun control" as the touted remedy for all ills by politicians and a government apparently unwilling to address the root causes of crime in this country.

Current legislation extensively covers these areas:

to be intoxicated in possession of a firearm,
to use a firearm in a dangerous or negligent manner,
to enter licensed premises with a firearm,
to be in possession of an unlicensed firearm,
to be in possession of a licenced firearm without a licence or permit for that firearm.
to deal in firearms without a permit (especially illegal firearms),
to sell ammunition to someone without a licence for a firearm of that particular calibre.

However the number of prosecutions or cases of these offences are minor. This indicates, if the police are doing their duty, that either there are few contravention’s or an unwillingness of the police to enforce legislation they see as irrelevant to the capture and incarceration of criminals.

Safety and Security has not made a determination of which or both are responsible. Nor has it determined to what degree licenced firearms are involved. Since this proposed legislation will be obeyed only by the law abiding it is vital that such information be known. There simply is no sense in expecting that criminals will register firearms or obey the law. Therefor to expect that the proposed legislation will make any impact on the behaviour of criminals is foolish.

Legislation based on what the Dept. of Safety and Security suspects, has belief, thinks or has a political agenda for has no place in a democracy. That this Department has not offered proof of the complicity of licenced firearm owners in the commission of crime is not in doubt. The NCPS publication "Firearms Use and distribution in South Africa" draws no such conclusion because none exists.

When it is admitted in Parliament of the insignificant contribution of licenced firearms owners to violent crime. One is tempted to ask; if this is known to be true then what possible benefit can be gained from this proposed legislation in combating crime?

WHEREAS every person has the right to life and the right to security of the person, which includes, among other things, the right to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources;

Whilst the government appears ready and willing to protect the life and well being of every criminal, citizens are not accorded the same rights. Not only are they not protected by government, nor do the police have a duty to protect them. It is therefor incumbent of every citizen to do so for themselves. That a government would remove or restrict citizens ability to defend themselves is both immoral and unconstitutional in a democracy.

AND WHEREAS the adequate protection of such rights is fundamental to the well-being and social and economic development of every person;

AND WHEREAS the increased availability and abuse of firearms and ammunition has contributed significantly to the high levels of violent crime in our society;

There is no existence in South Africa or anywhere in the world that proves this relationship. Reputable Criminologists would and do most certainly disagree with this claim.

Since this claim is or appears to be a world first, why has the Department of Safety and Security not published these astonishing findings that they may be examined for validity and be so acclaimed? The prestige would be most welcome in light of South Africa’s declining international status.

The Department of Safety and Security was requested on 1st June 2000 [Appendix A] to supply such information and estimate based on its finding of the reduction of crime expected.

That this has not been done is indicative of the lack of such evidence or an unwillingness to have this so-called evidence examined by experts. In either case it is unacceptable and the Department of Safety and Security is requested to immediately make this evidence that proves the relationship claimed available that it may be examined for validity by experts.

It stands to reason that legislation should not be based on false claims or claims that have not been verified as correct. Does the Dept. of Safety and Security have the right to make any claim it likes and this claim is not checked by Parliamentary process where incorporated into legislation?

This is indicative of the fatally flawed process and ideological drafting of this Bill. The people have a right to expect that officials perform their duties and honour constitutional requirements.

AND WHEREAS the Constitution places a duty on the state to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights;

Why has the Department of Safety and security consistently ignored what is a duty they should honour? By flawed and controversial processes of law making, deliberate obstrufication and the total exclusion in the decision making process of those that have the most interest in this proposed legislation.

Even more controversial is the denial by firearms organisations of Safety and Security claim that they were properly consulted. This most certainly brings into question the integrity and honesty of these officials. It also raises the very important question of why this claim was made and the motives of those that made it.

What has become very clear is this proposed legislation is not just a matter for people who claim to know much about health and public safety and have not the faintest idea of firearms legislation and how it will impact on all segments of society. Firearm ownership is above all a matter that encompasses the many fields of sport, recreation, business, hunting, tourism, protection, security, study, collection, hobbies and self-defence. That vital and rightful input from these fields in drafting legislation has been ignored is not in question. What is in question is why such input has been avoided in a flagrant disregard of constitutional rights and democratic processes. Why government structures, politicians and officials have found no reason to complain or question this process.

2. The purpose of this Act is to—
(a) enhance the constitutional rights to life and bodily integrity;

The view of the growing international body of evidence that Safety and Security can not claim to be unaware of, shows clearly that this is not the intention proposed in the Bill. Every instance of gun control legislation has been succeeded by an increase of crime. How is it possible that Safety and Security pretend to be unaware of this fact? How is it possible that Safety and Security members have "briefed" the Portfolio Committee and not once mentioned this vital information?

How is it possible that NCPS have produce a book "Firearms Use and distribution in South Africa" and no evidence similar to that found by world renowned Criminologists was found? What is plainly obvious is that vital information has been repressed and censored out of all dealings that Safety and Security have had with government structures. Why? Since there is no successful implementation of gun control legislation to reduce either the supply of firearms to criminals or crime. I find the repression or non-discovery of such information by Safety and Security highly questionable.

What of crime that would not have occurred if such legislation had not been enacted. The responsibility of the increased crime, murder, death and rape must be borne by the sponsors of such legislation. That they are unwilling to do so is indicative of the lie of the foundation upon which this legislation is based. It is incumbent on the legislation process to discover if indeed the proposals will render the result claimed. Because if it does not the safety and security of every citizen is threatened by its enactment. Such results are clearly unconstitutional.

2.(b) prevent the proliferation of illegally possessed firearms and, by providing for the removal of those firearms from society and by improving control over legally possessed firearms, to prevent crime involving the use of firearms;

Firearms owners have suffered a massive propaganda campaign by both gun control organisations and the Dept. of Safety and Security in attempting to show that licenced firearms owners are irresponsible and blamed for the pool of criminal arms. There is no evidence available from police records that shows this relationship and the police do not claim it either. In fact on many occasions they have stated that insufficient data is available. Thus since this Bill is aimed almost exclusively at licenced firearms owners the chance that it will have any negative effect on criminal firearms is less than zero. That licenced firearm owners must tolerate the brunt of failed government policies to contain and control crime is inexcusable and an attempt to shift the focus from those failed policies.

Licenced firearms owners are in the words of the police, not a problem. Further the then Minister of Safety and Security Mr S. Mufamadi in an address to Parliament stated, "licenced firearms owners are responsible for 0.05% of violent crime". In terms of the total population this is more than 60 times better than the average. That this record of good behaviour is cast aside as irrelevant in the drafting of legislation is unpardonable. What more must licenced firearms owners do to convince government? If this figure was a hundred or one thousand times better than the average would it still be ignored as irrelevant. At what level will it be acceptable?

What chance has this Bill then of making any difference to South Africa’s crime rate. Since the Bill proposes to control licenced firearm owners and possession of a non licenced firearms is already a crime under Act 75 of 1969. Removal of every single licenced firearm would reduce our crime rate by 0.05%. One could hope that the government was more concerned with the 99.95% of crime this proposed legislation will not address.

The current CFR if it worked, should with little effort have been able to trace recovered criminal arms back to owners and produce a result. That this has not and can not be done is clear proof that either registered firearms lost, stolen or sold to criminals are not involved to any significant degree or the police place little importance to such recording as a crime fighting tool. In either event the efficiency of the CFR as a crime tool has to be questioned. To throw millions that could be better spent into a bottomless pit that serves as no crime deterrence or aid in combating crime is a waste of hard earned TAX money.

2.(c) enable the State to remove illegally possessed firearms from society, to control the supply, possession, transfer and use of firearms and to detect and punish the negligent or criminal use of firearms;

The Firearms Act 75 of 1969 gives the police more than enough powers to do this task. That is has not been applied is indicative of the value the police place on this legislation in the pursuit of their duties. There is absolutely no point in introducing legislation that will not be enforced. That the police would ignore by their unwillingness to apply such legislation because it is of no use to them in the capture of criminals. That burdens them with bureaucracy, unnecessary paper work and inspections in a never ceasing drain on money and valuable resources.

Since there is little doubt that the State is the largest contributor to the criminal arms pool. And is in the main relieved of the duty of abiding by this proposed legislation the major source of criminal arms is still available to criminals. That the SANDF, police and other government structures have been negligent in the control and reporting of missing firearms to the extent that it is unknown by the state what the total contribution to the criminal arms pool is, is of great concern to all. That the state should be shown any preferential treatment under such circumstances is without doubt contrary to the aims and objectives of the Bill.

200,000 unaccounted for firearms plus the losses that are known and unknown by the state. There can be little doubt that many of which have found there way into criminal hands. 63,000 Military rifles capable of full automatic fire that have not been returned. There can be little doubt that many thousands of these have been lost, stolen or sold to criminals. The AK47 has been replaced. SA Military weapons are the weapon of choice by cash-in-transit heists is an indication of the easy availability of weapons of war and ammunition that can only be obtained from the military or government organisations.

2(d) establish a comprehensive and effective system of firearm control and management; and

Whilst the bureaucratic recording and registration of firearms owners may well appease government who fear armed citizens. There is no evidence to suggest that such recording serves a useful purpose in placing criminals behind bars. With the current CFR more than 70% inaccurate (S. Duncan report), the police have not complained that this is a hindrance to performing their duty. In fact the lax manner in which the CFR is viewed might suggest that the police do not see much value in it. This would be in accordance with the findings of the police of other countries.

[Waterman, Greenwood, Newgreen]

Victoria Police College Inspectors, course No. 51 - 1986
Research lecture paper, Firearms – is it a police responsibility
Prepared by S. W. Waterman Senior Sergent 15548

Reason Why No Controls 44.

Although some members of the community expressed concern at the lack of firearm legislation, members of the Australian Firearm Law Institute conducted a comparison test between Queensland, West Australia and the Northern Territory who have had licensing and registration procedures dating back to 1950. West Australia was selected because it has the longest history of restrictive legislation in Australia. It was found after comparing the three states, two with severe restrictions on firearms and the other with almost no restrictions that there was very little difference between them and that in almost every component Queensland fared slightly better. On this basis alone it was decided not to introduce licensing shooters or registration. (15) _____________________________________________________________________

(15) Firearms Control. Carl G. Vandal. Australian Firearm Law Institute 1984, reprint. p.7.

Comment 45.

Can the task of Registration be effectively carried out 99.

A. NEWGREEN/Chief Inspector, Registrar of Firearms.
VICTORIA POLICE
Firearms Registry,
317 Flinders Lane
Melbourne, 3000.
26th February 1987

27. If one is to achieve a proper balance, I am of the opinion that the Firearms Act should -

(a) Repress the criminal and irresponsible use of firearms ;
(b) Look after the public interest ; and
(c) Not place harsh restrictions on responsible and mature sports shooters, whilst at the same time educating the public, particularly Juniors, in the safe use and handling of firearms.

I do not believe registration is the answer to the problem.

RECOMMENDATION

28. I would therefore recommend that Firearms Registration be forthwith abolished, and together with the Firearms Consultative Committee a far reaching, effective, and proper system of education be introduced, as a pre-requisite to the obtaining of a shooter's licence.

29. In conjunction with education, the penalties for those who breach the law should be heavily increased.

There is absolutely no doubt that criminals do not register their firearms. For the CFR to work it requires that criminals both register their firearms and leave them behind at the crime scene. It should be noted that criminals thus far have not been stupid enough to comply with these requirements.

Such a structure would gobble up enormous amounts of money better spent on real effort to reduce crime. That the Canadian experience is not painfully prominent in the minds of Safety and Security once again speaks volumes for repressed information.

Canadian officials in an ideological attempt to register firearms owners estimated that this would cost $80,000,000. Currently the Canadian government has spent $380,000,000 and is only half complete. When finished this would have cost the Canadian tax payer more than $800 each. The number of people working on it is enough to fill a village. The Canadian register already shows considerable inaccuracy due to inefficient and incompetent workers.

That the members of the CFR consider R217,000,000 sufficient has already been questioned. There is little doubt that the CFR staff are no better than their Canadian counterpart or those of England or Australia. The provisions of this legislation are far over and above that of Canada and there is no doubt that implementation of this requirement will become a very large stone around governments short of funds neck. It is doubtful that even 1% of crime will be solved by this idealistic recording. Many policemen will be removed from normal police duty and many police man-hours will be wasted in recording, checking and bureaucratic paperwork that will not bring criminals to justice.

It is quite easy to check. What is the current efficiency of the CFR in the capture of criminals? If it is unknown then little importance is placed in this structure for the purpose of reducing crime or aiding the capture of criminals. If it is a vital police tool then no effort or propaganda will be required to show that it is from its claimed records of success.

By far the most cost efficient method is to licence the person as in motor vehicle licensing. Since it is people that commit crimes and not guns.

2.(e) ensure the efficient monitoring and enforcement of legislation pertaining to the control of firearms.

This is simply an idealistic belief that control of registered firearms is control of unregistered firearms in criminal hands. Criminals by definition ignore legislation. That the bill will not achieve this is obvious. Act 75 of 1969 as amended has more than enough provisions for the police to capture criminals who breach its provisions. It is recognised as one of the most restrictive firearms legislation in the world. If the police are unwilling to enforce the provisions of Act 75 then Safety and Security has a duty to make these reasons known so that they can be studied to improve legislation. Not to censor such findings so that ideological thinking may prevail to the detriment of society.

(3) (a) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, declare any other firearm of a specified type to be a prohibited firearm if it is—
(i) in the interest of public safety; or
(ii) desirable for the maintenance of law and order.

(b) A notice contemplated in paragraph (a) must be tabled in Parliament at least 14 days before publication thereof if Parliament is then sitting, and if Parliament is not sitting, within seven days after the commencement of the next sitting.

Conceivably the Minister may wake up one morning and decide that all firearms are prohibited and without reason or debate may declare these as prohibited firearms. Parliamentary process must be followed as the purpose is a check on government power and excesses. This procedure as stated is unconstitutional and should be revised to conform to constitutional and democratic requirements of due Parliamentary process as required by the constitution.

5.(2) A notice contemplated in subsection (1)(i) must be tabled in Parliament at least 14 days before publication thereof if Parliament is then sitting, and if Parliament is not sitting, within seven days after the commencement of the next sitting.

7. (1) A person may dispose of an airgun only through a dealer.
(2) A dealer must keep an airgun register in which the prescribed particulars relating to the acquisition, possession and disposal of airguns must be recorded.

This places the burden of bureaucratic recording on businesses and police officials to check the records. If an air gun is not a firearm and does not require licensing or registration then there is no reason for dealers to record such details. One should note that once again the vociferous voices of gun control and the police insisted that airguns be registered. Against protests that such action was unwarranted, bureaucratic and would lead to un-needed paper work. Here we see again the proof of these protests which were ignored, as the police attempt to shed their load of nonsensical recording. It is simply proof that the police are being lead by their noses into unjustified claims and that they are not willing to place effort into ideological legislation that has no benefit to them. Nor do they see the sense of mountains of paper work that serves no purpose in the capture and incarceration of criminals.

A perfect example of failed legislation introduced at the urging of gun control.

The Department of Safety and Security made a commitment to publish the regulations. This has not been done. This is legislation by prescription not subject to the scrutiny of democratic Parliamentary process and is unconstitutional. It must therefore be changed to reflect the rights of the people contained in the constitution.

4.10.(2) The regulations contemplated in subsection (1) must set out different sets of criteria, in respect of different accreditations, which the Registrar must apply when issuing an accreditation and which criteria must at least include criteria relating

(a) trustworthiness and integrity;

It would be interesting indeed to see how trustworthiness or integrity is defined or measured. When the good record already shown by firearms owners is completely ignored. To what degree the integrity and trustworthiness of licenced firearm owners must improve beyond its current 60 times better than the average citizen must be clearly indicated.

4.10(2) The regulations contemplated in subsection (1) must set out different sets of criteria, in respect of different accreditations, which the Registrar must apply when issuing an accreditation and which criteria must at least include criteria relating to—

(a) trustworthiness and integrity

It would be interesting indeed to see how trustworthiness or integrity is defined or measured. When the good record already shown by firearms owners is completely ignored. To what degree the integrity and trustworthiness of licenced firearm owners must improve beyond its current 60 times better than the average citizen must be clearly indicated.

4.10.2(b) suitability to perform the relevant functions in terms of this Act;
(c) capacity to serve the purpose of the accreditation; and
(d) capacity to advance the purposes of this Act.

Such a person would have to conform to the unproven and flawed ideological thinking that promoted this Bill. There are many honest citizens that are not willing to prostitute their integrity by embracing illogical, flawed and unproven ideology. That they should be required to do so by legislation is immoral.

The Bill must be based on proven correct data such that there can be no conflict with 4.2(d) and this requirement would not be needed.

4.10.(3) The Registrar may cancel an accreditation if there is no longer compliance with any criterion for accreditation.

There are no terms of cancellation nor is any remedy available to such person.

11. (1) An application for a competency certificate to possess a firearm, to trade in firearms, to manufacture firearms or to carry on business as a gunsmith must be delivered to the Designated Firearms Officer responsible for the area in which the applicant ordinarily resides or in which the applicant’s business is or will be situated, as the case may be.

(2) A competency certificate may only be issued to a person who—

If the person meets the requirement of the legislation then a competency certificate must be issued. There can be no valid reason it can be refused.

5.11.(2)(d) is of stable mental condition and is not inclined to violence;

The wording is subject to interpretation. {and has no previous record of violence.}

A stable mental condition is not defined? Given the right circumstances the vast majority of people would be "inclined" to violence. See d, h, l, m can be combined.

There is no definition of "inclined".

5.11 (5) Despite subsection (2)(a), the Registrar may allow a person under the age of 18 years to apply for a competency certificate if the applicant is a dedicated hunter, dedicated sports person or private collector.

How could such a person become a dedicated hunter, dedicated sports person or private collector? Is this actually possible? Whilst the provision is made there appears to be no means of obtaining this status. Please explain how it is possible.

While there can only be small objection to the idea of competency certificates the belief that anyone who has passed the requirement will become incompetent needs to be proved by the presentation of evidence to show that this is the case. That none has been presented is proof that none exists. The same requirement then must be applied to drivers of motor vehicles. That licenced firearm owners have proved their responsibility and willingness to abide by the law is unquestionable, not in any doubt and a record that is unsurpassed. What more do firearms owners have to do to satisfy the ideological thinking of people blinded by their own fears?

{A certificate shall be valid for life.}

6.14. (1) The Registrar may issue an additional licence in respect of a firearm contemplated in section 15, 16, 17, 18 or 19 to every person who resides on the same premises as the holder of the licence in respect of the firearm in question.

On what grounds could it be refused? If such person meets the needs of legislation the licence must be issued.

6.15. (1) A firearm in respect of which a licence may be issued in terms of this section is any—

On what grounds could it be refused? If such person meets the needs of legislation the licence must be issued. The purpose of this legislation is supposedly to screen out those that should not be issued a licence. Once this criteria has been satisfied there can be no other reason that the licence can be withheld. The motives and ideology of the drafters must be questioned as to this paranoia and power given to unqualified people to refuse a licence because they are having a bad day.

The whole question of sub-dividing firearms and owners must be questioned. What purpose can this serve in combating crime? If it is argued that handguns are the gun of criminal choice then this division will not change that. If it is argued that this class of licenced owners are negligent then the record of successful prosecutions must be made available for assessment of the statement. It is simply not good enough to believe that it is true or produce figures of theft. Theft is a criminal act and the victim of crime is not responsible for that crime. This is blame transference, judgement without trail and assumption of guilt without evidence.

6.15.(1)(a) shotgun which is not fully or semi-automatic; or
(b) handgun which is not fully automatic.

This is totally inadequate and does not address the needs or requirements of self-defence.

6.15.(2) The Registrar may issue a licence under this section to any natural person who—
(a) needs a firearm for self-defence; and

"Need" has not been defined and is open to interpretation and subjective thinking. Will quoting current crime statistics satisfy this requirement? What is contemplated by need? Must firearm owners become clairvoyant?

A licence must be issued if the requirements of legislation are satisfied. This applies to all other instances of this unconstitutional statement.

6.15.(2)(b) cannot reasonably satisfy that need by means other than the possession of a firearm.

Any firearm that is able to be licenced can not be considered the ideal means of defence from attack by criminals who are not limited by legislation in their choice of weapons and always have the element of surprise, choosing the time and place. Nor does it address the dress code or weather conditions that will dictate a different choice of firearm. Nor does it address the differences between male and female where a firearm is shared.

Such restriction is already a severe limitation on the effectiveness of defence available to those who would obey the law. What is contemplated by "other means", sticks, stones, whistles, extremely short range chemical sprays, the police or legislation? That none of these are effective means of defence or protection should be known by the drafters of this Bill. It is certainly known by the criminal community.

6.15.(3) A person may hold one licence in respect of a shotgun contemplated in subsection (1)(a) and one licence in respect of a handgun contemplated in subsection (1)(b).

(4) A firearm in respect of which a licence has been issued in terms of this section may only be used—

The restriction on the number of firearms a person may hold is without merit, has no basis in fact or the record of crime. The number of multiple firearms holders is insignificant. The number of crimes committed by such firearms owners is even less significant. The number of firearms lost or stolen due to negligence and prosecuted is negligible.

What purpose this limitation could serve in combating crime is unknown but must be disclosed so that a proper evaluation of its merit can be assessed.

6.16. (1) For purposes of this Act, a restricted firearm is any—

(a) semi-automatic rifle, carbine or shotgun, which cannot readily be converted into a fully automatic firearm; or
(b) firearm declared by the Minister, by notice in the Gazette, to be a restricted firearm.

This avoids parliamentary process and must be revised to conform to constitutional requirements.

6.16(2) A notice contemplated in subsection (1)(b) must be tabled in Parliament at least 14 days before publication if Parliament is then sitting, and if Parliament is not sitting, within seven days after the commencement of the next sitting.

(3) The Registrar may issue a licence in terms of this section to any natural person who shows that a firearm contemplated in section 15(1) will not provide sufficient protection, and who submits reasonable information to motivate the need for a restricted firearm for self-defence purposes.

Need has not been defined. The licence must be issued if legislative requirements are satisfied.

6.16(4) No person may hold more than one licence issued in terms of this section.
(5) A firearm in respect of which a licence has been issued in terms of this section may only be used—

Such limitations are pointless and serve no purpose in combating crime. The reasons for this limitation must be made available so that they can be examined for validity and suitability of purpose.

6.17.(3) (a) Subject to paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), no person may hold more than four licences issued in terms of this section.
(b) If a person holds a licence issued in terms of section 15, he or she may only hold three licences issued in terms of this section and if he or she holds two licences issued in terms of section 15, he or she may only hold two licences issued in terms of this section.
(c) A person may not hold more than one licence in respect of a handgun contemplated in subsection (1)(b).
(d) If a person contemplated in paragraph (a) holds any additional licences contemplated in section 14 in respect of a firearm contemplated in this section and section 15, the number of licences which that person may hold must be reduced by the number of such additional licences held.

(4) A firearm in respect of which a licence has been issued in terms of this section may only be used—
(a) for purposes of hunting on land suitable for hunting;
(b) for sporting purposes on premises of an accredited shooting range and in accordance with the rules of that shooting range; and
(c) to practise on premises of an accredited shooting range in accordance with the rules of that shooting range, or in or on any other prescribed place.

Such limitations are pointless and serve no purpose in combating crime. The reasons for this limitation must be made available so that they can be examined for validity and suitability of purpose.

21. (1) Ammunition which may be possessed in a private collection is any ammunition approved for collection by an accredited collectors association.
(2) (a) The Registrar may, subject to such regulations as may be prescribed, issue a permit in terms of this section to a private collector if the application is accompanied by an affidavit from the chairperson of an accredited collectors association stating that the applicant is a registered member of that association.

The applicant is forced to join an association this is unconstitutional and must be changed or removed to conform with constitutional requirements.

The permit must be issued if legislative requirements are satisfied. The regulations have not been disclosed and are not subject to Parliamentary process. This must be redrafted, the Parliamentary policy and regulations disclosed. This is unconstitutional and must be rectified to conform to the constitutional requirements.

(b) A collector contemplated in paragraph (a) may not possess more than 200 rounds of ammunition of any particular calibre unless the Registrar approves the possession of a higher number in writing.

The number of different calibre’s that may be collected is unknown but is more than 5000. Therefor it is possible a collector may have in excess of 100,000 cartridges but must apply for special permission over and above the permit requirements to hold more than 200 of one type. This limitation is of no purpose in combating crime. It is an unnecessary hindrance to the collection of cartridge head-stamps and variations that can serve no useful purpose. The reason for this limitation must be made known so that it can be examined for validity and correct application. A belief is insufficient evidence to base legislation on.

The regulations have not been disclosed. Nor are they subject to parliamentary process. This is unconstitutional and must be rectified.

(4) The holder of a permit issued in terms of this section—
(a) must keep the ammunition at the place specified in the permit; and
(b) may only display the ammunition in accordance with such safety measures as may be prescribed.

This is legislation by prescription and is unconstitutional. It must be changed to conform to constitutional requirements.

25. Despite anything to the contrary in this Act but subject to section 123(7), any person who is at least 21 years of age and 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 or her immediate supervision—

The purpose of the age limit is unknown and must be disclosed. Either a firearm owner is competent or not. What has age got to do with it? The reasons and evidence for this requirement must be disclosed so that they can be examined for validity to the application.

28. (1) The holder of a firearm licence must in writing notify the Registrar of any change in his or her physical or postal address within 30 days of such change occurring.
(2) The Registrar must in writing acknowledge receipt of the notification referred to in subsection (1).

What period of time is given for the registrar to comply with this requirement?

29. The holder of a licence issued in terms of this Chapter must inform the Registrar in writing within 30 days if there is any change with regard to any information which was submitted in respect of the application for the issue of that licence.

What possible purpose could the renewal of firearms licences serve in the combat of crime? As noted the CFR has little to no purpose in the solving of crime or the capture and prosecution of criminals. The reasons and evidence for this requirement must be made known so that they can be examined for validity and suitability to the purpose. The tracing, tracking and recording of firearms to aid removal of firearms from licenced firearm owners can not be seen to be a valid reason. Nor can the expected inaccuracy be used as an excuse for officials incompetence in recording detail that is of little to no use in combating crime. Licence holders current address is easily available from other government held records and can with little trouble be incorporated. It is not needed that vast amounts of money be spent and people be inconvenienced because government structures are incompetent. This is the responsibility of government to rectify by improving service delivery.

30. A licence or permit mentioned in Column 2 of the Table below remains valid for the period mentioned in Column 3 of that Table.

The whole question of licence renewal is bound in the hysterical and ideological thinking of gun control. The reasons and validity of this requirement must be presented so that it can be examined to suitability of purpose in the combat of crime.

If this is just to maintain accurate records then the problem has not been given any reasonable thought at all by the drafters who appear to be eminently unqualified to have tacked this task.

That it serves no useful purpose in the capture or incarceration of criminals is not in doubt. That it will make no difference to the crime rate is not in doubt. That it will not serve any purposes as detailed by the aims and intent of the Bill is not in doubt.

33. The Registrar must, as soon as practicable, establish such central firearms database as may be prescribed.

The accurate costing and value of such database in the combat of crime must first be established. That it is of doubtful value has been established by reports from other countries. Why have these reports [Newgreen, Waterman, Greenwood] not been taken into consideration or even mentioned? That they are unknown is not true.

94. (1) The holder of a licence to possess a firearm referred to in Chapter 6 may not possess more than 200 cartridges for each firearm in respect of which a licence has been issued to him or her.

Many, many firearms owners who enjoy both sport and recreation will fire more than this in a single day. It precludes target shooters from purchasing ammunition in bulk once an accurate make and batch has been found.

This restriction is totally unrealistic. What evidence is there that such restriction will in any way impact on crime? This evidence must be produced so that it can be examined for validity and suitability to the intended and stated purpose.

Once again the exclusion of firearms owners from the drafting process has allowed those with dreams and ideology to make unrealistic demands of firearm owners that will serve absolutely no function in decreasing the crime rate. Its purpose is designed to inconvenience them or reduce the popularity of a sport or recreation.

(2) The holder of a licence to possess a firearm may not, during any period of 12 months, purchase more than 2400 cartridges for each firearm in respect of which a licence has been issued to him or her.

This limitation is totally without merit and the reasons and validity must be examined for suitability of purpose in combating crime.

(3) The limitation in subsection (2) does not apply to—
(b) the holder of a licence to possess a firearm issued in terms of this Act in respect of ammunition bought and discharged at an accredited shooting range.

That many clubs and organisations will not be able to afford the huge costs of safe storage will impact on the smaller poorer organisations, thus this is discrimination against those that need the most cost effective practice.

The evidence that suggested that this would reduce crime must be produced so that it can be examined for validity and suitability to purpose.

96. (1) Section 48(1) does not apply to the loading of ammunition by the holder of a licence to possess a firearm for use in his or her licensed firearm.
(2) (a) A holder contemplated in subsection (1) may not have more than 2.5 kilograms of propellant and 2 400 primers in his or her possession at any time.
(b) (i) The holder contemplated in paragraph (a) may not purchase more than 2.5 kilograms of propellant or 2 400 primers during any 12-month period.

These restrictions are without merit. The evidence that any purpose will be served in combating crime must be produced so that it can be examined for validity and suitability of purpose.

This restriction as with others that limit sport, practice and recreation have not been shown to have any impact on crime. All these limits are the dreams of gun controls sick mind.

(3) No person may load prohibited ammunition contemplated in section 95.
(4) The holder of a licence may only acquire, possess or use equipment for loading ammunition for the specific firearm in respect of which a licence was issued to him or her.

This requirement neglects the role played in the development of ammunition by reloaders. It also restricts the reloading of "wild cat" calibres for which there is no single set of equipment. Requiring the use of equipment of calibres for which a licence is not held. This requirement has no merit in legislation and must be shown to have purpose. The ideological belief that licenced firearm owners load ammunition for criminals must be proved. Since there are no or negligible cases of successful prosecution one can but wonder at what evidence was used in the formulation of this requirement. Belief and dreams are not grounds for legislation.

Since that state has been shown to be a large if not the largest contributor to the criminal firearm pool such exemptions are contrary to the aim and intent of the bill. The state in no way should be exempted in its obligation to the safety and security of the people or the constitution. Many such firearms and ammunition that can only have been obtained from the state have been used in cash in transit heists and other crimes. People have been mercilessly killed and the state must except its responsibility in the death of these innocent people. That the state should be exempted from what it insists the people must do to combat crime is unthinkable.

105. (1) The Registrar may declare a person unfit to possess a firearm if, on the grounds of information contained in a statement under oath or affirmation including a statement made by any person called as a witness by the Registrar, it appears that—
(a) a final protection order has been issued against such person in terms of the Domestic Violence Act, 1998 (Act No. 116 of 1998);
(b) that person has expressed the intention to kill or injure himself or herself or any other person by means of a firearm;

It is a known fact that almost all people in particular teenagers or children at play at some point in time expressed a desire to do this. That the vast majority have no intention of doing any harm to themselves or others is also known. The ideological belief that such requirement will save lives is a figment of the paranoid imagination. It gives much insight into the ideological and false beliefs that have sponsored this Bill. The evidence that such condition will combat crime must be produced to show the validity for its inclusion.

(c) because of that person’s mental condition, inclination to violence or dependence on any substance which has an intoxicating or narcotic effect, the possession of a firearm by that person is not in the interests of that person or of any other person;

This requires expert opinion to evaluate. That anyone connected with the control and registration of firearms will not have as a requirement of the position they hold. It simply expresses the ideology of the Bill and can not be regulated. All people given the right circumstances are inclined to violence. A mother who’s child is placed in danger, a fathers protection of his children or a person faced with certain death or injury. That this type of thinking is contemplated in legislation is unbelievable. That it will as presented serve any useful purpose in combating crime must be shown to be of value. A belief is not grounds for legislation.

(e) that person has provided information required in terms of this Act which is false or misleading.

"Misleading" has not been defined. Circumstances change at no notice and may be construed as to be misleading. Deliberation and intent must be proved.

113. (1) Chapter 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 (Act No. 51 of 1977), applies with the necessary changes to the entry of premises, search for and seizure of any firearm, imitation firearm, airgun, device or ammunition referred to in this Act.

That the power already given to the police are misused and abused is disclosed in the Dept. Safety and Security report. That such powers should be extended flies in the face of the Departments own findings.

RESEARCH REPORT

This report reflects on impressions of police practice in relation to searches and the extent to which the legal requirements for search and seizure are being met. The interviewees felt that in the context of a strict application of the law, the legal requirements are not, in most instances, being met. Police officers will contend that searches are being conducted with consent. However, consent in most cases is clearly not informed consent and in some cases it would appear that consent is coerced. On the other hand, most reports indicate that when they do request consent, the police generally approach the public in a courteous manner, which probably accounts for the relatively small number of complaints received.

Police perception of a conflict of interests between the demands of human rights and the need to prevent crime and maintain law and order was also discussed in the report. The positive spinoff of police respect for human rights in the form of a more credible police force and public participation in crime prevention appears to escape most officers. Changing police culture around the execution of searches is not going to be easy and is but one of the police practice issues that need to be addressed during the SAPS transformation process. Monitoring police abuse of power in the search and seize terrain is certainly an area that the Secretariat for Safety and Security would wish to pursue.

120. (2) Whenever a person is charged in terms of this Act with an offence of which the possession of a firearm or ammunition is an element, and the State can show that despite the taking of reasonable steps it was not able with reasonable certainty to link the possession of the firearm or ammunition to any other person, the following circumstances will, in the absence of evidence to the contrary which raises reasonable doubt, be sufficient evidence of possession by that person of the firearm or ammunition where it is proved that the firearm or ammunition was found—

It is a constitutional requirement that the State prove every element of a case. It is a constitution requirement that people have the right to a fair trail and to remain silent as the accused. That this is unconstitutional is not in doubt and reflects the measures that are contemplated by ideological thinking in the pursuit of dreams. That it has no place in legislation has already been shown by the constitutional court. It therefore must be removed.

122. Whenever a person is charged in terms of this Act with an offence of failing to take reasonable steps to ensure that no firearm or ammunition is brought onto premises, a vehicle, a vessel or an aircraft under his or her ownership or control in contravention of this Act, proof that the firearm or ammunition was brought onto premises, a vehicle, a vessel or an aircraft under his or her ownership or control, will, in the absence of evidence to the contrary which raises reasonable doubt, be sufficient evidence that he or she failed to take such reasonable steps.

The presumption of guilt can not be assumed. It is contrary to democracy and the Constitution of South Africa. The State must prove every element of a case. The right to silence of the accused is not accorded.

128. (1) The Central Firearms Register must contain—
(a) the central firearms database;
(b) the central dealers database;
(c) the central manufacturers database;
(d) the central gunsmiths database;
(e) the central importers and exporters database;
(f) the central Official Institutions database; and
(g) any other information required to be kept by the Registrar in terms of this Act.

(2) The central databases referred to in subsection (1) must contain—
(a) such information as may be prescribed concerning—
(i) competency certificates, licences, authorisations and permits, as well as renewals and cancellations thereof;
(ii) applications for competency certificates, licences, authorisations and permits and any renewal applications which have been refused in terms of this Act;
(iii) transfers of firearms effected in terms of this Act;
(iv) imports and exports of firearms and ammunition in terms of this Act;
(v) the transport of firearms and ammunition in terms of this Act; and (vi) the loss, recovery, theft or destruction of firearms.
(b) all original documentation submitted in support of all applications made in terms of this Act; a record of all licensed dealers, manufacturers, gunsmiths, importers and exporters, transporters for reward, accredited institutions, organisations and all firearms and ammunition in their possession;
(d) a record of all firearms in the possession of Official Institutions;
(e) a record of the acquisition, transfer, loss, theft or destruction in respect of firearms in the possession of Official Institutions;
(f) a record of all firearms recovered, forfeited to the State or destroyed;
(g) the fingerprints which have been submitted for purposes of an application in terms of this Act; and
(h) any other documentation and information as may be prescribed.

If government believes such a register as contemplated can be established with the medium term expenditure of R217 Million then like in other issues it is being lead by the nose by prevaricators and unscrupulous people.

Canada in its implementation of provision (1a) has exceeded the initial budget by a factor 4. The register is only half complete and is already unreliable due to errors and incompetence. The thousands of police officers involved are not doing any police work that will result in the capture and incarceration of criminals. Thus less are now available to fulfil this vital function at the expense of bureaucratic recording.

The poetic words of a hard working South African policeman should be heeded. [Appendix B]

20.143. (1) The Minister may, after consultation with the National Commissioner and the Secretary for Safety and Security, by notice in the Gazette declare any premises or categories of premises to be firearm free zones, if it is—
(a) in the public interest; and
(b) in accordance with the objects of this Act.
(2) Unless authorised to do so in terms of a notice issued under subsection (1), no person may—
(a) allow any firearm or ammunition to be in a firearm free zone;
(b) carry any firearm or ammunition in a firearm free zone; or
(c)store any firearm or ammunition in a firearm free zone.
(3) A police official may, without warrant—
(a) search any building or premises in a firearm free zone if he or she has a suspicion on reasonable grounds that a firearm or ammunition may be present in the firearm free zone in contravention of a notice issued in terms of subsection (1);
(b) search any person present in a firearm free zone; and
(c) seize any firearm or ammunition present in the firearm free zone or on the person in contravention of a notice issued in terms of subsection (1).

Firearms free zones are an invention of gun control organisations that have no record of success in achieving their false promise. Evidence must be produced that such zones will reduce crime or this has no place in legislation.

All the gun control organisations offer is; We think, It stands to reason, We believe, It must work, Lives will be saved. More proof than this is needed but will never be found.

Children are killed in these zones as evidenced by the recent killings at the Zoo in Washington DC. A gun free zone in a handgun free city. Legislation failed to keep guns from the hands of criminals there as they will fail here.

Legal licenced firearm owners will be massively inconvenienced in a discriminatory way that is unconstitutional. Criminals are not likely to declare or give up their firearms and a belief that this measure will keep criminals out can be simply tested. Let banks throw out all their firearms and declare banks as gun free zones. Let home owners throw out their guns and place signs up declaring their homes gun free. Let Ministers dispense with the army of bodyguards they have and wear a gun free zone sticker.

Which Minister having bodyguards will consider this a sane measure. Why then can the same measure be considered reasonable for citizens?

No provision has been made for the safe storage of firearm handed in.

No provision has been made for claims against the state in the event of a crime or death and the victims means of defence was removed by the state, thus making the victim more vulnerable to attack.

144. (1) The Minister may, during a state of emergency as contemplated in the Constitution and if empowered as contemplated in terms of section 2(2) of the State of Emergency Act, 1997 (Act No. 64 of 1997)—
(a) by notice in the Gazette prohibit or regulate the supply and the transportation of firearms and ammunition, or firearms and ammunition of a particular class within a particular area for a period specified in the notice;
(b) by notice in the Gazette, direct all persons or dealers or authorised manufacturers within a particular area, or a class of such persons, or dealers or authorised manufacturers within a particular area, to surrender, in accordance with directions in the notice, all firearms or ammunition in their possession, or all firearms or ammunition of a particular class in their possession; and

This avoids constitutional and Parliamentary process and must be removed or revised.

150. (1) The Minister may, by notice in the Gazette, make regulations regarding—
(a) anything that may or must be prescribed in terms of this Act;

Such power was never intended to be in the hands of the minister and is expressly prohibited by the constitution. It is suggested that a copy of the constitution be forwarded to the drafters of this Bill. They obviously have never read it. It is hoped that the Portfolio Committee is not so uninformed.

The drafters of the Bill have made every effort that it is humanly possible to make to exclude the input of legitimate concerns and rights of firearm owners. Have been so elusive with the truth that it is assumed they have no shame or sense of guilt.

Firearm owners were promised with the rushed introduction of the Section 8 amendments to Act 75 of 1969 that they would be given every opportunity to make representation on the new firearms legislation. This was a trick to get legislation passed. It is just another example of the devious nature of the Dept. Safety and Security. Another failed promise in a long list of failed promises made by this government organisation that has no credibility left with citizens.

• The refusal of Safety and Security to consult with firearms organisations.
• The claimed participation of firearms organisations.
• The secrecy in which this Bill was produced.
• The non-disclosure of the regulations.
• The non-disclosure of Parliamentary policy.
• The deliberate trampling of rights contained in the Bill.
• The vilification of licenced firearm owners with propagandistic speeches.
• The sheer arrogance of the drafters in believing they can get away with it.
• The manner in which thousands of submissions requested on the draft bill have been tossed aside as irrelevant to the Bill.
• The manner of the timing, notice and availability of the Bill in a deliberate attempt to reduce submissions.

Meaningful and reasonable legislation can not be produced in the air of fanaticism and pipe dreams that surrounds this bill and the drafting process. Belief can only be expected or accepted by those with similar ideological reasoning.

It is my wish that this bill be consigned to places of learning so that it can be set as an example of how legislation should not be created or written.

It is my hope and trust that the Portfolio Committee can see it their duty to bring some sense to a rampant and out of control situation. That they return this Bill to the drafters for total revision with the input of all stakeholders. It just can not be considered as an example of good legislation. It neither meets its stated intention and over-rides the rights enshrined in the constitution. Is full of the utopian dreams that will never be realised in society in our lifetime.

It is my submission that for the reasons outlined this bill should be returned for redrafting in a constitutional manner including the input of all stakeholders.

P N Moss