SUPERIOR ARMS & AMMUNITION
Superior Arms & Ammunition (Pty) Ltd is the holding Company for thirteen retail firearms dealerships and runs a wholesale division where it imports firearms predominantly from the United States of America. Superior Arms and Ammunitions retail outlets trade under the name of E’Gunshop. Our clientele are almost exclusively comprised of people from previously disadvantaged communities and lower income groups, whose need for personal protection should be obvious from their living conditions. Owing to the number of outlets which the company has, as well as the number of units sold through these outlets, Superior Arms is the largest single retailer of small arms in the country. As a result we have acquired an extensive knowledge of the industry, which we submit qualifies us to make this presentation.
In the time at my disposal I am unable to canvass all aspects of the Bill and our detailed submissions in this regard are set out in the folder before you. I would mention that these detailed submissions are substantially the same as the written submissions which we delivered to Mr. L. Phakati on 28th January 2000. I would therefore like to use the time available to me to deal with the proposed legislation in general terms and to highlight certain aspects of the Bill.
Ladies and Gentlemen, If your desire is to bring the entire Central Firearms Register into absolute chaos then approve this Bill.
If you want to dramatically increase the illegal firearms in circulation then approve this Bill.
If you feel nothing for the welfare and security of the black population in general then approve this Bill.
If you have proof that guns equal crime then approve this Bill.
If you believe that it is only the entitlement of the upper class not to live in fear then approve this Bill.
If you have proof that this Bill will stop violent crime then approve it.
If you want the Ministry of Safety and Security to have egg on its face when this Bill is found to be totally unworkable then approve this Bill.
If you do not hold any of the above sentiments then scrap this piece of legislation right away and let us start examining other, meaningful ways of tackling the crime problem in this country such as giving half a billion Rand annually to schooling, housing, welfare or adult education.
If your intention is to set the priorities in this country correctly then let us not waste any more money or time on frivolous legislation such as the Firearms Control Bill 2000.
At the outset I wish to stress most emphatically that my company, and I would go so far as to say all other arms dealers, wholeheartedly supports the government’s initiatives against crime and we will enthusiastically support all constructive moves to bring this scourge which is bedevilling our country under control. We also support responsible gun ownership and would welcome a revision of the existing licencing procedures in order to achieve this , provided these are practical, affordable and enforceable.
Notwithstanding paragraph 3 of THE MEMORANDUM OF OBJECTS OF THE FIREARMS CONTROL BILL, the current bill has been drafted without consultation with dealers and gun owners. Conspicuous by its absence from this paragraph is the name of THE SOUTH AFRICAN ARMS AND AMMUNITION DEALERS ASSOCIATION which is the only representative dealers body. The SOUTH AFRICAN GUN OWNERS ASSOCIATION will no doubt challenge the allegation that they were involved in any meaningful consultations and at least one of the organisations listed, exists in name only and has no meaningful membership. It would appear that any consultation that may have taken place was on a very selective basis. As a result Mr. Chairman, I humbly submit that the proposed legislation is seriously, if not fatally, flawed and if the flaws are not addressed the legislation will eventually be found to be unworkable. To us the sections that appear to be flawed are contained in paragraphs 1 to 14 of our detailed submissions.
The overriding reason for the flaws outlined therein are no doubt as a result of the inherent lack of consultation with relevant experts within the industry. Please note that these are in no means a exhaustive list of all the flaws contained in this Bill, yet they concern our problems with the Bill within the limits of our expertise.
I therefor appeal to you, Ladies and Gentlemen, to refer this bill back for meaningful consultation with ALL interested parties not just those with their own narrow agendas, and I am certain that from such consultation workable legislation will result.
Paragraph 1 of the MEMORANDUM OF OBJECTS avers that the availability of firearms contributes directly to the high level of violent crime in South Africa. This contradicts studies made elsewhere in the world so it would be interesting to examine the statistics upon which the allegation is based. The supposed proliferation of firearms is not supported by statistical fact. The true position is that there has been a steady decline in licences issued year on year since 1994. The following represent the number of firearm licences issued for each year since 1994 according to the Central Firearms Register.
A substantial number of the above licences relate to second hand weapons and, consequently, do not contribute to an increase in the number of firearms in circulation.
I submit that when the Government and its legislators refer to a proliferation of firearms they are alluding to an increase in firearm ownership amongst the black population who up until 1993 were largely precluded from firearm ownership.
Unfortunately, a very large proportion of our population live in less than ideal circumstances where crime is rife and where police protection is but a dream. These are the people who cannot afford high walls, electric fences, burglar bars and armed response security guards. Their cheapest and most effective means of self-defence and protection for themselves and their families is a firearm, notwithstanding the fact that the cost of such a firearm still represents a month’s salary. For this reason, as a general rule, a firearm is only purchased out of dire necessity flowing from a genuine concern for their safety.
The proposed legislation will have a severe impact on these lower income groups, which are made up primarily of previously disadvantaged communities and Government supporters. If the purpose of the Bill is to prevent poor black people from owning firearms, then it will succeed admirably in its present form.
The net result of these cost implications is that only the wealthy and middle class will be able to afford firearms. They will be able to defend themselves against the onslaught of crime, while the vast majority of the population will simply be cannon fodder in the war against crime – a war where battles are not simply won by introducing new laws. It is the experience of the rest of the civilised world that if you over legislate, people merely ignore the regulations. The citizens of this country have proved themselves adept at civil disobedience in the past and there is no reason to suppose that their abilities in this regard have diminished. Fear of retribution does not weigh heavily on the minds of the population, as statistically the risks are minimal. Under current legislation, it is an offence and an illegal act to possess an unlicensed firearm. Nevertheless, despite several amnesties, estimates of unlicensed firearms in circulation vary from half a million to four million, depending on which argument the Government is expounding at the time. According to the latest statistics, the Police manage to recover 8000 illegal weapons per annum. Even if one uses the figure of five hundred thousand illegal firearms, this represents at best a 1,6% recovery rate. This is not a statistic that will spur a large proportion of the unlicensed firearm owners into compliance with the proposed new legislation. There is little point in passing laws in the hopes that criminals will obey them. Only honest people are law abiding. The legislators may feel that they have covered this angle by providing for Draconian penalties but, for a penalty to act as a deterrent there must be a realistic fear of apprehension.
A report compiled by The Standing Committee on Public Safety and Security of The Gauteng Legislature agrees with me. I quote from the final paragraph of its main report:
"This implies that any policy reform pertaining to the legal ownership of firearms must simply be a SMALL component of more comprehensive crime prevention strategies. It is quite plausible that were tighter restrictions applied to legal firearm owners in isolation of wider anti-crime and crime prevention strategies, the continued climate of insecurity would convince many people to retain or acquire firearms outside the provisions of the law. " It is our experience that if you deny access to legally owned firearms or make it too difficult for an individual to own a firearm he or she will purchase one illegally if the need for self preservation against the criminal element is great enough.
It is a fact that the country does not have the resources to adequately police existing legislation. To mention just four examples:
They simply know that the likelihood of being caught is negligible.
It follows, therefore, that we will be as incapable of enforcing the proposed new Firearms Control Bill 2000 as we are of enforcing the current firearms legislation.
It would appear that decision makers currently rely heavily on the study edited by Robert Chetty entitled FIREARM USE AND DISTRIBUTION IN SOUTH AFRICA. However, statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is interesting but what they conceal is vital. It is as unremarkable to learn from this publication that firearms are the weapon used in the commission of most of the violent crimes as it would be to discover a statistic which tells us that motor vehicles are the cause of most road accidents. What the publication does tell us however, is that between January 1994 and January 1999 licensed firearms in the hands of the public increased by approximately 33% and violent crime by only approximately 20% in the same period. Hardly a compelling statistic to support the statement in paragraph 1 of the MEMORANDUM OF OBJECTS of this bill that "there is little doubt that the availability of firearms contributes directly to the high level of violent crime in South Africa." One of our major concerns is the presumption that "guns cause crime" has been made extensively in the formulation of this Bill. The legislators have completely ignored extensive research from other countries which completely contradict this presumption.
Mr. Chetty’s treatise goes on to quote the following statistic which would seem to indicate that the possession of a firearm contributes greatly to the PREVENTION of crime, violent or otherwise. In quoting from research conducted by the Human Sciences Research Council, Chetty indicates the following, and I quote: "6% of the sample had personally been a victim during an incident in which a firearm was used in a threatening manner (directly or indirectly), 3%had family who had been victims in firearm incidents, 1% had used a firearm in self defence and 1% had used a firearm to defend their family." As the only 2% of the research sample owned a firearm, then 100% of the respondents in the survey who owned firearms had used them to PREVENT a crime. This is the sort of statistic which is consistent with international experience but which the legislators have chosen to ignore when formulating this Bill. Is it not conceivable that, had the other 9% of the people in the sample also owned a firearm that the statistics for violent crime between 1994 and 1999 would have shown a decrease instead of a 20% increase.
It is also crucial to outline the chaos which exists at the Central Firearms Register(C F R) because it cannot administer the current Arms and Ammunition Act, Act 75 of 1969, as amended. As a leading player in the industry my company knows all too well how this chaos interferes with the licencing process and the integrity of the data kept at the Register. How this information can be used to solve a crime is mind boggling. One may argue that the Firearms Control Bill 2000 will rectify the administrative problems. You may be correct, provided you are prepared to spend the billions of Rand needed to fix the mess. We have set out examples of the numerous problems experienced with record keeping at The Central Firearms Register, the inconsistency in decision making and the problems experienced at police stations around the country in Section B of your folder. I do not want this to be construed as an attack on the C F R, who like all sections of the SAPS are underfunded and consequently understaffed but, it is important for this committee to be aware of the extent of the present shortcomings and how the proposed Bill will quadruple these shortcomings. The proposed Bill, if it is to be effective, relies heavily on the C F R and a police force, who in the words of Minister Steve Tswhete is 66% functionally illiterate, to administer it efficiently. I am certain that those in authority have assured you that with the right amount of funding and a little time all the present shortcomings can be overcome as I’m sure they can. But have they told you the true extent of the problem and the probable real cost involved to put it right? I will deal with the cost aspect later but I can assure this committee that the amounts set aside in terms of paragraph 4 of the MEMORANDUM OF OBJECTS OF THE BILL are a drop in the occean and will do no more than enable the C F R to administer the current legislation in a more efficient manner. It certainly won’t begin to finance the massive computer re engineering which will be required. I understand that the Canadian system is being looked at. This system has to date cost 500 million Canadian dollars and is still not functioning properly.
Dr. Bernie Fanaroff is on record as stating that a firearm licence currently costs the taxpayer R495.00 to issue. I should like to use this figure to draw the committee’s attention to the likely cost of implementing this legislation will be. These costs represent ongoing running cost of administering the Bill and take no account of the cost of re engineering the C F R or the costs involved in setting up and running the necessary infrastructure outside the C F R.
In 1999, approximately 182,000 licences were issued by the Central Firearms Register. Using Dr Fanaroff’s cost of R495.00 per licence, it means that it is costing the taxpayer approximately R90 million per annum to administer the current legislation badly. If the current legislation were to be properly administered this cost would probably double to within the region of R180 million per annum as the C F R is presently doing only half its job. In terms of the proposed legislation, firearm licences would be renewed after periods ranging from between two and ten years, necessitating approximately an additional 400,000 licences to be processed per annum. That is twice the number of licences currently being processed, which will result in a grand total of approximately 600,000 licences to be handled by the Central Firearms Register every year. This alone will necessitate the trebling of the existing facilities for the issue of firearm licences.
The Firearms Control Bill 2000 is far more complicated than existing legislation and this in turn will result in a far greater workload. If one multiplies the estimated current cost of administering existing legislation by 2 to arrive at a cost of doing the job properly and the resultant figure by 3 to cope with treble the volume one arrives at a cost of R540 million per annum, an increase of nearly R500 million over the current costs. This estimate takes no account of the added complexity of the proposed legislation.
Before the proposed legislation is given further consideration, perhaps it would be advisable to ascertain from Cabinet and the Department of Finance as to whether funding for this ambitious legislation is available and to carefully consider whether such funding could not be more beneficially spent on strengthening the police force to enable it to properly enforce existing legislation, or to fund more effectual crime prevention strategies. We submit that this will have a far more positive effect in reducing crime. It should be noted that during the All Africa Games, when there was a high police presence, crime in Alexandra virtually disappeared and crime in suburbs such as Kew, Highlands North, Orange Grove, Sydenham and Lombardy East dropped by 40%.
The writers of the Firearms Control Bill 2000 will have you believe that the Bill is not aimed at disarming the citizenry. You will still be allowed to own one hand gun and one shot gun for self defense. Therefore, their argument is plausible (I suppose) However, what they have failed to tell every-one is that once the regulations for this Bill are written, owning a firearm will cost substantially more that it does today which will put the prospect of owning a firearm out of the reach of the vast majority of our population. If this is indeed the aim of Government, then allow me to propose that the Government simply does not want the citizenry to be armed, as governing a disarmed nation provides no violent threat to that Government.
The Firearms Control Bill 2000 is putting the cart before the horse. It seeks to control the illegal gun market by controlling the legal gun population, Section (1) of the Memorandum of Objects attests to this fact. This seems absurd when the Police Services cannot even quantify the size of the illegal gun market. No one is able to provide sufficient detail as to the influx of illegal weapons from across our borders.
If illegal weapons are the problem then why base virtually the entire Firearms Control Bill 2000 around the control of legal gun ownership. In essence, Ladies and Gentlemen, we do not have enough facts. If you do not know where you are going, any road will take you there. We propose we quantify the problems at hand and then act accordingly. This will require a complete revision of the Firearms Control Bill 2000.
As a document which seeks to arrive at a specific objective the Firearms Control Bill 2000 does not achieve this in any form whatsoever. In essence it is too confusing in every form and manner, it contradicts itself in a number of clauses and sections.
In terms of a legal document the Firearms Control Bill is not only sloppily written, but is also a completely rushed job which has not taken into account any form of industry participation whatsoever. This is patently obvious due to the entire unworkability of the Act given the industry structure as it stands. If anybody had bothered to listen to the industry they would not have written something that is clearly unworkable.
Other than seeking to provide the police with additional powers of search and seizure, the Bill gives them no more powers than they have under current legislation. Unfortunately search and seizure powers, which apart from a system of rewards to informants is the only effective way of locating illegal arms, infringe on constitutional rights.
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of this committee, I assure you that this legislation, in its current form, will not contribute to fighting crime in this country whatsoever.
It is the overriding opinion of my company that this entire Bill should be scrapped and, if necessary, be revisited with in-depth consultation with the industry. We do not believe that you, the Members of the Portfolio Committee of Safety and Security, will be able to rectify the inherent flaws and unworkability of the Bill. Not because we question your ability, but simply because no one will be able to get this Bill into a workable state with the current objectives standing as they are.
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of this committee, I assure you that this legislation , in its current form will:
We thank you again for the opportunity to address you
SECTION A - DETAILED SUBMISSIONS ON THE FIREARMS CONTROL BILL 2000
We have confined our presentation to matters that fall within our direct field of expertise. Our failure to comment on sections of the Bill, such as those which deal with Sportsmen, Hunters and the like and on the Legal ramifications of the proposed Legislation, must not be construed as our tacit agreement therewith.
At the outset may we voice our vehement objection to the manner in which the Firearms Control Bill 2000 has been processed and administrated up to this point. The process has not been in keeping with the spirit of transparency and democracy. The legislators pride themselves in suggesting that it has consulted with all role players in the industry. A few brief meetings with role players does not adequately get to grips with the complex issue of firearms and the workings of the industry as a whole. We hereby voice our objection to the process.
In addition, we believe that the basis of the Firearms Control Bill 2000 is statistically flawed and all statistics which have supposedly formed the backbone of the rationale for drawing up this Bill have not been made available for scrutiny. We understand that the statistics on which the drafters have relied are contained in the study edited by Robert Chetty entitled FIREARM USE AND DISTRIBUTION IN SOUTH AFRICA. We have not had sight of the raw data used in the compilation of these statistics but, would like to point out errors in the only two statistics of which we have first hand knowledge. The table on page 38 shows 107920 Lorcin pistols licenced in 1997, 18750, in1998 and10952 for 11 months of 1999. These figures are most certainly incorrect. We were the sole importers of Lorcin pistols and from 1995 through 1999 imported vastly fewer than those represented in this table. The table on page 33 shows 397146 firearms licenced to dealers. This is clearly nonsense as it represents two years stock. However when one makes allowance for the fact that dealer returns of stock sold have not been entered since 1998 one can see how the error occurred. As two out of two is not a bad average there must be a question mark over the accuracy of the publication as a whole. We question whether there are any reliable facts to warrant the adoption of this Bill.
We also object emphatically to the fact that the Bill does not address the finer detail regarding many of the sections contained therein. It relies on regulations which will be drawn up after the promulgation of the Bill and could drastically alter the contents thereof. We wish to remind the committee about the drug legislation which was promulgated without regulations and due to the delay in drafting the regulations, certain illegal drugs suddenly became legal. We need to draw your attention to two critical issues. These are as follows:-
Meanwhile, it is completely unacceptable the amount of sweeping powers that have been provided to the State, the Registrar and the Police under this Firearms Control Bill 2000. It does not make sense as mentioned previously, that the legislators would choose to write such complex legislation yet allow themselves an escape clause at every turn, whereby they can just override everything that has preceded. This does not give the industry any form of security and does not allow for an open and transparent democracy to prevail. It also appears that this legislation has been hastily constructed and that is why so many loopholes are required for the legislators to fall back on just in case they are wrong. The result of allowing the Registrar unfettered powers is that you get individuals applying the law according to their own interpretation thereof, not to mention corruption.
Our detailed submissions now follow :-