SUBMISSION ON THE REVISED FIREARMS CONTROL BILL.

By Roux Wildenboer

Introduction:
I am a law abiding, tax-paying citizen of South Africa, who has owned firearms for the past 12 years and has been involved with firearm sport and hunting for the past 15 years. I own 7 firearms, including 2 shotguns for hunting and sport shooting, 4 rifles used for hunting and metallic silhouette shooting and a handgun used for combat shooting and self-defense. The utmost care and diligence has always been applied in the use and storage of these firearms, as I value them for their monetary value, as well as the pleasure and recreation in their legitimate uses. I have also gone through the process of being declared as a "bona fide Hunter" Needless to say, I am fully aware of the responsibility and legal consequences accompanied by firearms ownership, and has always propagated responsible and safe firearms ethics to people I know.

Like countless other South Africans, I fear daily for the safety of my loved ones, and would welcome any effective measure to curb violent crime in South Africa. Due to the fact that I am a firearms enthusiast and sportsman, I have viewed the developments regarding the Firearms Control Bill with some trepidation and uncertainty, and take this opportunity to raise the concerns that I have, by focussing on 2 aspects of firearms ownership, namely self-defense and sport shooting ( which includes wingshooting, game hunting and clay target shooting)

Firearms and self-defense:
We live in a society where the right of life is embodied in the constitution. It is for this reason that the death penalty has been abolished. At the same time we live in a society where murder, rape and assault is rife. It is clear that the right to life has no meaning unless there is a mechanism of enforcing that right. Unfortunately, the SAPD is to thinly stretched to protect each and every South African against violent crime, as and when it happens. Therefore I believe it is our responsibility to protect our own lives and those of the people we love. The most effective way of doing this is with a firearm. The decision to purchase a firearm is accompanied by a huge responsibility, as it is an instrument that can take life, and in the hands of people untrained in its use might be a liability. The ability to defend yourself against attack depends on your vigilance and skill, and an ability to make a tactically evaluation of a threatening situation. A firearm in itself is no guarantee, but it can be a lifesaver. I have assumed that responsibility, because I refuse to leave my loved ones at the mercy of those criminals that murder, rape and maim. They have too often shown that no mercy is to be expected, even if no resistance is offered. One only has to read the papers to verify yourself of this fact.

I agree that many people are in the possession of firearms who should not be, and that many people are murdered with illegal firearms, some of them stolen from legal firearm owners who do not safeguard their weapons. However, I cannot see that this fact should detract from my and my family's rights to protect ourselves against murder, assault and rape, which today is in itself a death sentence. It is a fact that many lives are saved and rapes avoided each year by the competent use of firearms by civilians. The grandmother who recently apprehended an intruder while he was assaulting her husband and had to wait one hour for the police to arrive comes to mind.

The anti gun lobby likes to make us believe that the presence of guns in the society is the cause of violent crime, and that if you disarm the law abiding citizen violent crime will disappear. The fact is that a firearm is an implement just as a knife, screwdriver, panga or motor vehicle. It does not have a will of its own, and its possession makes me just as much a criminal as being male makes me a rapist! The anti gun lobby conveniently forgets that many thousands of people are stabbed and clubbed to death each year, as to lobby for the ban of knives and kieries is ludicrous in the extreme. To these people the possession of a firearm might have meant life instead of death. Drugs are also banned, and what effect does that have on availability and drug abuse? Many studies overseas have shown that to disarm law abiding citizens had no effect on violent crime rates. The only purpose it served was to diminish the risk for criminals, as they no longer had to fear the possibility that their victims might fight back. This state of affairs is not characteristic of a free society, but of tyranny. On the contrary, it was found in the USA that in states that lessened their Gun Control measures, violent crime decreased. One such country, which is currently investigating the lessening of their Gun Control laws, is Australia, where it was found that there was no relationship between disarming law abiding citizens and combating crime. There is more than enough evidence that an armed populace is a deterrent to criminals.

By stating the above I am not propagating vigilantism, or that any person should be able to own a firearm, as there are clearly people not fit to own firearms.

Specific concerns regarding the bill:
Onus of proof.

As I understand the Bill, the onus of proof lies on the applicant to prove that he/she needs a firearm for self-defense.
I believe that this is erroneous, and for the following reasons:
The right to life is meaningless if there is no way for the individual to effectively protect this right of life. Any reasonable person in South Africa will recognise the fact that almost any person is in danger of being a victim of violent crime. The prevalence of violence is prima facie proof that any law-abiding person needs a firearm for self-defense, should he or she chooses to own 1 firearm/s for self-defense. It can be said that the right of life without effective means of protecting it, is similar to recognise the choice of a woman regarding the termination of pregnancy, but at the same time closing down all family planning clinics which perform termination of pregnancies.

For this reason it is the right of any person to own a firearm/s for self-defense, and the burden of proof should lie on the state to show why he or she is not legible to own a firearm/s. Should one first be attacked or raped before one can prove that you need a firearm for self-defence?

2. Limitation on the number of firearms for self-defense
While a person can only handle one firearm at a time, the restriction of two firearms for self-defense is unnecessary and impractical. The reasons for this are simple: There are many different scenarios, which may necessitate more than two firearms for self-defense. A person walking around in office clothes would need a small, concealable firearm, which is light and unobtrusive. If that very same person is travelling in the country, or is a landowner, it is quite feasible that he/she may need a second or third firearm of heavier calibre that would suit the scenario he/she finds himself in.

B. Hunting and sport shooting:
There is today more game on privately owned land than 40 years ago. This is due solely to the development of a hunting industry, which placed an economic value on game. The most killed and at the same time least endangered animals are sheep, cattle and chickens. Take away the economic value of wild game, and cattle, sheep or crop farming will replace them. Each year many thousands of hunters spend huge amounts of money in rural areas, contributing to the income of local people and nature conservation, and at the same time fostering a love for nature in their children.

Hunting serves society in two ways: Firstly, it ensures the existence of stable game populations outside of game reserves. I fail to see how this can not be beneficial to nature conservation. As an example I can state the various Bovine TB-free populations of buffalo on private owned land, which may in future be used to supplement the infected populations in our larger game reserves. Secondly, the hunting industry provides employment and income to tens of thousands of relatively unschooled people in rural areas, which is already ravaged by unemployment. If the efforts of the anti-hunting lobby and GFSA are successful, the hunting industry will be severely damaged.
I believe that the Bill will seriously impede on the activities of law-abiding hunters and sport shooters, who make a valuable contribution to the economy due to their activities.

Specific concerns regarding the Bill:
1. Limitations on the numbers of firearms.
I am convinced that this measure will have no effect on violent crime levels, and is a serious infringement on the rights of law abiding citizens. The firearms used by hunters and sport shooters are in no way preferred weapons of use for criminals. The reasons therefore are easy to understand:
·
Hunting rifles are of limited magazine capacity, in most instances 4 rounds in a bolt
action rifle.
· The operating mechanism (bolt action) is slow to operate, and the reloading
process is slow.
· The ammunition used in most popular bolt action rifles are not easily obtained on
black market. The rifles I own myself is of exotic calibers , and a criminal would
have to go to great lengths to obtain ammunition for a .300 Holland and Holland
rifle, a 6.5*55 Swedish Mauser or a .375 Holland and Holland rifle.
· Hunting rifles are normally heavy, unwieldy and hard to conceal.

Due to the above a limitation on rifles used for hunting and sport shooting will have no effect on violent crimes, simply because violent crimes are not committed with these firearms, but rather AK47's, R4's and R5's. I simply cannot understand the logic of such a limitation.

The average hunter has a need for at least 6 rifles:
1. A shotgun for wingshooting,
2. A .22 Long Rifle for target practice and recreational shooting.
3. A medium calibre rifle (7*57 Mauser or .308 Winchester) for medium sized game (impala, reedbuck, warthog) at close range (bushveldt hunting).
4. A medium calibre rifle (.270 Winchester, 7*64 Brenneke) for medium sized game (springbuck, blesbuck) at longer ranges (plains game hunting).
5. A larger calibre rifle (.375 Holland and Holland, 30-06) for larger game kudu, sebra, wildebeest, eland) at close range (bushveldt hunting).
6. A larger calibre rifle (.338 Winchester, .300 Holland and Holland) for Iarger
game such as kudu and eland at longer range.

While I recognise that no limitation is applicable on dedicated hunters or sport shooters, I would then suggest that even for an occasional hunter, the limitation be increased to 6 firearms as this is more reasonable, even if it is not ideal.

2. Limitations on ammunition and reloading components.
I am convinced that the limitations as set out is unnecessary and will infringe on the activities of hunters and sport shooters.
As I understand from the Bill, there is a limitation of 2.5kg propellant on reloaders per year. In my own case, this is totally inadequate, as I reload for 4 calibres, and each of these calibres requires a different propellant. During the course of a year I would need at least 4 kilograms of propellant.

I further understand that there is a possession limitation of 200 rounds of ammunition per firearm at any one time, and a limitation of 2400 rounds per year. This poses a serious problem regarding clay target shooting and wingshooting, due to the number of rounds expended in the normal course of these activities:
As I participate actively in clay target shooting, I expend on average 200 12-bore shotgun rounds per month in practice sessions. This does not include competitions, where 200 rounds per competition are the norm.
When on a wingshooting safari, where for example the birds hunted may be rock pigeons, it is not uncommon to expend 200 12-bore shotgun rounds per day. I normally go on 6 such safaris per year.
From the foregoing it is clear that insofar as sport shooting is concerned, the limitations will seriously curb my sporting activities.
I suggest that no limitations be applicable on dedicated or bona fide sport shooters and hunters.

3. Relicensing.
I consider the relicensing of my firearms as totally unnecessary and an
infringement on my rights. I am convinced that I have proved myself over the past
12 years to be a responsible firearm owner, of which proof is the following:
· With every firearm application my fingerprints were taken and my record checked for criminal convictions. With each application I have submitted proof of being a member of an association, and that there are sufficient storage facilities for my firearms.
· I have gone through the process of being declared a bona fide hunter, which entailed testimonials from responsible persons and landowners, a record of my hunting activities, proof of membership to associations, and an inspection and interview with a police officer of my home, trophies and storage facilities which was found to be in order.
· In my conduct with my firearms I have gone to great lengths to ensure that the law is obeyed and that there are no possibility of my firearms being stolen, which included special storage against payment at a gunshop when I leave my home for holidays or even a weekend.
I cannot therefore see the necessity of going through a relicensing process, as I have proved conclusively that I am fit to possess firearms.
The bill states that one must prove the "need" for a firearm, whether it be for self defense, sport shooting or hunting. While it may be possible to prove a need for firearms for hunting and sport shooting, how does the Government propose the need for self defense be proved? A rapist or murderer will not wait for a competency certificate or license to be issued to a victim before attacking!
In our society where crime is prevalent and anyone can at any time be a victim of violent crime, there is abundant proof that all law abiding citizens have the need for firearms for self defense, should they elect that option.
Whether we are talking about sporting, hunting or self defense firearms, it is absolutely unacceptable and an attack on rights of property and freedom if the ownership of assets are subject to the subjective appropriation by the state where no laws have been broken and no crime committed, and the affected citizen poses no threat to society.

In so far as hunting and sport shooting are concerned, it is an assault on the individuals’ freedom if an official will decide how many firearms he/she needs! Only the individual citizen is in a position to assess his/her needs, and where there are no other objections to issuing a license, i.e. criminal record, lack of storage facilities or record of drug abuse, a license must be issued.
I do concede however that there may be vast inaccuracies in the Central Firearms Register, and would support an audit of firearm licenses to verify the accuracy thereof. This I believe would circumvent the lengthy, expensive and administration intensive process of relicensing. If during such an audit it is found that persons have withheld information and have not acted in accordance with the law, action can be taken.

4. Competency certificates
The requirement for competency certificates may be valid for certain firearm owners. The period of these certificates must however coincide with the validity of the license being held.
For dedicated hunters and sport shooters however, and more specifically Bona Fide Hunters/ Sport Shooters this requirement must be waived, as these categories of firearm owners have already gone through considerable effort and expense in being declared competent by the SAPS. Requiring competency certificates from these categories will be a complete waste of time and funds.

5. Absence of regulations.
Comments regarding the implementation of the Bill is made difficult due to the absence of the regulations. I am not a legal specialist, but would very much like to have seen the regulations, as this will give us some insight as to how the Bill will be implemented. Without these regulations, it is quite possible that the shooting fraternity might misinterpret certain important issues, and therefore I believe that we have a right to comment on these proposed regulations.

6.Constitutionality:
This bill makes a mockery of the principles of transparency, fairness, due process and participation in legislation as embodied in our constitution:
· The presumption of guilt is unacceptable in a civilised democracy.
· In contrast to the Anti Gun Lobby, credible firearms associations have not been consulted, and any attempt to claim the opposite is an untruth.
· The Bill infringes on various constitutional rights, i.e. property rights and rights of association.
· Section 150 allows the Minister to make any ammendments to the Bill without referring it to parliament - this is a direct assault on democratic principles and has all the characteristics of a potential autocratic system.

C. General concerns regarding the Bill.

1. Assumptions:
It appears to me that the Bill assumes that private law-abiding firearm owners are seen as the main source of weapons to criminals. It is true that many private firearms that are not sufficiently stored fall into the hands of criminals. I however, have taken all possible steps to ensure that this does not happen to my firearms. In the face of the many firearms being taken from the police force, defense force and illegal smuggling across our borders, it is clear that the success of the Bill in curbing crime would be negligible. Note also that most bank robberies and transit robberies are committed with assault rifles, weapons that the normal citizen cannot get a license for.
Even if a lot of crimes arc committed with previously licensed firearms, I fail to see how this should detract from my right to defend my family and practice the sport of my choosing. I submit that the vast majority of dedicated hunters and sport shooters, especially those with bona fide status conduct themselves with great vigilance regarding firearm safety. To punish these citizens for the actions of a majority is akin to punish law-abiding car owners for the transgressions of irresponsible drivers.
The Bill will also not address the significant amount of murders being committed with weapons such as knives, panga's and other lethal weapons.
I would urge the government to do a detailed and scientific study to show the relationship between private firearms ownership and violent crime. It would be useful to note the fact that British citizens have been effectively disarmed for a number of decades, and yet the violent crime rates have spiraled during the nineties. The only result of disarming the British populace has been to render the public defenseless against violent attack.

2. The role played by the "Anti Gun Lobby" specifically that of Gun Free South Africa.
The anti gun lobby likes to make us believe that the presence of guns in the society is the cause of violent crime, and that if you disarm the law abiding citizen violent crime will disappear. The fact is that a firearm is an implement just as a knife, screwdriver, panga or motor vehicle. It does not have a will of its own, and its possession makes me just as much a criminal as being male makes me a rapist! The anti gun lobby conveniently forgets that many thousands of people are stabbed and clubbed to death each year, as to lobby for the ban of knives and kieries is ludicrous in the extreme. To these people the possession of a firearm might have meant life instead of death.
I further question the legitimacy and object in the strongest terms to the handling of Gun Free South Africa as an interest group in the gun debate, because I fail to see how GFSA is an interest group. Why should it be in the interest of GFSA to render my family and me defenseless against violent criminals, and prevent me from practicing my sport? GFSA has no vested interests in preventing me from protecting my loved ones and practicing my sport in a manner that does no harm to other human beings. I would like to reiterate that there exist no higher cause that can justify my family being left defenseless against violent criminals, as the right to life is a fundamental right, and a natural consequence of this is the right to defend vour life within the ambit of the law.
GFSA wants to create the perception that they are the sole proprietors of morality and justice in the fight against crime, and therefore has the support of the majority of the population. This is malicious and misleading, as everyone who is opposed to crime, including gun-owners, are not supporters of GFSA. The support GFSA claims they have against guns relates to guns in the hands of criminals, and not law-abiding citizens such as myself.

Conclusion:
I sincerely hope that the above have illustrated the concerns that law-abiding firearm owners have regarding the Bill. These are by no means the only concerns that I have, but the ones I believe will effect me most. Please also note that the above are based on my interpretation of the Bill. 0nce the regulations are available and more clarity is obtained on how the Bill will be implemented, it is possible that some of these concerns will be eliminated, or added to. I would also urge the government not to alienate the law-abiding firearm owners, sport shooters and hunters of South Africa by implementing onerous or draconian measures. A lot of goodwill and support will be obtained from the vast majority of sport shooters, hunters and firearm owners if this Bill is approached in an evenhanded and fair manner, and our concerns addressed.

E. Verbal submission:
I await your notice of receipt of this submission, and request that I be advised of venues and dates for verbal submissions, as I intend to do a verbal submission.

Roux Wildeboer