As a minister working for an institution that promotes - and believing myself in - the sanctity of life, I am constantly horrified at the stories I hear from my congregations and read of in the papers. The number of violent crimes committed using firearms has left me and many of my congregation members with the conviction that guns must be viewed as a source of death and nothing less, nothing more.

It is not enough to say guns are neutral tools to be used for good or evil. The fact is, South Africa is being killed and it is because of the freedom people have to use these so-called "neutral" tools.

I have recently had to bury a young woman who committed suicide by shooting herself. In a way, she is lucky, for most people who choose this form of suicide end up maiming themselves, scarring not only their psyche but also their bodies. One such person expressed the remorse that now they cannot finish the job by virtue of being disabled.

I pray that with this Bill I may look forward to a time when I will never again have to bury people killed by the availability of guns; that I will not have to question God about the senselessness of a world where such human misery is possible…

I know that the vast majority of South Africans who hate the destruction of guns will be honoured by the passing of this Bill. I know that the memory of those killed in the gun battles on our streets will be treasured and immortalised in its regulations and in every victory gained by its rule of law.

With this in mind it is with gratitude to God and celebration that I greet this new Bill. I believe it is a long overdue piece of legislation that will set right what has been a deplorable state of affairs in our legislative control of firearms.

The old legislation was formed during a time when the majority of our communities (including Salt River Methodist) were not allowed to influence the course of law and order in this country. It is wonderful to be able to fully participate in forming a new nation and have a say in our community’s safety.

The old legislation was confusing and left a number of loop-holes that have been exploited to the full by the likes of criminals - who now rampage through our communities - and companies - which make money without conscience at the expense of innocents. I believe this Bill seeks to impose stricter controls, which will surely make our communities a safer place for our children.

A poorly staffed and under-resourced Police Service hampered the implementation of the previous Act. It is unlikely that the new legislation will be administered any better by the same over-stretched Service. I believe an independent administrative body should be set up to deal with the licensing and monitoring of all matters pertaining to the Act. This body should be independent of the Police Service in order to free the Police to enforce the Act.

I strongly support the idea of a Centralised Database for all firearms and see this as the key to promoting strong controls on firearms. In the light of the Police Services resources, its continuing struggle with corruption and the use of firearms by its own personnel, the Central Database should be maintained by an independent body set up specifically for the purpose of administering the Act.

This will ensure impartiality and create employment. It will also ensure that the body responsible for the monitoring of the Act will have only one job to do and not be distracted by other tasks.

In the Bill, the National Commissioner is appointed as the Registrar (Section 126). The above mentioned administrative body could form part of the Registrar’s office as the load of work associated with this Bill could not possibly be carried out without assistance. Some system of accountability should be set up where the Registrar is monitored, especially in those cases where the Registrar is given discretion to make decisions.

This is a particularly good improvement on the previous Act.

1. I recommend changing Section 11 (2)(a). In our country there are many people who are in their early twenties but are still attending school. While giving these people the right to vote is relatively innocuous but fair in a country whose children a politicised, I do not feel that the right to carry firearms is as appropriate. It is ironic to hear the cries of Americans about the relatively few children killed in the USA, when a deafening silence pervades the killing of some 1200 children in South African Schools last year.

I feel the age limit for a Competency Certificate should be set at 25 years old. This would ensure that no learner could carry a gun legally. In terms of comparable age limits, it is worth noting that insurance companies regard this age as a watershed of responsibility.

2. In Section 11 (2) subsection (d) refers to the mental condition of the applicant for a Competency Certificate. No provision is made however for assessing this condition. I salute the inclusion of this requirement but think that there must be minimum criteria stated which must be assessed by a properly accredited psychologist or some such professional person or body.
3. Similarly in the same subsection specific mention is made of the applicants inclinations to violence. This must surely be spelt out, as violence is a very broad word.

For example, some people might not class acts of self-defence as violence even when excessive force was used. If I empty a cartridge of 12 bullets into the body of an assailant or intruder even after I have incapacitated the man, am I "inclined to violence" or simply defending myself and my property?

4. Many of the subsections dealing with competency include offences that have been proved in court. For instance subsection (m) provides that a Competency Certificate may be issued if the applicant "has not … been the subject of a final protection order issued in terms of the Domestic Violence Act…" This means that an application will be considered even if a conviction is still pending.

In the case of subsection (m) a man who is in court for beating his wife may be given a Competency Certificate because the court has not yet issued the final protection order. Similarly he can be given a Competency Certificate even though a case is pending against him for the use and possession of drugs because the court has not yet convicted him.

I would like to see all applications for Competency Certificates suspended until such time as any criminal cases against the applicant(s) are resolved. In the case were such a person is then found guilty, that person would immediately be found not competent. Where the person is not convicted the application for competency can continue.

5. In addition, the names of people applying for Competency Certificates should be published in order for the public to lodge objections, much as in the case of liquor licences. This would mean that, for instance, in the case of the abused wife, she might be able to prevent her abuser from acquiring a firearm that may be used against her!
6. Section 11 (3) outlines the meaning of an "offence" which would cause an application for competency to be turned down. Subsection (a) says the offence must result in a sentence of more than six months to be used against the application. This means that a person with a suspended sentence against them for rape is still competent to carry a firearm! I would like to see this changed so that any convicted offence, regardless of the sentence, is grounds for ruling an applicant not competent. (The 6-month sentence seems to be an arbitrary figure since in Section 106 (1)(g) a person can be declared unfit only in the case of a sentence exceeding 12 months.)
7. Section 11 (3)(c) means that a person who has completed their sentence five years before their application for competency will be considered. This is obviously to allow for the fact that people may reform their behaviour after a conviction. It is difficult for me to understand, however, why a person who has reformed their criminal behaviour would want a firearm. I suggest certain extra, more stringent criteria be satisfied for such a person. For instance a board be appointed to interview the applicant, members of the applicants community and the case be reviewed in detail. This board could then grant or refuse the Competency Certificate and would submit a report giving their reasons.

Some further suggestions:

1. All applicants for competency submit to having their family members interviewed with a view to establishing the character of the applicant and the circumstances of the family, especially in terms of possible abuse.
2. Competency Certificates expire after a 2 – 5 year period at which time they must be renewed. Section 27 deals with renewal of licenses but this seems irrelevant. To my mind the competency of the person is what needs to be checked regularly and simply renewing the licence is not going to measure this. Many things about a person can change in a few years. It is the Competency Certificate that is the key to good gun control.
3. All applicants be subjected to an eye test for problems such as night-blindness, colour-blindness. On my way back to bed after a midnight snack one night when I was a child, I was held up by my father in the passage. Had I been the same height as an adult intruder I would most probably have had my head blown off! These accidents happen often and people who own guns, especially for self-defence should prove they would not make these mistakes because of their bad eyesight. The same test is done on the renewal of a driver’s licence for the same reason.
4. On all subsequent renewals of a Competency Certificate (especially in connection with self-defence), the applicant must produce proof of having passed an accredited course in expert use of their firearm. Not being an expert myself, I would none the less like to see such a course include: being able to hit moving targets at various distances; being able to discern "friend" or "foe" under stressful conditions.

Section 15 deals with licences given to people who want a firearm for self-defence reasons.

1. My biggest problem here is that self-defence is not defined at all. I would like to see self-defence very carefully and narrowly defined. I also ask that the Parliament consider the fact that a person is 70% more likely to die of a gun shot if they own a gun. In the light of that statistic what constitutes self-defence? Self-defence and owning a gun are contradictory.
2. Section 15 (3) should be deleted. There is no reason why a person needs to own a shotgun and a handgun for self-defence.
3. The previous Draft Bill contained a clause at Section 3, which called for alternative means of self-defence to be considered before a licence is granted. This should not have been deleted. Rather, clear parameters and requirements for a person seeking this kind of licence would have been helpful.

Section 94 deals with restrictions placed in the possession of ammunition. Subsection (2) restricts the number of cartridges bought by licensed person to 2400. In the case of someone who has purchased a firearm for self-defence, surely it is not necessary to own that many cartridges?! The number conjures up ridiculous Hollywood hyperbole – the sort of movie that pits Sylvester Stalone against a whole army. I think the number of cartridges in the case of self-defence can be drastically reduced.

Section 23 provides for the handling of firearms by security officers and other persons for business use. I want to add to the subsections something prohibiting the security personnel from taking home with them the firearms used for work. Should they wish to carry or own firearms they should have to pay for them like everyone else and own their own rather then using those provided by their work.

Section 87 deals with carrying a firearm in public. I think as part of an application for a licence to own a gun the applicant should have to justify why they need to carry a gun in public. Only if the Registrar is satisfied that it would be necessary, will special permission be granted to carry the firearm in public. It should not be assumed that someone can carry a gun in public merely because they own the weapon. A person must be able to justify why they should be allowed to endanger the general public by carrying it. Just as we are making smoking in public a social misdemeanour, shouldn’t something even more lethal be treated with as much suspicion and anxiety?

1. In Section 105 I would ask that only two words be changed.

• Instead of allowing the Registrar’s discretion in deciding who is unfit to possess a firearm, let there be definite parameters.

This is best illustrated in subsection (1), which presently states, "The Registrar may declare a person unfit to possess a firearm." I suggest "may" be changed to "must".

• With regard to subsection (1)(a): if a temporary protection order is issued, the court must have good reason: the same reason would make a person unfit to possess a firearm.

1. Section 106 deals with the court declaring someone unfit to possess a firearm. Subsection (g) allows for this to happen in the case of someone receiving a sentence of more than 12 months. I think the person should be ruled unfit after a conviction, regardless of sentence.
2. Subsection (3) asks for an enquiry into a person’s fitness to possess a firearm in the case of a conviction listed in Schedule 2, which includes rape. To my mind, someone who has been convicted of rape is not fit. It should be an automatic consequence of such a conviction. I notice also that while crimes such as sedition, rape and extortion are included in Schedule 2; murder, assault and robbery are not. I am sure that this was typo! Please include them as non-negotiables – if a person is convicted of murder they may not own a gun.
3. In Section 113 subsection (3) says a police officer may confiscate a firearm from a person who fails to comply with these provisions. When I fail to produce my driver’s licence, I am given a substantial spot fine. I think the same should be true of in this case. A record should also be kept of the number of times a person fails to produce a licence immediately upon request. After say three such offences, a person should be declared unfit.

For the sake of brevity I have not praised all the wonderful improvements I read in the Bill. One Section I do want to single out however. That is Section 143, a novel and creative measure. It will empower officials to take control of public space in such a way that guns may one day operate in a severely diminished public sphere. I do have one suggestion: include in the Act provision for private individuals to declare their own space firearm free zones. Allow also for organised street committees, businesses, and other organisations to apply for their streets and/or spaces to be firearm free zones.

Moving to Section 153 it is not clear to me whether a person who has inherited a firearm must still apply for a Competency Certificate. If this is the case, wonderful. I think all people, regardless of how they acquire the firearm must have the Competency Certificate. If the person should wish to keep the inherited firearm merely for sentimental reasons, then the firearm should in some way be rendered non-functional.

Lastly, Schedule 1 deals with "Transitional Provisions" and in Item 1 (2)(a) refers to the "lawful" disposal of firearms in excess of the number allowed in terms of the new legislation. Does "lawful" refer to the current legislation? Paragraph (b) says that for the purpose of paragraph (a), section 32 does not apply. I think this is too sweeping. The person should still be required to dispose of the firearm through a licensed dealer – obviously that licence would be under current legislation, not the proposed legislation. Such disposal should still be noted to the Registrar in writing.

My thanks to the Portfolio Committee on Safety and Security for considering this submission. I hope that at least some of my thoughts have proved helpful or confirm the thoughts expressed by others. Most of all I hope that this Bill will soon be made an Act. It will be a victory for all – even for those who oppose it! A safer nation is good for all of us…