I thank you for the opportunity to be able to address you regarding the Firearms Control Bill.

At the outset I wish to state that I am here because I believe that I may be able to offer constructive criticism and where possible propose alternatives.

For the record, I am a registered collector and sportsman, and have hunted once a year since 1996.

I am a member of the South African Practical Shooting Association,

The South African Arms and Ammunition Collectors Association,

South African Gun Owners Association as well as Golden City Shooting Centre situated near Alberton, Gauteng.

I am a volunteer member of the S.A.N.D.F.

My unit is Johannesburg West Commando, is part of Group 18, based at Doornkop Military Base south of Johannesburg.

I am employed full time at RAYBRO (PTY) LTD a family business in Alrode South, Alberton.

Our primary product is the manufacture of cardboard tubes and the conversion of paper.

I have a B.Tech Degree in Business Administration from Technikon SA.

I am currently studying for my Masters in Business Administration.

I am married with an eight-month-old daughter.

I do not presume to speak to you on behalf of any of the organisations that I have just mentioned.

Instead I will approach you as a civilian who has a passion for firearms and believes in the right of self-defence, and ones duty towards his community.

Given the time constraints regarding my first and second submission as well as the limited time available now I choose to focus my submission on the objectives of the Bill as laid out in the "Memorandum of objects of the Firearms control bill 2000."

My reasoning is that the objectives determine the processes.

Consequently the objectives of the bill will determine the contents of the bill and not visa-versa.

Thank You.

Craig Gadd.

The 1^st paragraph makes three assumptions:

1. That there is a "proliferation" of firearms in the country.
2. That the availability of firearms contributes to violent crime.
3. That legal firearms owners are the prime source of firearms for criminals.

• Assumption 1

I do not agree that there is a "proliferation" of firearms in the country, this, based on my observations whilst on duty with the S.A.N.D.F.

Firstly whilst conducting roadblocks I believe that our unit has stopped over 500 vehicles, since I became a member last year, obviously given our resources not every one of these vehicles could be searched.

In that time we did not come across one illegal firearm although we did find four licensed firearms.

While on operation in support of the Soweto Taxi Violence Unit, we would act on information supplied by an informer.

I personally have been on 10 operations, on each operation we would search 4-5 hostel dormitories each dormitory has between 4-8 rooms.

To date we have confiscated two pistols and found four licensed firearms.

Similarly the Star newspaper dated Tuesday the 8^th of August; reports that 19000 people had been arrested nation-wide since April as part of Operation Crackdown.

In the same period 1585 firearms were confiscated.

Therefore, of the 19000 arrested 8% were illegally in possession of a firearm.

It can be taken further that for every person arrested at least 5 were searched.

Thus based on this article it can be stated that of 95000 people searched 1585 were found to in the illegal possession of a firearm that is 1.66%

The previous week Khayalitsha had been cordoned off in an effort to curb the attacks on the Golden Arrow Bus Company.

According to the Star, the township has a population of 500000.

In the course of the operation 17 firearms were found and taken for ballistic testing.

Of these 17 only four were illegal.

Thus based on my own personal observations and coupled with the information that I receive from the media, I do not believe that there is a proliferation of firearms in our country.

Obviously this is by no stretch of the imagination a "scientific study"; it is my own observation.

Until independent (neither anti or pro firearm) research is conducted on a nation-wide basis according to an accepted methodology and shows conclusively that there are excessive amounts of firearms in the wrong hands, will I consider the statement regarding "The proliferation of firearms in South Africa" to be without substance!

• Assumption 2.

"…The availability of firearms contributes directly to the high level of violent crime in South Africa"

This assumption is based in part on the first in that it assumes that there is vast pool of firearms that are available to criminals to ply their trade. As I have stated before there is no independent study to in fact prove this.

Implicit in the statement is that firearms equal violence.

In other words a piece of metal without life or thinking ability is able to cause violence, by, turning a normally lucid person into a rampaging killing machine who reverts to normal once the firearm is removed from their presence!

Absurd!

I have attended organised and informal shooting matches involving either pistols, shotguns or rifles (including semiautomatic rifles) for the last 4 years and never ever have I witnessed aggression or even a hint of violence between competitors even though individuals were in fact competing against each other.

Frankly soccer incurs more violence from its participants and spectators than shooting ever will!

Assuming for a moment that firearms do have the ability to enrage individuals in general and criminals in particular, how then do we explain the violence that is committed during a crime, the absence of a firearm?

Apparently the majority of rapes are committed at knifepoint.

Food for thought indeed!

Thus the assumption that firearms contribute to violent crime is quite misleading:

1. What about the role the role that alcohol and narcotics abuse and its effect on violence?
2. What about the role of personal value systems, morality and respect?
3. Surely the absence or decline of such important behavioural constraints within our society goes a long way in explaining such violence?

• Assumption 3.

That legal firearm owners are the major source of supply for criminals is unfounded.

Newspaper articles this year have referred to the huge quantity of arms that are missing from the states arsenal, not only handguns and rifles but also anti-tank weapons and helicopters!

I have three questions in this regard:

1. How many of those firearms that are stolen come from Police, Defence Force and Security companies?
2. How many of all stolen firearms are recovered?
3. How many legal firearm owners have actually been prosecuted for negligently losing a firearm?

I am in total agreement with this objective much the same as one may not drive a car if one does not know how too.

The in-ability to safely operate a firearm or a criminal record should be the only reasons why an individual should not be allowed to legally acquire a firearm.

As each type of firearm is different in its operation the only thing common among them is in fact the safety factor common to the handling of all firearms.

They may be summed up as:

Knowing how the piece works;

I believe a test in a multiple-choice format should include at least the above and must be completed within a predetermined time limit say 10 minutes.

Becoming proficient in the actual use of the firearm should be the responsibility of the individual and not the state.

However the bill does not state what in fact constitutes a competency test:

1. Will it be a practical or theoretical test?
2. Who will administer the test?
3. What languages will the test be conducted in?
4. What will the costs be?
5. Who will certify the testers?
6. If the test is a practical test what exactly will it entail?

Until I know what in fact constitutes competency test will I be able to support such a proposal.

I am able to identify two issues arising from this proposal:

1. The Police Services have problems in maintaining the integrity of their records.

2. That the "reason" for wanting a firearm lapses.

The first issue can be solved relatively easily by means of a re-registration drive.

Thereafter a firearm owner must inform the police whenever their details change. This can be done by means of a postcard with the owners present details pre-printed and space is left for the new details. This is either posted to the registry or handed in at the local police station.

Such "postcards" would be obtained on receiving the licence.

This is vastly simpler and cost effective than having to re-license millions of firearms every other year.

Surely if an individual decides that they no longer need a firearm, for what ever reason, then it is their choice if they wish to dispose of it legally.

It is difficult to prove or disprove a need.

Why do we wear the particular clothes that we do, drive a certain type of car or support a particular team?

We are all very different; what may be important to you may seem inconsequential to me.

To revoke a firearm license simply because the "Government" considers the "need" to have lapsed is worrying and is Orwellian in the extreme.

Surely a car license can only be revoked/suspend if the individual concerned has shown themselves incapable of dealing with the responsibilities that come with owning and operating a vehicle, not simply because they have no need for the 4x4 sitting in the garage.

Would the good members of the committee be able to "prove the need" for all the knives, blunt instruments and various poisons in and around their house?

No doubt each item dangerous but I am quite sure that each person will be able to justify the reason why they need it even though they don’t use.

The only reason why a license need be revoked is because the owner has shown himself or herself to be incompetent in either the storage or handling of the firearm.

I have great difficulty in accepting that mere possession of an inert article should doom a person to fifteen years in jail simply because they did not have it registered.

The real issue should be whether the person committed a crime with the firearm or has show that they are threat toward their community.

What if a friend or relative asked you to store a firearm for them whilst they are on holiday. Does this mean a productive member of the community faces a possible jail sentence of fifteen years simply because he was doing a favour and ensuring that the firearms are safely stored?

I object to the power given to the Minister to be able to establish so-called Gun-Free Zones.

History, both past and recent has shown that gun-free zones W.O.R.K – that is -Will-Only-Result -in Killings.

Declaring a building a GFZ is literally inviting criminals in, as they are quite confident that any opposition that they encounter will be less than lethal.

I ask members of the portfolio committee, how many of you are prepared to put up a notice on their front wall of your house clearly and boldly stating?

In fact it is more likely that the good members have notices up displaying the name of the armed response company that they enlist to protect themselves.

Declaration of a GFZ is in short an invitation to all criminals and murder’s, as they know that they will be able to rob, rape and pillage at will, as they believe that any risks to themselves is greatly reduced.

Why must a place be zoned as gun free, ideally we should be striving for a violence free society, and not just restrict it to certain buildings within society but to all our homes, churches and schools and place of work.

Once again we return to the subject of and individuals behaviour and their freedom to choose how they will behave.

I am sure there is a possibility that the owners of a building who declare it to be ‘Gun Free’ may actually open themselves to the possibility of civil litigation.

A likely scenario (and not implausible) is a criminal who gains access to the building and kill(s) a law abiding citizen(s) by virtue of the fact that the citizen(s) obeyed the regulations and left there firearm outside the building, thereby rendering themselves defenceless! (Right to life)

I object to the limitation of the amount of ammunition that a licence holder may purchase or store.

Owning a firearm for self-defence requires that the owner undertake three activities to become proficient in its use namely

1. Training
2. More Training
3. And even more training

For purpose of self-defence training (with a hand gun) it is necessary that an individual on becoming proficient and knowledgeable on matters of safety and good firearm manners expend at least between 100 to 200 rounds per week in order to be practically proficient with a firearm, under condition’s of duress.

Before I became registered as sportsman I was regularly expending 3000 to 5000 round per year in my chosen shooting sport, this pales in comparison to other competitors who expend 500 to a 1000 rounds per week to maintain there competitive edge.

They are not registered as sportsman!

How then does a citizen who has legally purchased and licence’s a firearm ever become practically proficient in the use of there handgun if they are allowed less ammunition than is required to become so?

Purchasing ammunition in bulk, particularly for collectors and sportsmen such as clay target shooters, makes complete economic sense as the high use of ammunition is extremely costly to begin with and thus it makes sense to purchase in quantity at discounted prices.

Where is the proof that these individuals are indeed the primary source of ammunition for our community of violent criminals?

If you wish to deny criminals ammunition, tighten up controls at the military and police institutions and nail anybody who sells ammunition that is used in the commission of a crime.

This particular objective will only reduce the amount of practice that a citizen may legally undertake for self-protection and seriously curb any growth in the shooting sports, unless that is indeed the objective of the FCB.

The objectives and key proposals that I have just discussed are seriously flawed:

1. There is no independent proof that there is in fact a proliferation of firearms
2. The link between violence and firearms solely is tenuous.
3. The relicensing of 3-4 million firearms will not prevent criminals from obtaining firearms.
4. Gun Free zones will not prevent crime or reduce violence.
5. The assumption that law-abiding citizens are the source of supply (of firearms and ammunition) for criminals is unproven.

As people will be restricted to the amounts and types of firearms that they may possess for self-defence, they will begin to sell of their firearms, in order to comply with the law.

Consequently the market place will be flooded with "surplus" firearms.

The prices of firearms will drop, and those who previously could either not afford or weren’t interested in firearms would be stupid not to consider purchasing either a handgun, shotgun or rifle at bargain prices.

The end result is that the amount of firearms in the country would not have increased but the amount of licence holders is sure to have doubled.

The issue of licensing a firearm for a specific purpose will lead to the increase in the number of firearms held by one person.

Example: I initially purchased my pistol as a means of self-protection.

However as time went by I got involved in Practical Pistol Shooting, as this is an ideal means of training with the firearm.

In order to comply with new law I would now not be allowed to use this same pistol for sport. I would therefore have to purchase another pistol with which to pursue my sport!

Therefore whereas I may have had one pistol/shotgun/rifle previously, I now need two in order to comply.

As it becomes increasingly difficult to licence firearms for whatever purpose and particularly for self-protection.

The odds that victims will be unarmed thus increases in the criminal’s favour.

Victims are thus deprived of a very effective means of defence.

Therefore criminals are more likely to be armed.

Thus justifiable "violence" against criminals is reduced.

The firearm's registry at the moment is flooded with a backlog of applications.

The resources it will need to relicense all the firearms in the country every few years will drain an incredible amount of resources away from operational law enforcement both in terms of money and man power and even then there is no guarantee that the system will even work.

Considering the amount of resources to be poured into the project, it begs the question - how many "illegal" firearms will actually be removed from the pool of firearms in the country because of the whole exercise.

In business one does not spend eighty percent of your resources in order to obtain a twenty percent return on investment.

The money to be spent on enlarging the firearm registry will see a better return if spent on frontline law enforcement operations.

Gun free zones will provide the ideal location for criminals to operate.

Therefore crimes involving violence are actually more likely to occur at Gun Free Zones.

As soon as law-abiding citizens cannot obtain ammunition legally, it will create a need with in the market.

An additional source of supply would have to be found.

Consequently this will give rise to a black market.

The state will thus lose the ability to monitor ammunition sales that it previously could, losses from taxes on such sales will be enormous.

Theft from government institutions is guaranteed to increase in order in part to supply this market.

Smuggling of ammunition into the country is bound to increase.

To set minimum standards for firearms training of civilians, including safety procedures and standards to observe on shooting ranges used by civilians. (Including the use of personal safety equipment)

Development of theoretical firearm safety test, to be written in order to be granted a firearms license.

The compilation of a booklet highlighting the main points of the law, duties and responsibilities of the firearm owner, as well as when a firearm may be used.

The establishment of a practical, objective test to be undergone by any one wishing to carry a firearm for self-protection off their own property i.e. in public.

This will entitle the bearer to carry a firearm in public provided it is concealed.

This permit would have to be renewed every 4 years.

Providing a grace period of 5 years wherein firearm owners are required to supply their current physical address and contact details, in order to update registry records.

Thereafter on issuance of a firearm licence the holder must be made aware of the responsibility to ensure that the registry is kept informed of any changes in their details.

I have included in my submission a press clipping from the Star newspaper for your information, as well as an essay " A nation of Cowards".

It may be summed up by the fact that if you have any value/respect for yourself or your family you will take the necessary steps to protect yourself or themselves.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you Mr Chairman and members of the Committee for the opportunity to speak to you.

I came here in good faith and I hope that I may have made a positive contribution towards the Bill.

Should you Mr Chairman or any of the Committee members ever be in Gauteng, I would be honoured to take you shooting on a Saturday Afternoon.

I guarantee a lot of fun!