3rd June 2000

Speaking in Johannesburg at a United Nations conference on children, he said: "The public must bring these tyrants down themselves." To do this, people should "pick up rifles".

Asked whether he was referring to Mr. Mugabe, he replied: "Everybody here knows who I am talking about. The situation exists in many parts of the world, especially Africa. "The leaders he was referring to may have liberated their countries, he said, but "after rubbing shoulders" with the rich and powerful wanted to become like that themselves.

Speaking in Atlanta on the last leg of his US tour, he said that the key to change in Africa lay in the impatience of its people with corruption and war. "I think it is the task of all of us Africans to rebel against the tyrants, to rebel against corrupt people and those who seek to impose themselves through the force of arms"

There is a deliberate conspiracy among criminals to murder police members. We are exploring avenues to have it declared a treasonable offence"

Supervisor of Randburg SPCA Chris Webbs’ words after an attempted armed robbery at the pound. He was shot in both legs as he decided to fight for his life, unarmed against two assailants:

"I am definitely going to arm myself when I am released from hospital. I have never believed in guns or violence, but after this, I feel it would be in the interests of my personal safety to do so" (Randburg Sun, August 1998)

In essence, the Secretariat exists to provide the Minister with civilian assistance in the formulation and assessment of policing policy. Naturally, we are as concerned as anyone else with issues of police effectiveness. We must, however, also recognise the fundamental importance of building a human rights culture in the Service. We regret that these impulses are often juxtaposed and presented as contradictory. It is our firmly held belief that it is only a society founded on mutual respect and tolerance that will guarantee the safety and security of all citizens. Building such a society involves building state institutions whose conduct and activities exemplify the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Effective policing, even if such a notion had any meaning outside the parameters of the constitutionality of policing, will never be sustainable until citizens police themselves. And ! ! they will only do that if the rights and duties of individuals are manifestly protected and entrenched.

Apparently government is planning to spend R217,000,000 (R217 Million) for the MEDIUM term expenditure of bureaucratic recording of people who have no intention of committing crime. Criminals will not be partaking in the registry.

Government is aware of as Mr. S. Mufamadi stated in Parliament that less than 0.05% of firearm owners are responsible for crime. That is a lot of money, R217 Million and police resources that could be better spent in investigating and capturing criminals or the 99.95% of crime this bill will not make any difference to.

Only an incredibly small number of licensed firearms are ever used in crimes. The number of accidents with firearms is very low, only 6 in 1998. In fact one is 15 times more likely to be killed by lightning and 50 times more likely to die by choking on food than in a firearm accident.

The facts are clear. Licensed firearms are not used in any meaningful amount of crime, nor are they involved in large numbers of accidental deaths and only 0.01% of them are stolen through negligence. Why then are some people so determined to disarm millions of fellow citizens?

This Bill fails to recognise the real culprit of firearm abuse, which is not the private, law abiding licenced responsible firearm owner. It can only be effective in adding to the burden of the majority of the law-abiding public who will abide by it. The Bill seeks to categorise the law-abiding citizens as "dedicated" hunters, "dedicated" collectors, "dedicated" sportsmen and so on. It totally ignores the fact that another category exists.

The "Dedicated Outlaw" is a career criminal. The first and foremost requirement of his profession is that he unilaterally places himself above the law and above cultures and norms of normal society. The laws cannot prevent him from committing a crime. They can only punish him afterwards if he is caught red handed. His previous list of crimes will often go unpunished and unproved.

He makes no allowances for his victim being the sole breadwinner or provider for a wife and children.

In many ways the "Dedicated Outlaw" will welcome this bill.

1/ Gun Free Zones: The armed outlaws’ answer to his deepest desire. His victims are defenceless. Zoo visitors being mainly women and children we can expect to see an increase in shady looking loiterers lounging around Zoos. Churches have already attracted a terrible tragedy (St James Church massacre) which would have been worse had a single armed citizen not taken action. Schools are a target for the mentally unbalanced or insecure outcasts of society to make a bloody statement, always with illegally obtained firearms and in the security of the school being a gun free zone with no likelihood of armed opposition. In Israel, schools were the target of terrorist attacks until all teachers where armed with Uzzi sub machine guns. How many innocent victims it will cost before this concept is abandoned is a cause for concern.

2/Nothing in this Bill will make any difference to the supplies of firearms to the "Dedicated Outlaw" His suppliers are everywhere. The policeman walking home at night can be shot for a pistol. If he shoots a policeman in a police van he may pick up a military assault rifle such as an R4 or R5 with a pump action shotgun and a bullet-proof vest as a bonus. The African continents’endless wars over territory, diamond rich areas, and often just power struggles are being fomented by a perpetual strin g of tyrannical leaders. Even United Nations troops are stripped of their firearms, boots and uniforms. All these firearms will find their way over our porous borders into the hands of the criminal. AK47 rifles are still supplied but due to the generous supply of the more modern weapons of war, the armed robbers are upgrading. They get these firearms cheaply. The taxpayers foot the original bill for the state firearms provided so the criminal only has to give his supplier a ! ! bribe or a tip. In addition to these sources the new suppliers of the massive East Bloc surplus firearms are agents travelling the world ready to supply any crime syndicate or political military wing with any type of firearm imaginable. In our Global village it is very naive to think that depriving your private citizens of firearms will have the slightest effect on the supplies to criminals. As this piece is being written, in a news broadcast on radio Jakaranda (3^rd June 2000) Robert Mugabe is re ported to be buying Five hundred million rands worth of military equipment from China. A bonanza for the despot and our dedicated outlaws.

3/ Forcing the private citizen to have less firearms and reducing especially those that would be used for protection of life and property is another law that the "Dedicated criminal" would have imposed himself if he had the power.

4/Forcing the private citizen to use firearms that are inferior to those at the disposal of the outlaw, is another benefit to the profession of armed robber.

5/The private citizen has to undergo frequent testing for competency and relicensing every 5 years. Failure to do this will have very serious implications. The criminal knows this is an advantage because it will discourage ownership of firearms and make his victims easier prey. This restriction cannot be placed on him as he is above the law. The police will disarm the victim of this legislation and do his dirty work for him. No register will have any record of his firearm. His firearm is untrace able, as its number is filed off.

6/ The criminal will also welcome the register of owners of firearms because through his corrupt contacts in the civil service he will be able to peruse the records for the price of a small bribe or favour. With the information he will be able to plan his actions to ensure his own safety.

7/ The highly emotional Gun Free South Africa group of strident camp fighters are also very highly prized soldiers of the Dedicated Outlaws’ army. Every time new legislation is on the cards they come storming to the rescue and ensure that the "fascistic" enemies of crime will be weakened further than previously.

8/Political opportunists using the publicity surrounding every new Firearms Bill, beating the drum for disarming the countries citizens also play into the criminals’ hands. Their objectives are sometimes only to try and get themselves known in order to further a political career. His cause is being fought while his hands are folded. He can silently rest and plan his following crime.

9/ The restrictions of the numbers of firearms that are allowed in each category will lead to a stampede of sellers of excess firearms by those who wish to comply with the law. Firearms will be on offer at very low prices by desperate sellers. This chaos will do a lot of harm to the profits of the dealers. They will be faced with queues of people coming to them to register private deals. This will inevitably create a tremendous amount of animosity and the financial implications are of course tha t many will go out of business. People who would otherwise not have been interested will buy firearms because of the low prices. It will not have any effect on the proliferation of firearms, but it surely will spread them around to a much larger amount of people. Benefit to the criminal is that he will have a wider supply base. Millions of rands will thus be chopped off the value of the firearms, which loss the sellers will not be refunded.

This Bill will not prevent the "Dedicated Outlaw" from obtaining any required firearm for his "trade", from a fully automatic military assault rifle to a handgun. The concept that stolen civilian firearms are his main supply, he knows, is ludicrous. To obtain the desired tool of his trade he does not have to rely on any one source. Like the coward that he is, he will first go for the easiest pickings, but his options are open.

This Bill also fails to acknowledge the existence of the "Dedicated Corrupt Official" whose function it is to provide the "Dedicated Outlaw" with the firearms that he needs from the state.

Contrary to the aims of the Bill, it provides, for the creation of new unnecessary victimless crimes, not the prevention thereof.

If enforced, the previous legislation would have been more than sufficient.

This draws attention to the fact that what we lack is policing not legislation. If the police are incapable of enforcing the existing law then what chance have they of enforcing and administering the vast complex array of clauses and penalties presented in the Bill?

The police promised that the changes to section 8 of the current Act would net vast amounts of criminals. That criminals would not be able to carry borrowed firearms. How many have been charged under this changed section demanded by the police? It should be noted that the police could have charged any criminal as the Act existed but failed to do so.

The more complicated the laws are, the more difficult it is for the Police to know where they stand and it can have a devastating effect on their morale when they fail to make a prosecution. The morale of our police is already very low. Many politicians have appealed to the civic-minded public, not to just rely on the over stretched resources of the police services, but to have a hand in the combating of crime.

When one considers the risks involved with laws awarding lavish civil rights to the criminal in the act of carrying out a crime, the sensible citizen is more afraid of inadvertently transgressing a law when he tackles a criminal than the danger that the criminal poses.

Prohibited firearms

4. (1)(b)(i) The wording of this clause is already being misunderstood by some very literate people as to mean that it is illegal to carry mace or pepper spray instead of a firearm. Surely this is not the intention of this clause. This would render many a young girl or an old lady, defenceless, as these are sometimes their chosen methods self-defence against muggings or rape. This clause could be reworded to make its meaning clearer.

In Chapter 6. We find that a constant theme persists from beginning to end. A desperate quest to create as many different categories, divisions, and unnecessary detail which will obviously create a great deal of confusion.

One wonders if this dedication to bureaucracy is not just to please the overseas sponsors of the Bill. The disruption and inconvenience this paper exercise will create for the local lawful citizens, does not seem to be a factor in the drafters thinking.

Long after the sponsors’ charity has dried up, this Bill will still be with us. Is this part of a strategy to discourage citizens from exercising their right to protect life?

The administration of this paper tower is going to absorb a huge chunk of those funds in no time. Will it really impress the sponsors? Especially when the violent crime rate continues to spiral after the implementation of the Bill?

It will also be a bureaucratic nightmare for the average citizen. This will place an undue burden on the semi literate but salt of the earth, honourable citizens amongst us. It places them at the mercy of our civil servants who will wield their power as we all know they sometimes do, with a lot of arrogance, and provide a niche for corrupt practices.

This whole pile of inefficiency with so much room for abuse could be reduced considerably if a more efficient and logical system would be used. Simply test each applicant and issue a licence for the person, not the firearm.

The firearm is an inanimate object and deserves no special human like status. The person who is the applicant is the one whose fitness, abilities and competencies should be placed under a microscope.

Once established, he/she should be granted a licence to possess whichever types of firearms required. The firearms themselves, not to be licenced, but registered.

The different time limits should be done away with and onus placed on the licence holder to report any and all changes of status immediately.

In 15 (1)(a) This restriction should be reviewed. If one of the objects of this Bill is to reduce the number of firearms in circulation, then this clause runs contrary to the purpose. The sportsman or hunter would have to possess a certain shotgun for self defence, another for his sport should he require a semi automatic shotgun for that.

If the shotgun is to afford the person a reasonable ability to adequately protect lives, against armed assault then it should be allowed to be semi automatic. Especially considering that the bulkiness of a shotgun would confine it to home, or farm use, where antagonists could possibly be expected to be using a machine guns or sub machine guns capable of a firing rate of more than ten rounds per second.

Also, with the statistics that one hundred and forty farmers are being successfully murdered annually by armed robbers, it would seem glaringly unconstitutional to allow the armed robbers or "hit squads" to have an advantage over their victims in this way.

The words "self-defence" imply that the holder of the firearm and its licence is only allowed to defend himself or his own life. This is expression is ambiguous. The holder of this licence should be allowed to know that he is entitled to protect not only his own life but any other innocent party whose life is clearly threatened by an illegal life threatening attack.

In 15(1)(b) One handgun is not sufficient for all the different circumstances and types of handgun that may be needed for self-defence. Different circumstances call for different firearms. This is also unconstitutional according to the constitutional right to life.

No person can protect his or any other life from an assault by armed outlaws who are armed with military machine guns or sub machine guns with firing rates of more than ten rounds per second of especially lethal ammunition, efficiently, with only a handgun.

There is no need for any private citizen to prove that he/she faces the possibility of this threat to his/her constitutional right to life and the lives of their children entrusted to their protection, every day, at all times.

It should be open to all responsible citizens to decide for themselves what kind of firearm would be within his/her means and capabilities and sufficient for their needs.

For anyone to place such restrictions on responsible citizens in this matter is an erosion of their constitutional rights and a reckless game to play with the most valuable citizens of our land, the bread winners, the providers and protectors of our society.

A wider range of handguns should be allowed. There are many occasions when dress codes do not allow for the concealed carrying of the larger framed pistols or revolvers. No responsible armed citizen wants anyone to be able to see that he is armed as, to allow all and sundry to have that knowledge is an invitation for the ever-alert criminal to snatch it.

1. A small light concealable firearm is needed in places where danger is at close quarters, in the streets of cities and towns and a larger less concealable firearm will attract undesired attention and danger.
2. For self defence in the home a larger and heavier firearm is more efficient against armed invasion or intrusion.
3. Every traveller on country roads who is exposed to the ever present danger of ambush or hijack will face the possible danger of protecting himself and/or his/her family from the danger posed by one, or more than one outlaws armed with military assault rifles. Both of the former firearms are of insufficient firepower to match the danger. Due to legislation the victim is not afforded the right to defend himself from outlaws on an equal footing. In comparison, the technology of the firearms t hat this Bill seeks to enforce upon the responsible citizens, is more than a hundred years old. The firearms in use by the dedicated outlaws are modern and up to the minute. This is a form of discrimination against the lawful citizen.
4. Any hand gun, shotgun or rifle can malfunction and for this reason, if a right to self protection exists, it is very important that the law abiding, competent citizen cannot be restricted to one firearm of a kind.
5. For the "dedicated" categories, to make it illegal for any of the firearms to be used for any other use than what they are licensed for is just not practical. If a persons’ life were in danger, it would surely be unconstitutional to deny the person the right to use whatever weapon or firearm is closest to hand. This also overrides provisions of the common law for self-defence.
6. Any parent of children has a duty to protect them from danger. Many otherwise law-abiding citizens will balk at any legislation, which may well weaken their ability to perform this natural function. If certain self-defence firearms are to be taken away, they could easily see their way clear to break the law in order to safeguard their choice of firearms. No fines or threats will daunt this new category, the "Dedicated Parent". Thus more crime is created.

Another shortcoming is apparent in the provisions of this section. These handguns and shotguns that are the only firearms allowed are hopelessly inadequate should any number of criminals attack or ambush a person or a group of people on an open piece of ground or in a mountain pass and fire rifles from fairly long distances.

A self-defence capability may not only be required for close ranges.

Any kind of rifle, be it a military machine gun or a hunting rifle would give the outlaws complete power of life and death over the victims so inadequately armed for effective defence over a distance of 100 metres or more.

Similar firearms to what the outlaw can provide himself in this case can provide the only effective defence. Surely the good citizens of our land should never be placed at the mercy of these outcasts of society

It is most important that this category should be given as much consideration and thought as any other. Other categories are important for the various interest groups for much needed safety, recreation, familiarity, research and expertise training in firearms. But these are not of immediate life and death importance as defence of life and property is.

The "dedicated" categories firearm licenses are given the benefit of only being renewable every 10 years, while the self-defence firearms have to be renewed every 5 years.

These time limits would not be necessary at all if the Bill was written in such a manner that would require the license holder to report whatever changes are necessary at the time that they happen in order to keep the central register up to date.

Changes may happen more or less frequently than the periods specified. But this would serve the purposes of this requirement far more efficiently than this rigid and seemingly unreasoned arbitrary requirement.

The possibility of scrapping these time limits should be seriously considered. It may be extremely inconvenient and sometimes impossible to stick to these limits. Examples being that the license holder may be out of the country on business or in hospital for an extended period due to an accident. He could be busy with a major business project and simply distracted. Why make innocent people guilty of a contravention of a victimless law?

Licence to possess restricted firearm for self-defence

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.

Even under this category, the ability of the responsible citizen is restricted to be inferior to the dedicated professional outlaw. This theme is consistent throughout the Bill. Why is this category of self-defence singled out for the harshest measures to place the criminal at an advantage in every circumstance?

Here we see the criminal has the advantage of full automatic firepower with a machine gun or sub machine gun, should he decide on one of these choices as his tool of trade.

The responsible citizen even if he can pursuade the registrar of some fictional "special" danger he faces above every other potential crime victim, he is still restricted to a disadvantage to the criminal.

The question arises, concerning the bodyguards of our politicians responsible for this law. If their bodyguards are allowed the use of fully automatic firearms, then they are imposing a gross injustice with this form of discrimination against the responsible citizen. No person should be able to rate his right to life more important than any citizen even if that person is a politician.

We all share the same risks and dangers to our lives. In this respect we are truly equal. Do we all understand this fact? No it does not seem so.

CHAPTER 7 LICENCES ISSUED TO PARTICULAR CATEGORIES OF PERSONS — DEALERS, MANUFACTURERS AND GUNSMITHS PART 1 — DEALERS Prohibition of unlicensed trading in firearms or ammunition

34. (1) No person may trade in any firearm or ammunition without a dealer’s licence.

(2) A person who is not a dealer may dispose of a firearm or ammunition only through a dealer or as otherwise provided for in this Act.

In 34 (2) If this means that the private seller can find a buyer himself and then proceed to the dealer to register the transaction, then this clause is acceptable. If it means that the seller must take the firearm to the dealer and leave it to the discretion of the dealer to find a buyer or even worse, expect the dealer to buy it at his price, then this clause would be unworkable.

Compulsory destruction of firearms by State

154. (1) A firearm may only be destroyed as prescribed.

(2) Any firearm or ammunition forfeited to the State in terms of this Act—

(a) must be destroyed by the State within six months of the date of the forfeiture or after all possible appeals have been concluded or the last date on which any appeal could have been noted has passed without an appeal having been noted, whichever occurs last; and

(b) remains the property of the owner thereof until its destruction.

In 154.(2)(b) This clause needs urgent review. Investigations into murders can take many years, even decades. This clause enforces the destruction of forfeited firearms within 6 months? All career criminals will note this anomaly as a very convenient method to get rid of ballistic evidence, should it be needed.

ONE OF THE SADDEST "DEDICATED" CATEGORIES

While the proponents of a gun free South Africa sit behind their barred windows with rolls of razor wire on the high walls around their properties, another "dedicated" category is in danger.

This one is regarded as the economic saviour of many regions of our beautiful country. The "Dedicated Tourist". These unfortunate unprotected "sheep" travel naively where hardened locals would fear to tread! They are the prime and sought after prey for the "Dedicated Outlaws" who know them to be completely unarmed, defenceless and helpless. These are the softest targets of all.

Shockingly, some of our corrupt officials even see them as prey.

When these poor people get stripped, raped, robbed and murdered, who is there to protect them?

A citizen on his own, armed only with one handgun, would be very foolish to lift a finger to help. His only option is to pass by, pretending that he has not seen anything unusual.

This Bill makes no provision for the "Dedicated Patriotic Civilian" always willing to risk his life for the common good.

He has been criminalised.

The overwhelming impression garnered from studying this Bill, is one of calculated discrimination against the lawful citizen who wishes to be armed and resist crime. A plethora of victimless crimes have been created which will snare a very great number of hard working honest people. Every minute of the productive citizens’ time is invaluable and to distract such people from the daily business of their lives with such a profusion of senseless bureaucracy can o nly have a negative effect on the economy of our land. Leave them alone please. Stop denigrating them to a status lower than criminals.

Criminals are crippling our economy. They scare off investors. They add to the burden of productive society by causing the ever rising insurance premiums. Funeral parlours and retailers reap all the benefits, but the cost is unbearable and unacceptable. Why should they be given the benefits of this Bills discrimination?

MEMORANDUM OF OBJECTS OF THE FIREARMS CONTROL BILL, 2000

1. The proliferation of firearms in South Africa has resulted in criminals having easy access to firearms. There is little doubt that the availability of firearms contributes directly to the high level of violent crime in South Africa. The Bill seeks to repeal the Arms and Ammunition Act, 1969 (Act No. 75 of 1969) ("the current Act"), and replace it with legislation that will tighten control over the possession of firearms to prevent these from entering the illegal market. The Bill also seeks to provide th e South African Police Service with the necessary power to combat the problem of illegal firearms effectively.

In point number 1 above, the assumptions expounded are extremely debatable, convoluted and misleading.

Proliferation of firearms has got absolutely nothing to do with easy access of criminals to firearms. There are laws, already in place, which in a law abiding society would make access to firearms impossible.

They make it illegal for a criminal to take a firearm, even if he gets access to it. This is called "theft." Also called "illegal possession of a firearm." In order to get access, the criminal has to either break into a building or house and then break into a safe or break a small gun safe out of its mountings on a wall. There are also laws in place to make it illegal to do this. Called "breaking and entering" or "housebreaking"

Otherwise he must snatch a bag from a pedestrian, "theft", or kill someone like a policeman to take possession of a firearm. In fact this is the easiest access to a firearm but it is "murder", the most serious of all the existing laws.

The following sentence contains another flawed statement. The availability of firearms has also got absolutely nothing to do with the high rate of crime in South Africa. People, not firearms, commit crime. Laws are in place for every crime.

The laws are ignored. The laws are not enforced.

The criminal is free to commit crime at will. It is the breakdown of law and order that is the cause of the high crime rate.

The liberation struggle mindset remains embedded in the psyche of the poverty stricken, unemployed sector of our society.

The liberation struggle strategies of making the country ungovernable and civil disobedience, continue to be seen as tools for change. The disappointment of seeing, instead of expectations materialising, burgeoning unemployment and deprivation, leads to frustration and anger.

These are the true causes of the breakdown of respect for law and order.

Law and order has come to mean oppression.

Crimes of theft from those who have plenty are seen to be noble and have come to be referred to as "redistribution." There is now a well-established new culture of disrespect for laws, life and property in South Africa. It is this culture that is the cause of crime. The crime rate will continue to rise unabated, in tandem with the rates of increasing unemployment. It has nothing to do with the proliferation of firearms.

In Switzerland every able-bodied man has a fully automatic military rifle with ammunition at his home. This is proliferation in the extreme. How does the crime rate compare? Switzerlands' low crime rate is no comparison with South Africas'. So how can proliferation be the problem?

There are many more examples that can be used to emphasise this point. There are a great deal of European countries with very low crime rates but a much higher "proliferation" than South Africa. A place in the USA called Kennesaw has a law that enforces all the citizens to carry firearms. Their crime rate is practically non existent.

J. Ackron writing in the Citizen on 30/05/2000 said:

Following the argument that since guns, like any other property, can be and indeed are lost or stolen they should be removed from society, we would be forced to conclude that money, that after all is the root of much evil and violent crime, should also be removed from our society. By parity of reasoning knives that are the weapon of choice in 80% of the incredibly high number of rapes in our country should also be outlawed.

In reality, at between 0.6% and 0.7% of the total number of registered firearms in South Africa, loss and theft do in fact not reflect significant gross dereliction of their responsibility by licensed firearm owners. And, by the way, South Africa's density of legal firearms is not particularly high in international terms and ranks well below such countries as Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the Scandinavian countries, Germany and Estonia among others. South Africa's registered legal firearm density is on ly 20% that of Finland, 27% that of New Zealand, and 43% that of Australia, three countries with amongst the highest firearm densities and the lowest firearms homicide rates in the world.

Come on - get real! You fight crime by attacking the criminals not incapacitating the potential victims or outlawing the objects of criminal attention. You do in fact not make common cause with the criminals by compounding the invasion of the freedoms of the law-abiding. That may not be politically correct in the new order but it is irrefutably true.

Yours faithfully...J. Ackron...Tel: 083 284 0396

In the circumstances of lawlessness prevailing, it is not a logically sensible plan of action to be using such a large amount of funds for this exercise instead of improving the law enforcement system.

The funds could also be better spent in providing education and training to the unemployed who live in dreadful circumstances of poverty and starvation. If this is not done, the crime levels will spiral to greater heights regardless of this Bill.

3. CONSULTATION

In Number 3 above, the claim is made that The Gun Owners’ Association of South Africa was consulted.

According to communications that have come to my attention, this does not seem to be the case.

Mr Richard Boothroyd of SAGA, denies unequivocally that his organisation was consulted.

His words are: "...SAGA is listed on page 64 of the bill as having been consulted as an interested party. As our efforts to have our input accepted have been flatly rejected throughout, contrary to Clause 129 ( 1 ) of the constitution, that is a direct untruth."

Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2000 2:32 PM To: Andre Koopman

This places a big question mark over the statement regarding consultations.

F.C.B. (Firearms Control Bill) The title of this Bill refers to control of firearms which is missing the point. It would be reassuring to see the name of the Bill recognising that it is control of the use of firearms by people, that is involved, not the behaviour of inanimate objects.

Suggestion:

F.O.R.C.E. (Firearm Owners Register and Controls Enforcement)

Rewrite the Bill to suit South African circumstances. Remove all the victimless crimes. Make it comply fully with our constitution.

As one patriot in our future crime free and successful society will say to another......

The FORCE be with us!

Adrian Louw