7 June 2000

Proposed New Firearm Ownership Legislation:

We are not convinced of the soundness or trustworthiness of your proposals or indeed those in your Department who made the proposals, for the following reasons:

1) It will not be practically possible to apply the CFR as envisaged - it is bound to turn out to be cost prohibitive, unworkable and a magnificent waste of manpower. It will also be (yet another) grand waste of taxpayer’s money.

2) It is fairly common knowledge that international research has shown that crime will increase wherever governments apply gun control. I doubt if by now you do not know that yourselves, therefore, could it possibly be what is intended (?!)

3) It is not important whether anyone wish to own one or two handguns - it is important whether he/she is a fit person to do so, and/or to manage and store them safely. If Government is going to allowed to become prescriptive about things like this, it will soon be
prescribing to me what I must eat or wear! It therefore breeds concerns about our Democracy.

4) The SAPS cannot protect the citizenry - they themselves are underpaid, understaffed and under-equipped and have been dying like flies for most of the last decade. At present they are just seen to pick up the pieces afterwards. Mr. Jackie Selebi rightly and vehemently pointed
out recently that Government planned to curtail their rights to self defence to a point of unreasonability. Therefore, why should the citizenry have any trust for the good judgement of those who try to implement all these non-sensical rules? I am greatly concerned about the
indifference and ineffectiveness which is causing the slow disintegration of the Police, the criminal justice system and the correctional services, as well as the increasing lack of safety of the man/woman in the street, the weak and elderly and those tourists who still dare to visit this country. It would appear that all of this is paid little heed by our smug rulers, so long as they have the benefit of their personal bodyguards (paid for by Joe Public!).

5) We think that the present gun-ownership legislation is very adequate - it simply is not being implemented fully. Therefore, any surplus legislation will be equally ineffective. We first need to see proper implementation of the current laws, before those who administer these
laws will enjoy any credibility!

6) Creating different classes of firearm ownership is senseless and discriminatory - protecting oneself against an intruder with either a self-defense pistol, a hunting rifle (or indeed an axe!) makes very little difference in a life-or-death situation. Or does it?

We do not see sufficient law and accountability applied to those Government structures who ‘lose’ more guns and ammunition annually than anyone or anything else. Does the fact that they are State owned make it `okay’??

We do not live in a `normal’ country. Government is not seeking the solution at the source of the problem - which is NOT the legal gun-owning fraternity. Crime is rife and Government demonstrates a weakness in applying proper retribution for the worst forms of crime. Government is also incapable of curtailing the illegal trafficking of unlicensed firearms - but it still (and unbelievingly) strives to penalize its law-abiding citizens who own guns legally and responsibly. Is such a Government responsible in itself, or is it becoming part of the crime and security problem? Will this breed trust between Joe Public and its chosen Government, or is it showing itself to become more confrontational in its attitude towards Joe Public? Especially as Mr. Sydney Mufamadi himself stated in Parliament that less than 0.05% of legally owned firearms are ever used in crime?

I do not believe that Government has been in sufficient consultation with the recognised firearm bodies such as SAGA and others. I, representing myself as a typical `Joe Public’ in that case, demand an opportunity to state my case verbally before the Portfolio Committee
on Safety and Security.

Chris Pretorius