SOUTHERN AFRICA ARMS & AMMUNITION COLLECTORS ASSOCIATION
Incorporating Historical Firearms Society

09 June 2000

This association was established in 1994 in response to amendments to the Arms and Ammunition Act and represents the vast majority (more than 1000) of collectors of Arms and Ammunition in the RSA and is accredited with the SAPS as such.

The constitution of the Association, inter-alia, charges it’s members to preserve and protect Arms, Ammunition and related items as part of our National Heritage. We are, therefore, very mindful of our responsibility to ensure that the safe, responsible and scientific hobby of Arms and Ammunition collecting is protected from the effects of any harmful legislation and especially any legislation which will eventually lead to the loss of this portion of their heritage to future generations of South Africans.

For the above reasons we consider ourselves to be significant ‘stake-holders’ with regard to the current Firearms Control Bill.

Having followed the drafting process as best we could during 1999 and studied this Bill and it’s earlier drafts we hereby request an opportunity to make oral representations to the Portfolio Committee at a time and place to be determined by them.

In addition, we wish to place the following on record:

1. SAAACA’s Strategy

SAAACA is fully committed to supporting any reasonable attempts to eradicate, or at least reduce, crime and the criminal possession and use of firearms in our country. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that the responsible collecting of arms and ammunition contributes in any way to the high levels of crime in South Africa. We therefore question the need to further regulate what is already a well-regulated group of enthusiasts practising their chosen hobby. Collectors, in general, invest heavily (in time and money) in their collections and take appropriate steps to protect this investment against theft, often far in excess of that required by law. They are, we believe, one of the most responsible groups of firearm owners.

So as to best protect the interests of those whom we represent, we have adopted the following broad strategy with regard to the FCB:

• we would resist it’s introduction (but suggest positive alternatives) as we believe it to be flawed and largely unworkable but, in the realisation that it may ultimately be implemented,
• we would make every effort to have it amended into as workable, and effective, a piece of legislation as possible, specifically with regard to ‘collectors and collecting’.

We also believe there are many aspects of the Bill which should be of great concern to segments of our population which we do not represent. Other stakeholders will, no doubt, address those issues and we have, at all times, attempted to restrict ourselves to issues pertinent to our area of expertise and the interests of those whom we represent.

We understand that this Bill has been drafted so as to give effect to a ‘Policy Document’ that was drawn up by the Institute for Strategic Studies and subsequently approved by the Minister of Safety and Security (Min Mufamadi at that time). Despite numerous requests to the Ministers (Mufamadi and Tshwete), the ISS, Dr Fanaroff and other members of the drafting team for a copy of this document, access to this document has been denied to us.

For a document of this national importance to be drafted and approved and then it’s contents kept secret from certain stake-holders and the general public is, we believe, totally unacceptable and contrary to the ‘transparency’ which we have been promised by Government. The contents of that document should have been the subject of public scrutiny and comment before it was allowed to form the basis for the drafting of the current Bill.

Despite SAAACA being listed in the Bill as one of the entities with which ‘consultation has taken place’ we do NOT believe that consultation has taken place in a meaningful and acceptable manner. From the very earliest moment that we became aware that the drafting process had begun we offered our specialist services, both verbally and in writing, to assist the drafting team with the process as regards collectors and collecting of Arms and Ammunition. This offer was ignored.

In June, 1999 and again in January, 2000 together with the general public, we availed ourselves of the opportunity to provide submissions on the completed draft of the Bill. As a result of our June, 1999 submission we were invited to meet the members of the drafting team and the ISS for two hours to motivate our viewpoint on the issues raised in our submissions. While we appreciated that opportunity, and also some of the positive results of that meeting, it was stated by the Chairman (Dr Gastrow of the ISS) that ‘policy matters’ would NOT be discussed. That was the only opportunity we have had to provide specialist input and we do not believe that a single, two hour meeting (constructive as it may have been) centred around a completed draft Bill constitutes meaningful ‘consultation’!

ps. A further meeting, again providing positive results, was held yesterday (8 June 2000).

We would like to make the following general comments on this Bill:

1. The Bill seems to be based on the assumption that the vast majority of illegal firearms used in criminal activities originate from the theft and loss of privately owned arms. This assumption is then used to justify the measures contemplated in this Bill.

While privately owned and licenced firearms and ammunition are definitely targeted by criminals, it is a matter of record that many crimes are committed with AK type assault rifles (which can only emanate from NS Forces’ arsenals or smuggled from neighbouring countries), R4/R5 assault rifles (which can only emanate from SANDF or SAPS armouries and personnel) and particularly 9mm semi-automatic pistols (including those stolen from private individuals but primarily stolen from SANDF and SAPS armouries and during attacks on SAPS members). The SANDF alone has admitted to having ‘lost’ over 200,000 firearms!

To focus attention on and further legislate only against the largely law-abiding and responsible private firearm owner rather than the criminal is, we believe, irresponsible and unlikely to have any significant effect on crime prevention.

A reduction in crime will only be achieved if this Bill is backed by an equally serious commitment to law enforcement and the apprehension and punishment of criminals!

2. While we understand that providing for ‘Regulations’ outside of the Bill gives the Minister/Registrar a great deal of flexibility in all aspects of firearms and ammunition control, the real impact of the Bill on the law-abiding firearm owner can only be assessed in conjunction with those regulations. As these regulations have not yet been drafted (or, if they have, they have not been published) it is impossible to judge, and comment meaningfully on, the day-to-day impact of the Bill as it stands.
3. All costs associated with the licencing and re-licencing of firearms will be the subject of regulations. While the possible scale of these costs should be of concern to all firearm owners, the financial impact of an onerous fee on multiple firearm-owners (especially collectors, hunters and sports-persons who may have dozens or even hundreds of firearms) may be severe. Until the relevant regulations are drafted this will remain a concern.
4. Associated with the above is our concern about the process, not yet defined, whereby multiple firearm owners will be required to re-licence their firearms. While the re-licencing period is extended to 10 years for collectors, hunters and sports-persons, there are practical problems to be considered (security, transport, insurance etc for a large number of firearms) which will require careful consideration during the drafting of the relevant regulations.
5. ‘Presumption of Possession of Arms and Ammunition’ (Chapter 15) – While we understand the specific problems this chapter is intended to deal with we are concerned at it’s implications for collectors (and other disciplines where frequent contact with other multiple firearm owners is the norm). Without going into great detail on this issue, we believe there are very many perfectly innocent circumstances where this presumption could be wrongly made with devastating consequences for the individual.

We submit the following suggestions and comments on matters of specific interest or concern to collectors and collecting:

1. The definition of "antique firearm" does not cover all arms which, we believe, could be de-regulated within the spirit of the Bill. We believe it could be widened to include categories of early arms which are not currently, and are unlikely ever to be, used in criminal activity. The cutoff date of 1870 will, we believe, create problems in that many arms of that era were not marked with a date of manufacture. A cutoff date of 1900 would ensure that (with the exception of modern ‘reproductions’) all muzzle-loading arms are included.

• We suggest that the date of 1 January 1870 in the definition be replaced by a date of 1 January 1900.

1. Included under Prohibited firearms are those, ‘the serial number or any other identifying mark of which has been changed or removed without the written permission of the Registrar’. While understanding the need to strenuously discourage the removal and changing of serial numbers etc. we would like to place on record our concern that there are many collectible arms (mostly military arms of the 19^th and early 20^th centuries) which, due to the accepted practices in place at the time, have had numbers changed (old numbers struck out and new numbers added) or simply had new numbers added in a different place.

• We therefore request that an amendment be made to avoid the automatic prohibition of any such firearm/s. We would expect ALL serial numbers on a firearm to be recorded on the new database during the envisaged audit and re-licencing processes.

1. ‘Devices not firearms for the purposes of this Act’ does not mention flare guns and flare projectors. We have previously recommended that these devices (which could, by definition, be considered firearms in that they are designed to propel a ‘pyrotechnic’ projectile) be included in this exemption due to their widespread use as part of the safety equipment required of boats, aircraft etc. This is recognised and exemption is provided in the current Act. There is no known record of them being used during any form of criminal activity and, in addition, these devices are not generally regarded as ‘arms’ by the public and are frequently offered for sale at boatyards, hiking shops and flea-markets. The vast majority of these devices are single barrel, single shot pistols but there are double barrel variations in existence. We are not aware of any devices which are magazine fed or capable of holding more than two cartridges.

• The inclusion in Sec 5 (1) of ‘any flare gun or flare projector capable of firing pyrotechnic cartridges only’ would facilitate the collection of these devices by collectors and also avoid the unnecessary licencing of these devices by legitimate users. The ‘pencil flare’ device which has given cause for concern can also chamber and fire a .22 rimfire cartridge and would therefore be required to be licenced as a firearm.

1. The sections dealing with ‘Licence to possess firearm in private collection’ and ‘Permit to possess ammunition in private collection’ require that a firearm or ammunition must be ‘approved for collection by an accredited collectors association’ and that the application for a licence or permit be ‘accompanied by an affidavit from the chairperson of an accredited collectors association stating that the applicant is a registered member of that association’.

While we accept the responsibility for a degree of self-regulation we feel these requirements are unworkable in that, to avoid a simple ‘rubber stamp’ exercise, every firearm would have to be inspected and documented by an official of such an association who has the specific expertise on that type or category of firearm or ammunition.

• While this might be possible in the larger metropolitan areas it will be practically impossible for collectors outside of those areas to comply. The administration of this function by the relevant association would also be considerable.

We have previously submitted our view that any firearm or ammunition could be considered ‘collectible’ depending on the nature or theme of the collection to which it is being added. An item does not necessarily have to be particularly old, beautiful, unique, rare or valuable to be considered collectible and a desirable addition to a specific collection.

• We are, therefore, unsure of how an accredited association will be required to perform this function or the benefit that should be derived from it.

The requirement for the chairperson of an association to produce and sign an affidavit to confirm the applicant’s membership every time a licence application is submitted by a member would place a very heavy administrative load on any association. It is currently standard practice for associations to issue membership certificates at time of joining or on payment of annual subscriptions.

• We would suggest that applications ‘accompanied by proof that the applicant is a registered member etc.’ (as is the case under the current Act) would be more practical and serve the same purpose.

1. The Bill provides for Competency Certificates to lapse two years after the date of issue. It would appear that the intention is for a valid certificate of competence to be a requirement at the time of applying for a licence but not, thereafter, to possess a firearm. Despite the fact that a collector is only required to re-licence his/her firearms every ten years, the fact that his/her competency certificate lapses after two years will have the effect of requiring a firearm collector, whose hobby naturally involves the frequent or regular purchasing of firearms, to regularly renew his/her competency certificate every two years when it lapses. We understand and support the need for proof of competency from firearm owners and users but question the need for ongoing proof of competency from collectors, hunters and sportspersons who are, typically, the most competent of all civilian firearm users.

• We recommend that the Bill be amended to allow for a certificate of competency for a collector, hunter or sportsperson to lapse after ten years rather than the present two years. This will have the effect of consolidating the proposed SAPS functions of checking the individual’s competence, safe-keeping and security arrangements, audit and re-licencing of firearms into a single event every 10 years. This will provide benefits to all parties involved

ALTERNATIVELY

We recommend that the relevant regulations cater for a second certification (and all subsequent certifications) to be simplified and focussed on ‘continued fitness’.

1. The section dealing with the compulsory destruction of firearms by the State mentions that the State ‘may retain’ any firearm or ammunition ‘which the Registrar deems to be of special value’.

• This is a positive aspect of the Bill as it enables the preservation of any items of National or Historic interest or value which have been forfeited to the State and would otherwise be destroyed. We would recommend a change of the wording ‘may retain’ to ‘must retain’ to ensure this is effected. This will also have the effect of ensuring that the Registrar, who may not have any knowledge of what constitutes an item of National or Historic interest, will make use of the available expertise (one or more accredited collectors associations) for this purpose.

8. The section dealing with GUNSMITHS states that ‘No person may, without being the holder of a gunsmith’s licence – a) repair, alter or improve any firearm; etc.’. This clause is problematical for collectors in that one of the principal, and internationally accepted, functions of a collector is the partial or full restoration of his/her firearms. This restoration may well consist of small repairs, alteration back to original configuration and, almost certainly, improvement! Other firearm users would also, at times, need to effect minor repairs (replacing a screw), alterations (modifying a stock) and improvements (fitting a sight). This work does NOT include more significant work undertaken, using the expertise and tools of the gunsmith, in the course of business.

• We recommend that Sec 62 (a) be amended to read ‘repair, alter or improve any firearm for which he or she does not possess a licence’. This will have the effect of permitting any firearm owner to perform day-to-day minor repairs, alteration and improvements on his/her own firearms only and not as a business. Sec 62 (b) etc. will ensure that more substantial repairs, alterations and improvements which are accepted as being the function of a gunsmith will remain so.

8. Similar to the above is the section dealing with the controls and restrictions placed on the possession of ‘FIREARM PARTS’ such as a ‘slide, bolt, breech-block or magazine’. While we note that there is provision for the possession of parts under various circumstances (including ‘unless authorised to do so’, presumably after application to the Registrar), the nature of firearm collecting invariably results in collectors possessing a variety of such parts of firearms for which he/she does not hold a licence.

• We would hope the above practice is not seen as undesirable as it forms part of the assistance and support ethic between collectors and is an essential element in the restoring and refurbishment of firearms mentioned earlier. We recommend that the clause ‘is registered as a private collector or public collector’ be inserted in Sec 97 (2) between a) and b)

ALTERNATIVELY

• If the above is not acceptable, remove ‘magazine’ from the above list of parts to avoid eg. criminalising a person who forgets to include the spare magazine (two or more are commonly supplied by the manufacturer) when disposing of a pistol.

8. The Bill does not differentiate in any way between firearm collectors (private or public) on the basis of what they collect. We have previously suggested that various categories of collector be defined (eg. Type A – handguns only, Type B – non autoloading rifle only, Type C – shotguns, Type D - etc.) and thereafter a category or categories be applied for and assigned to each collector (eg. Category AC in the above example for a collector wanting to collect both handguns and shotguns but not rifles). This will enable an accredited association and the CFR to identify, and thereby manage, collectors who apply for licences for firearms which are inconsistent with their stated, and approved, area of interest. This would also provide a solution to the issues raised in d) above.

• We recommend that various categories/types of collector be identified and incorporated in the relevant regulations and database. Should this be agreed, SAAACA undertakes to provide a fully detailed proposal for consideration.

Should this Bill be implemented in it’s present form we believe the following negative results will become evident:

1. it will not be understood by the vast majority of our population (including non-specialist SAPS members, prosecutors, magistrates, etc.)
2. it will require vast SAPS resources to manage and monitor - resources which should be applied against the criminal element NOT the law-abiding
3. it will not be enforceable leading to large-scale non-compliance through ignorance or, in some cases, arrogance
4. the introduction of Firearm Free Zones will result in those areas (schools, places of worship etc.) becoming crime ‘hot-spots’
5. smuggling, illegal manufacture and trafficking in firearms and ammunition by the criminal element will not be curtailed
6. the costs of implementation may well exceed any benefits gained.

The Arms and Ammunition Act of 1969 (as amended) already provides most, if not all, of the mechanisms required for adequate control of firearms and ammunition and the effective prosecution of firearms and ammunition related offences.

Changing circumstance over the years have necessitated amendments to the original Act which have resulted in it becoming slightly fragmented but it remains a simple, effective, understandable piece of legislation which only requires proper enforcement to be effective.

We believe it to be relatively ineffective at this time primarily due to:

• the inability of the SAPS and the courts to adequately investigate, apprehend and prosecute the majority of law-breakers (due to limited funds and the resultant shortage of suitably qualified personnel)
• problems with the existing register of civilian firearms and ammunition at the CFR (inadequate IT infrastructure – obsolete hardware, software and systems - and historically inaccurate records)
• historically ineffective control over State-owned firearms and ammunition (SANDF, SAPS) and those of NS Forces, leading to a steady flow of arms and ammunition (of unknown magnitude) into the pool of illegal weapons available to criminals
• long and inadequately controlled borders facilitating to the smuggling of arms from neighbouring states.

It is hereby recommended that, as an alternative to the adoption of this Bill, the following program be implemented:

• reject this Bill in it’s entirety
• publish the ‘Policy Document’ for public scrutiny, comment, modification as necessary and subsequent approval by the Minister or State President
• amend the existing Act (Arms and Ammunition Act of 1969) to give effect to the above Policy Document and any other amendments required after full and meaningful consultation with all stakeholders
• re-systemise the CFR and other relevant SAPS elements (systems, databases and processes) as necessary
• conduct a complete audit of ALL firearms (private and state-owned) and update the revised firearms database with all relevant and corrected data
• improve control of State owned firearms and ammunition
• declare a meaningful amnesty (widely advertised with absolute guarantees and powerful incentives) to encourage otherwise law-abiding persons to licence or surrender illegal and unwanted firearms and ammunition
• empower the SAPS and the legislature to properly and effectively enforce the law
• educate the public (youths and adults, private and State firearms owners/users and non firearms owners/users in responsible firearms habits and the right of the individual to CHOOSE whether or not to be a firearm owner or user).

This course of action will, we believe, produce far better results at considerably less expense to the tax-payer, will require substantially fewer human resources and be quicker to implement, will achieve the desired results far sooner and, most importantly, will be endorsed and materially supported by the major stakeholders and accepted as reasonable by the law-abiding citizens of our country!

The only dissenting voices should be the criminals who will suffer most under this decisive course of action!

PHR WELLS
Chairman