SOUTH AFRICAN ARMS AND AMMUNITION DEALERS ASSOCIATION

Introduction

Our association was formed over 25 years ago to represent the interests of our industry.

There are currently over 600 dealer's licences in the hands of some 300 companies. These vary is size from one man operations to large corporations. Around half of these companies are members of this association.

All of the major importers of firearms are members and we would estimate that over 95% of all licensed firearms are imported or sold by our members.

Our industry directly employs some 10 000 people in the trade with several thousand more employed by local manufacturers of firearms and ammunition and in the support industries.

Annual turnover is estimated to be in the order of one billion rand (R1 000 000 000).

Our members subscribe to a strict code of ethics and are also subject to strict control and monitoring by the SAPS.

Under existing legislation every aspect of our business is recorded, controlled and inspected by the police. Every dealer is also subject to regular physical inspections of all firearms and ammunition as well as the dealer's records and registers.

Technical aspects of the Bill

The Bill contains many technical errors and is very poorly drafted.

In many of these cases we support the intent and objectives of the drafters but this has been poorly executed.

The vast majority of these errors are a reflection of the lack of technical knowledge of the drafting team and the lack of consultation with organisations such as ours that do possess the necessary expertise.

This is despite numerous offers of assistance and requests for participation on our part.

Due to the limited time available for this submission we cannot attempt to address each of these errors. Instead we would refer the committee to the written submissions and detailed technical comments presented to the committee by the National Firearm Forum.

Our association fully supports the comments and suggestions made by the Firearm Forum.

It is our understanding that the drafting team concur with most of the comments of the Firearm Forum and they agree that a large number of changes are necessary to correct these errors.

We appeal to this committee to instruct the drafting team to rewrite the Bill incorporating these changes before the Bill can be approved.

In this submission we would like to address issues of specific concern to our industry.

Amongst these are;

Suspension of licence

The Bill provides for the SAPS to suspend the licence of a dealer for seven days on the basis of a sworn statement. This period can then be extended by the Registrar.

We would support the notion that the Registrar be allowed to suspend a dealer's licence for a few days in order to conduct a proper investigation.

However this period should be severely limited. After this initial period it should require a court order to be extended. We would suggest a similar process to that used for issuing search warrants. The Registrar should be required to provide motivation to a judge who must then authorise any such extension.

The dealer should also be given opportunity to argue against any such extension.

As this provision has great potential for abuse and inflicting serious financial harm on a dealer we believe such powers must be strictly regulated.

We would suggest that this power may only be exercised by the Registrar personally and that this power may not be delegated to officers of a lower rank.

Termination of licence

The period of 14 days notice is far too short and must be extended. In the event of the Registrar believing that the dealer must cease trading immediately he can use his powers of temporary suspension for 7 days and thereafter obtain the necessary court order.

Such notice of suspension must provide the dealer with full and complete reasons and motivations for the termination. This would be in keeping with the requirements of the Administrative Justice Act and allow the dealer the opportunity to mount a proper defence.

 

Definition of firearm

The proposed definition of a firearm would also include any major part of a firearm, including spare magazines. The possession of such parts requires a licence, presumably in this case this would mean that all firearm parts would be registered in the dealer database.

This is hugely problematic and totally impractical.

Under current legislation there is a prohibition on providing any such part unless the purchaser produces a licence for a firearm in which that part may be used. This system should be retained.

As an example it is common practice to assemble a competition sporting pistol from match components. Under existing legislation this is controlled by virtue of the essential component, the barrel, requiring a licence.

In terms of this Bill such a person would have to obtain a licence for every part. This would result in a person having a large number of licences for a single firearm.

The Bill calls for the dealer to maintain a register of all such parts. This register would be purely a numerical control as articles such as spare magazines have no identifying marks. These cannot be individually registered as there is no numerical restriction on their possession. This would create a huge administrative workload for both the dealer and the Registrar with no perceivable benefit.

Central Firearm Register

There can be no doubt that the Central Firearm Register is in need of an update.

An efficient and smoothly functioning CFR is vital to our industry. Every administrative error or delay in processing information directly costs our industry millions of Rands.

The existing Register cannot cope with it's current workload. This has been the case for a number of years. Despite this having been identified as a priority some years ago the situation remains totally unchanged.

Much of the information with the CFR database is doubtless incorrect and out of date. This is not due to the CFR not receiving information but is caused by their inability to process the information provided. Every dealer is required by law to provide detailed returns of every firearm imported, bought or sold. This information is simply not being entered into the system at the moment. This causes delays and again considerable financial loss to our industry.

The proposed Bill will increase the workload placed on the CFR massively. From the current 200 000 processes a year to several million.

It is a matter of great concern that no study has been conducted on this additional workload and the ability of the CFR to cope with it.

We are aware that re-engineering process is currently underway to investigate and determine a new computer system for the CFR. However this process is only scheduled for completion in June next year. This process does not include even an elementary cost / benefit study.

A thorough analysis must be made of both the costs and practicality of any system must be made before legislation can be adopted.

If legislation is passed which then proves impossible or too expensive to implement then the legislation becomes meaningless.

Surely we should first establish what can be achieved first?

We are aware that an initial cost has been projected to this committee of R217 million over the first three years. With respect we question the accuracy of this figure and believe that the committee has been misinformed in this regard.

No country anywhere in the world operates a Central Firearm Register similar to our existing one let alone anything even approaching the proposed system and workload.

The closest comparison would be the Canadian system. (A detailed analysis of the Canadian system is attached). The Canadian system is designed to be a simple register of some 7 million firearms. It does not deal with licensing, renewals or competency certificates. It is merely a simple database of registered firearms. The proposed South African system would have a workload around 20 times the size of the Canadian system.

This system was originally budgeted at CAN$ 85 million ( R370 million). Since work commenced in 1998 the system has to date cost over CAN$ 400 million (R1 900 million). So far the system has only registered 74 000 new entries.

It is both ironic and worrying that the Canadians have been very heavily involved in assisting our authorities in this regard when their own register is rapidly becoming one of the most expensive failures in the world.

We believe that it is absolutely vital that this committee be given a thorough analysis of the costs and practicality of any proposed system before any informed decision can be made. Such an analysis should also contain a detailed account of the expected benefits of any such system.


Online reporting by dealers

It is proposed that dealers be linked directly to the CFR and that all transactions be recorded live online.

This is also a matter of great concern.

Currently the CFR system is offline more often than it is functional. If an online system is enforced then this places the dealer under great liability. If the system is offline for any reason then the dealer will be unable to complete the transaction.

This is totally unacceptable.

We strongly support the notion of the dealer being able to submit the required returns and information electronically. However the dealer cannot be prevented from completing a legal transaction simply because the CFR system is offline or there is a fault with the connecting line.

It is also important that this system be developed in conjunction with this association. Most of the larger dealers already have comprehensive and expensive computer systems in place. These systems not only control firearms and ammunition but are also an integral part of the accounting systems. The new system must be designed to interface with and accommodate these other requirements.

Compensation

The Bill proposes that certain types of firearms become prohibited or restricted.

These firearms are not currently restricted and dealers obviously have existing stocks. If these firearms become prohibited or restricted then these existing stocks will have to be handed to the State and compensation paid.

It is difficult to estimate what such an exercise would cost. Similar restrictions were imposed in Australia on semi automatic shotguns and rifles. In their case 372 dealers were involved and the compensation totalled AUS $ 49 106 000 ( R240 000 000).

We would expect a similar figure in South Africa.

All transactions through dealers.

We do not support this requirement and can see no purpose in it nor any benefit to society.

If one person wishes to sell a firearm to another person then this should be allowed, provided all licensing requirements are met.

Forcing the transaction to take place through a dealer merely complicates the issue by involving a third party.

When a private person sells a firearm the original owner remains the licensed owner until the new licence is issued to the seller, thus cancelling the previous licence. If for any reason the transaction is cancelled the original licence remains valid.

When a dealer purchases a firearm the original licence is immediately cancelled and possession is transferred to the dealer. If the dealer acts as the third party in a private transaction and the transaction is halted or fails for any reason the dealer will be unable to return the firearm to the original owner as his licence will have been cancelled. The dealer is then in the unfortunate situation of being in possession of a firearm that is the property of another person. This could arise for a multitude of reasons, from a dispute between buyer and seller to the refusal of the buyer's licence.

Airguns

The Bill deregulates certain airguns. This is a return to the historical norm in South Africa. Airguns were not considered firearms in South Africa until the late 70's. This was changed for purely political reasons. The previous government decided that liberation movements might make use of this for training purposes and so restricted airguns.

We strongly support the proposed deregulation of airguns. However we disagree with the manner in which this has been done. It is proposed that airguns be classified by kinetic energy. This will be very difficult to police.

Kinetic energy is a function of the velocity and mass of a projectile. This can change depending on many factors such as temperature and atmospheric pressure. This would lead to a situation whereby a specific airgun would be legal in winter but illegal in the hotter temperatures of summer. Or legal at the coast yet illegal in the thinner air of the highveld.

It also requires scientific instruments and skills to measure the kinetic energy. These skills and the required equipment could not be employed by a normal police officer in the course of his duties.

There are many different calibres of airguns but they can essentially be divided into two classes, .177 and .22 or larger. The vast majority of .177 airguns would fall into the lower energy class while almost all of the larger calibres would be in the higher energy class.

In order to simplify policing we would suggest that this calibre be used to determine if an airgun requires a licence or not, .177 would not, anything larger would.

This would be extremely easy for anyone to determine at a glance without any specialised knowledge or equipment. This would also remove many thousands of airguns from the registry thus reducing their workload.

We would further suggest that the requirements to maintain registers for deregulated airguns should be scrapped. If the item is not deemed to be a firearm and may be freely purchased and possessed we can see no need to maintain registers for these items.

Antique firearms

We also support the deregulation of antique firearms but here again we disagree with the given definition.

As defined an antique firearm is in effect a muzzleloader. In other words a firearm that does not use modern cartridge ammunition. We agree fully with this part of the definition. Such firearms cannot be considered to be a threat but are quite widely possessed for historical and recreational purposes. Such a move would also bring South Africa into line with the rest of the world where muzzle loading firearms are not considered to be firearms at all.

However this definition is confused by the addition of a date of manufacture. With such historical firearms it is virtually impossible to determine the exact year of manufacture. This would lead to great difficulty in enforcement.

The important factor is the type of firearm and how it operates. It would be ridiculous to have two identical firearms, one made in 1869 and one in 1871, treated differently. One requiring a licence and the other not. A muzzle loading firearm remains a muzzle loading firearm whether it was made in 1860 or 1960. There is no difference between the two.

The date of 1870 is derived from the ongoing UN committee on small arms. They have also attempted to deregulate muzzle loading firearms but instead of describing such firearms technically they have opted for the approximate date of the transition to modern cartridge firearms. This is a seriously flawed approach.

This approach would restrict the very type of firearm it seeks to permit. At the same time it would deregulate certain firearms that do use modern cartridges. A classic example here would be that Gatling guns, the first effective machine guns, would be deregulated while many primitive muzzle loaders would be restricted.

This information has been provided to the South African delegates to the UN and they will attempt to correct this definition there. Obviously the same correction should be made in this Bill and the reference to date removed.

Work on firearms

The Bill prohibits anyone other than a licensed gunsmith to "work" on a firearm. Work is not properly defined and is very broad.

Many dealers who are not licensed gunsmiths perform simple tasks such as servicing and cleaning firearms or replacing minor components and attaching accessories such as sights.

The definition of "work" must be carefully expanded and dealers excluded from this prohibition.

In particular the prohibition on "improving" a firearm is troublesome. Even the cleaning of a firearm could be deemed to be "improving" a firearm.

This entire section must be revisited to avoid confusion.

Administrative offences

The entire system of administrative penalties is unacceptable in the proposed form.

We would however support the Registrar having the ability to issue a fine in the same manner as traffic offences are dealt with. This would allow the Registrar to punish minor offences without undertaking a criminal prosecution and still grant the accused dealer the option of refusing the fine, which would then be pursued in the courts.

Again the revised proposals are a considerable improvement but do not fully address the concerns.

As proposed the Bill would allow the Registrar to impose fines in excess of those allowed in a magistrate's court.

The process of service of the notice is unclear and must be very clearly defined.

Although the Bill now prohibits any further criminal prosecution if the fine is accepted it is not stated if this exclusion also applies to any further administrative action. This must be clearly defined otherwise a person may elect to pay the fine only to have the Registrar impose further administrative sanctions such as declaration of unfitness or cancellation of a licence, without any court action or conviction.

Firearm Advisory Committee

Earlier drafts of this Bill suggested the creation of a Firearm Advisory Committee. The purpose of this committee would be to advise the Registrar and the Minister on technical issues relating to firearms and their use.

We support this concept and believe such a committee would fulfil a very useful role. We strongly support the creation of such a body.

Export Permits

This Bill would require all export permits to be approved by the NCACC. This is a ministerial level committee tasked with vetting and approving the exportation of armaments.

Currently there are certain exemptions to this requirement for the exportation of small numbers of sporting arms. We would suggest that this subject be carefully examined and expanded to include certain categories of firearms such as airguns.

Most African countries are turning toward South African dealers to supply their requirements for sporting and hunting firearms and ammunition. If every single export permit must be approved by the NCACC this process would take months. Such delays would cause our clients to look further afield for their purchases and cause substantial financial loss to those of our members who export.

In the case of exports to dealers in other countries we would suggest introducing a system such as that used by the USA and other countries. This system uses a two tier approach to export licensing. Firstly the overseas dealer must be vetted and approved, that dealer is then authorised to receive certain blanket quantities of specific types of firearms and or ammunition over a specific period of time, normally a calendar year.

Once this approval has been issued then an individual export permit is necessary for every shipment. Provided the types and quantities are within the limits of the annual permit this second permit is more of an administrative nature and is issued without further approval and delay.

This system works efficiently around the world and would greatly facilitate trade between dealers in different countries while still giving Government full control over exports.

Statutory powers

In the past it has been suggested that this industry play a greater role in policing its’ members. It was suggested that this association be given certain powers to enable it to do so.

These suggestions have had a mixed response within our industry and we are uncertain whether such a system would comply with the Constitution.

We do accept that this association has a duty to eradicate any malpractice within the industry and would welcome the opportunity to assist the Registrar in this regard.

It is for this Committee to consider how best our association can assist. We would, for instance, suggest the appointment of a specific liaison officer within the Central Firearm Register. Such an appointment would facilitate the transfer of information and concerns from the industry.

Conclusion

There are many other issues in this Bill that we could not address because of the limited time allocated.

We hope that our comments and suggestions on the few issues that we have raised today will of value to the committee when considering this Bill.

We reiterate our offer to be of assistance at any time in preparing sound sensible legislation. Legislation that is practical, enforceable and which properly addresses crime.

Annexure

Canada

CILA / ICAL

"Defending Canada’s Heritage"

 

June 20, 2000

The State of Firearms Control in Canada

On January 1, 1998, Bill C-68, the Firearms Act came into force. The legislation required

that all Canadians register their firearms and obtain licenses to possess firearms. Bill C-68 was hotly contested. Indeed, C-68 has been the most opposed legislation since the Conscription Act of World War II.

The legislation was supported by municipalities and police agencies and sold to the Canadian public as an essential crime fighting tool. Firearms owners across Canada warned of wholesale non-compliance, phenomenal costs and marginal public safety benefits.

It appears they were right.

Despite large amounts of evidence to show legitimate firearms owners did not commit crimes with them and the obvious truth that criminal elements would not comply with any firearms laws, the government of Canada forged ahead. Canadians were promised that the cost of the implementation of the Bill would not exceed $85 million and that all costs would be recovered by user fees for registrations and license issues. They were also promised that in the unlikely event the Bill’s cost would exceed $150 million, the legislation would be scrapped.

A United Nations study done in the 1980’s with the help of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, indicated the presence of 21 million firearms and 7 million firearms owners in Canada. The government of Canada insisted there were only 7 million guns and 3 million owners. They based this number on a telephone survey conducted during the planning stages of the legislation. Despite the acknowledged fact that few firearms owners would disclose ownership of firearms to an anonymous polling company over the telephone, the government chose to accept these numbers as an accurate representation of Canadian firearms ownership.

The government held hearings across the country and chose to ignore the opinions of responsible firearms owners, who explained why the proposed legislation would have virtually no effect on the criminal misuse of firearms.

With these facts in mind, these are the current statistics on the new Canadian firearms legislation.

Since the implementation date of Jan. 1, 1998:

Licensing: 183,353 done, 129,000 backlogged. Deadline for licensing is December 31, 2000.

License production capacity is 18,325 per month and they need 469,441 per month to meet deadline (based upon government estimates of 3 million firearms owners). They require a 2,600% improvement.

They have 1.6 million guns in the registry. 1.2 million are the old handgun registry (implemented in 1934) and these require re-registration by 2003. Of the remainder, 308,000 are dealer to dealer business transfers.

Only 74,516 firearms are newly registered to individuals. The deadline for the registration of firearms is December 31, 2003

At this rate of registration it will take between 140 - 422 years to register the guns in Canada, depending on whether the low number (7M) or high number (21M) is used.

They have admitted to spending $400 million so far. This is a cost of $5,367.83 per registered firearm.

At this rate of expenditure it will cost $37,574,810,000 to register 7 million guns. ($37.5 BILLION).

As to the cost recovery promised to the Canadian public, the Canadian Firearms Centre has waived the fee for registration and dropped to license fee for firearms to a mere $10 in an effort to get Canadians to comply.

These numbers were produced by the Canadian Firearms Centre, Department of Justice and are current as of June 1st, 2000. They were analyzed and presented in this format by our Institute.

To claim that the Canadian firearms control program has been a dismal failure is somewhat of an understatement. Canada has never had a firearms problem and this program addresses a virtually non existent need.

The incidences of crimes committed with firearms in Canada has not changed for many years and it remains very low. In 1999 there were only 176 murders by firearm in the whole country, the vast majority of these involving gangs and the illicit drug trade.

The support originally provided by the various police groups has also waned. At the 1999 Annual General Meeting of the Canadian Police Association, representatives of Canada’s police services voted to maintain their support by a marginal 58%. In addition they passed a resolution to endorse the law in 2000 only if a certain number of conditions had been met prior to their next annual meeting (August 2000).

Not one of the conditions specified has been met and it is expected that the Canadian Police Association will withdraw their support for the failed legislation.

Already, various provincial association have made statements that they no longer endorse the legislation.

Why? Because Canada’s firearms legislation draws enormous amounts of money out of the criminal justice budget without providing any discernible gain in public or police safety. It remains a truism; criminals don’t get licenses or register their guns.

Despite huge opposition by the public, the police and many members of the media, the Canadian government continues ahead with this expensive, ineffective program in an effort to justify their international gun control efforts. Canada is presently involved with several international firearms control projects and is very active in this regard within the United Nations.

What they have succeeded in doing is to coalesce the Canadian recreational firearms community into a powerful political force, well organized and determined not to repeat the mistakes of other western nations in meekly accepting this erosion of their personal liberties.

 

A proud member of the

World Forum on the Future of

Sport Shooting Activities

Forum du Monde sur le Futur

d'Activités des Sports des

Armes à Feu

Canadian Institute for Legislative Action

Institut Canadien pour l'Action Législative