Furthermore we protest the secrecy surrounding the drafting of this Bill and the non-involvement of sports shooters, who have also been denied an official copy of the Bill, even at this late stage.

In the short time that has been allowed for us to study the implications of the proposed Bill, we could not consult widely with the members of our association, this is however being done in preparation for oral submissions.

The SA Practical Shooting Association (SAPSA) is the largest single shooting sport affiliated to the SA Sport Shooting Federation and as such should be requested to provide oral input to the member of the Portfolio Committee, as to how this Bill will affect the sport, and consequently our freedom of association as provided for in the constitution. Up until now the drafters of the Bill have denied us participation in the drafting process. There are specific chapters that deal with sport shooting, yet when one looks at the organisations who were consulted, it is glaringly obvious that sport was never consulted at all, and then the drafters have the audacity to say that all interest groups were consulted. By their own admission as contained in the Bill, sport was never consulted. The secrecy in which this Bill was drafted makes a mockery of the constitution, and for the democratic and supposed to be transparent process that government is constantly advocating.

As already stated this comment is very limited. This comment does not cover all our concerns and serves only to highlight some of the more glaring areas that are of major concern to sports persons.

Prior to making comment on the specific areas of concern, a general comment regarding the stated intentions of the Bill and the application of the contents of the Bill are necessary and relevant.

This Bill contains nothing that is not already covered in existing legislation, that will improve the ability of the SAPS to combat violence or remove illegal weapons from society. Current legislation, if enforced is perfectly capable. However the ENFORCEMENT does not happen. What in this bill will improve enforcement? Nothing! Feet on the ground doing enforcement is the only solution. But what this Bill will do, is remove a large amount of manpower from an already understaffed SAPS to perform duties that are not their core business. In terms of this Bill the Government will move trained and experience law enforcement officers from their core business to police a section of the population that is law abiding. The estimated expense that has been put forward for the implementation of this Bill is to say the very least, extremely optimistic. A study of the Canadian situation and how the costs have escalated astronomically, will be a much truer picture of what the taxpayer can expect to fork out for this implementation. When the costs start to escalate, who will government hold responsible. The drafters and planners who have mislead government, when they had access to the truth but failed in their duty to report accurately on the latest available statistics. Who, because of some secret agenda have withheld vital cost implications in their endeavour to coheres government into passing this Bill. I sincerely hope that these people will be held accountable.

Again the problem of enforcement has not yet been taken into account and if financial provision has been made for the massive administrative staff, the consultants, and the new IT equipment, it must place a serious burden on an already under financed SAPS core business budget. Soon we could have a piece of very expensive legislation that cannot be enforced. I believe that the money spent on this Bill could have been better used to effectively fight the high crime in this country by employing more policemen and women, and by providing sufficient logistic support to allow the SAPS to conduct their core business effectively.

Protection is in the arena of the protection services. They should be geared up and equipped to protect. There are too few, and they are under trained and poorly equipped. It is no secret that at the end of the last year, budget cuts had reduced the effectiveness of the police, who either did not have serviceable vehicles or no petrol. Let us get the priorities right here. Government should be making more money available for police core business, and not be pumping money into an imaginary threat by law abiding citizens.

Not for one moment would anybody dispute the above statement. However as concerned citizens of South Africa we note that the bill does nothing to improve legislation, that is not covered under existing law, to actively address the problem of illegal gun ownership. Instead the lawlessness, and high crime is used as an excuse to further restrict lawful gun ownership, together with a restriction on the ability of lawful persons to protect themselves with whatever means are available at the time. The principle drafters and their anti gun supporters are quoting statistics that cannot be verified, i.e. that most of the unlawful guns in circulation were stolen from legal and lawful owners. I presume that included here are the security weapons that have been stolen. Armed with this "evidence" they are misleading government into taking action in an area where minor modifications to the law would suffice. I dispute the fact that private gun ownership is the principle supplier of illegal guns, this fact has already been stated by the previous Minister of Safety and Security in Parliament. I would request that until such time as the freedom of information act is passed that will allow citizens the right to verify these claims this bill should be held in abeyance. To anyone who has lived in South Africa these past ten years, it is self evident that the armed struggle has contributed the most to the proliferation of guns, as well as the theft of weapons from SAPS and SANDF personnel while on duty. And possibly the largest contributor is the theft from government arsenals and SAPS stations.. Furthermore the continuing civil unrest and poverty in neighboring states, has proved to be an endless supplier of weapons for criminals in South and Southern Africa.

1. Chapter 4 Paragraph 8 (2).

Who will administer the competency test. How can a person become sufficiently proficient if he cannot have a weapon to train with. Does the competency only cover the contents of this act? Does it include the ability to fire the weapon safely? Does it include knowledge of the working of the relevant firearm? This is a vague statement. If the issuing of these certificates is not properly administered it will lead to all forms of corruption, which defeat the objectives of this Bill even before it starts. An example of the rife corruption is evident in the arrest on Friday 09 June of the station commander of Laudium police station.

In compliance with suggestion made by members of the Portfolio Committee during our oral submission on 19 June 2000 requesting recommendations, the following is added to the original submission:

In the case of accredited associations, it is suggested that they perform the relevant competency test. It is surmised that although the various associations are in number only a small portion of the legal firearm owners they posses a high proportion of registered firearms. Also each association has unique requirements regarding the safe handling of firearms on premises under their control. This will ensure optimal safety training and ensure a high standard. How to address the problem of testing for the bulk of the firearm owners who are not affiliated to any accredited association remains a problem. Provision should be made for accredited shooting training institutions to undertake this task. The problem here is to ensure the integrity of such institutions, to obviate the corruption which seems so prevalent in decentralised testing. An example of this can be seen in the vehicle and drivers license testing.

The act can make provision for severe penalties to discourage this type of corruption. It is felt that dishonesty in the granting of a competency certificate especially where money has changed hands is no longer an administrative transgression, but a criminal act, which should be dealt with severely.

2. Chapter 4 Paragraph 8 (3) and many other paragraphs.

The statement abounds in this Bill, "As may be prescribed". This allows for the drafters to include requirements that may be totally unacceptable to the general public or requirements that cannot always be met without possible further financial implications. These requirements have to be spelled out prior to the Bill being put before Parliament.

3. Chapter 5 paragraph 2.

With the limited manpower available to the SAPS how are they going to determine the validity of any statement that is made by an applicant. The SAPS does not have the human resources, unless they remove even more personnel from the core business of the SAPS.

Sub paragraph (O) is particularly conflicting. It requires a person to have undergone firearms training and to pass a test on the safe handling of a firearm. How can a person be trained and pass a test on safe gun handling when the law prohibits the person from having a weapon without first having a competency certificate. Chapter 2 paragraph 3 states that no person may posses a firearm unless they hold a licence issued in terms of this act. Subject to section 9, no licence may be issued to a person who is not in possession of the relevant competency certificate. To get a licence one must first have a competency certificate. In essence no new firearms licences will be issued. Is this the hidden agenda of this Bill?

Recommendation added to the original submission:

It has long been the contention of most of the associations the person should be licensed and the weapons registered. Today that still holds true. In discussions with the members of the CFR during a work session to determine the requirements for the licensing of firearms for bona fide sports persons (which has now fallen away) it is obvious that the process of registering a gun to a sports person is far simpler than a new owner. Adopting this procedure where the person is licensed will alleviate the burden on CFR considerably. In addition the members of the fingerprint section will have less checking to do and can concentrate on core business. All round this principle is a win, win situation in the case of dedicated sports persons, hunters and collectors.

4. Chapter 6 paragraph 14(1 and 2).

A family member of a person who has a weapon for sporting purposes who is forced to defend themselves with that weapon, no matter how justified the cause, is guilty of an offence punishable with a prison sentence of 2 years. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa places a duty on the State to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights of individuals as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, including the right to life and security of the person. This can also be found in the preamble to this Bill. However in exercising that right, a perfectly law abiding citizen now becomes a criminal. This must surly be in conflict with the Constitution of South Africa.

5. Chapter 6 paragraph 14(3).

For an administrative omission a law abiding citizen is sentenced to 2 years in prison. The irony is that the transgressor is a family member, not someone who will disappear without a trace. That person also does not have a weapon. It is someone who can be contacted at will. Does that now constitute a criminal activity? Also because of this administrative transgression that person will loose the right to ever get a firearm licence even though they can prove that they may desperately need one for self defence. Is this Bill then abiding by the constitution regarding the right to life and security?

6. Chapter 6 paragraph 15(2) (a) and (b).

Who will determine the justification of the need for a firearm. Against which criteria. Also who must be reasonably satisfied that other means will not suffice. This is vague and open to personal interpretation. This must be defined. Again this can be one of those "As may be prescribed" situations which can be prescribed so as to make it impossible for people to obtain firearms.

Comment added to original submission:

Chapter 6 paragraphs 15 (4) c, 16 (5)b and 17 (4) b and c

In restricting the use of firearms to only accredited shooting ranges, the right to use a firearm on private property (for example a farm) is precluded. This means that many thousands of rural firearm owners are prevented from shooting activities which are at present not only lawful but should be encouraged as a means of maintaining proficiency and enjoying a legitimate sport.

The government has propagated the idea that sport is a valuable nation building tool, needed to unite all South Africans, and to enhance our sense of belonging and to engender a feeling of pride and unity.

These are valid and realistic strategies that have had remarkable success in the past, with the high visibility sports such as cricket, soccer and rugby. However it must be remembered that at the last Commonwealth Games shooting sports brought back the most medals of all the disciplines, and to take matters further, shooting in all it’s forms is one of the largest disciplines at the Olympic games, behind track and field, boxing and swimming.

What this proposed legislation is effectively doing is taking away the sustainability of shooting sports in SA, and effectively dooming all forms of shooting, be it recreational or serious sport to a slow but certain extinction.

We as responsible gun owners advocate proper training for all gun owners. We would like to join government in making the owners of firearms, safe and responsible citizens of our country. To achieve this means, we need to educate gun owners, by drawing them into clubs, on a formal and informal basis. Only when all else fails should we revert to the use of threats and restrictions. And then only target that section who do not comply with the law

7. Chapter 6 paragraph 16(1) (b)

This contains the clause "declared by the Minister" which again is repeated numerous times in this Bill. It gives sweeping powers to the Minister, leaving the public no recourse to any consultation or appeal, and with no justification needed by the Minister, who at the end of the day can ban, or declare virtually any weapon as prohibited. These sweeping powers can be abused to disarm the public completely. It is things like this in the Bill that make people distrust the intention and justification of the Bill and it’s associated cost.

Item added to original submission.

South Africa has successfully bid to host the next World Practical Shooting Championships in 2002. Over 800 competitors from 42 countries will attend this competition. Should government decide during 2002 to for instance place a ban on all military calibres, this will impact greatly on the competition. Who will pay the claims that will arise from this action? E.g. cancelled air tickets and accommodation, sponsors money that had been used to erect equipment that will now not be used. In addition our country will loose face. As part of the presentation that was made to the World Assembly, we pointed out that South Africa is the centre of the world. When one considers the proximity to the rest of the world, flying time into SA is short for everyone except America. We want to become the prime venue. The problems and possibilities are endless. It is suggested that this arbitrary capability that is allowed under this clause be withdrawn completely. The scope for damage is too great. In any case the law abiding citizens are not the ones that need targeting, how would any declaration stop the criminals? I sincerely believe that this is in here only as a mechanism for future disarmament of the public and serves no purpose with regard to the maintenance of law and order.

8. Chapter 6 paragraph 19(1)(c).

Here is a classic example of the drafting team’s failure to consult with sports shooters. In a practical shotgun match, the competitor is expected to shoot down a minimum of six plates in a stage. The number of plates can be increased to a maximum of 28. This is all done against time. Therefor one of the prime considerations when purchasing a shotgun will be to select the one with the largest magazine capacity. Reloading takes time and a limited magazine capacity as put forward in this Bill will severely restrict the competitors ability to perform. This clause will effectively destroy practical shotgun competitions on a provincial, national and international level. It should be pointed out to the drafting team that there are other sporting uses for shotguns other than clay target shooting. The concession to allow semi automatic shotguns for dedicated sport shooting and then limit the number of rounds is self defeating. It is in fact no concession at all. There should be no limit on the number of rounds that can be loaded into a shotgun for sporting purposes.

9. Chapter 6 paragraph 19(4).

Once again an innocent law abiding citizen is deemed to be a criminal and given a two year jail sentence, should that person while on the way back from an approved shooting range have to use their sporting weapon to legally defend themselves. It is the criminal who chooses to attack a seemingly defenceless person, not the sports person. Why then when that person uses whatever means are at their disposal to defend themselves, they become the criminal in terms of this Bill. Furthermore through a legal act, even when eventually sanctioned by a court of law, the person will still loose all weapons and licences in terms of Chapter 6 paragraph 30(2)(b). How can this contradiction exist. Both of these paragraphs referred to here must be deleted. A person’s right to security is contained in the constitution. This Bill cannot prescribe in what manner and with which weapon a person can defend themselves.

10. Chapter 6 paragraph 19(5)

The much used "as may be prescribed" makes another appearance here. Again for an administrative offence we are willing to throw someone if not all (it’s not specified who is responsible) of a sporting organisation in jail for two years, and take away from whoever is convicted because of this paragraph, their right to posses a firearm. This burden is placed on an administrator of a sport, who is in turn dependant on receiving information from countless clubs and provincial associations. This is possibly one of the worst clauses in the Bill. Are the drafting team ignorant of how sporting organisation function. Again if they had dropped the veil of secrecy surrounding this legislation and consulted with sporting bodies, they would have had a better insight when drafting this. Again this smacks of a hidden agenda to remove even those firearms of sports persons, and to destroy shooting sports completely.

1. You won’t be in possession of a license for 15 years. Would that restrict your use of the firearm in question? How can you use the firearm if you don’t have a valid licence?
2. Before you have received your license renewal, it will become due again and just perpetuate the cycle.

1. Chapter 6 paragraph 28 and 29

Once again an administrative infraction makes a law abiding citizen a criminal, who will spend two years in jail. For instance if a person gets divorced and does not notify the registrar or there is an addition to the family and the registrar is not informed within 30 days that person could be a criminal. Again there is no mention of what information "as may be prescribed" that will be needed for a firearm licence. What constitutes a change of circumstance. I believe the only changes in circumstances are personal and financial. Why would these be so important as to lead to 2 years imprisonment, for failure to report?

2. Chapter 7 paragraph 34.

No person may dispose of a weapon except through a dealer. This comes up at various places in the Bill. I was under the impression that SA had a free market economy. Not one dictated by the state, which in the case of firearms is exactly what is being proposed here. In the first instance, the drafters are perfectly aware that the cost of purchasing a firearm, with import taxes, Vat, and the weak Rand, cost the SA consumer a lot of money. Should this Bill be implemented as it stands, hundreds of thousands of licensed firearm owners will have to sell off excess firearms that they cannot legally keep due to the provisions of this Bill. It goes without saying that the dealers work on a supply and demand system. With the glut of firearms on the market the prices will be so depressed, and because one can only sell to a dealer, if you are offered a pittance for your valuable weapon, you have no choice but to take it. Nobody else can buy it. Is this fair?

What if a person wants to pass on a valuable firearm to a son or daughter. That person must sell it to a dealer for next to nothing and then buy it back for the son or daughter at an inflated price. Something is wrong here. I wonder why the existing legal practice of selling directly to another person, and going to the local police station to notify the change of ownership, and then having the prospective owner apply for a licence will not suffice. What hidden agenda is the drafting committee following here. Many people who are passionate about exotic firearms or who have in fact bought them as an investment stand to loose huge sums of money. Why? This provision should be scrapped from this Bill.

3. Chapter 7 Part 3 paragraph 62.

Sports shooters are average people who in most cases have to survive on a shrinking budget. The price of weapons, especially those preferred by sports shooters have skyrocketed in the last few years. To illustrate the point the Rand / Dollar exchange rate was 3.48 in 1994, it has now doubled. Add to that the increased tax, and one can see that a new or second weapon is virtually out of the question, especially when one considers that in order to practice the sport one needs to have ammunition which has also had a meteoric rise in price. Most sport shooters because of the high usage know which parts are likely to fail, and instead of buying a second weapon invest in spares over a period of time. Now most times a gun won’t break during practice. It will almost certainly break during a competition. Where does one find a gunsmith on a Sunday. Most shooters are perfectly capable of dropping in the new part, but should they do that this Bill will deem them to be criminals and they will spend 15 years in jail. Do the drafting team really know how ridiculous this is. If a person buys a pistol and at the same time buys a set of replacement high profile sights, that need no machining or special tools, and that person fits them onto the pistol. That person has improved the firearm and is liable to go to jail for 15 years. Not in my worst nightmare could I imagine sane people approving something a ridiculous as this. How on earth can the drafting committee motivate this excess. How can anyone in any way claim that the punishment fits the "crime". Earlier I thought that I had come across the worst clause of the Bill. Well I was mistaken this takes the cake.

4. Chapter 8

It is presumed that this chapter would also apply to shooters from other countries who wish to compete or hunt in the RSA, as well as South Africans who wish to compete in competitions in foreign countries.

It is illogical to include sports persons and hunters in a clause that has been specifically designed for business The requirements are different and the conditions required for a business differ from those of sport or hunting.

Hunting is a multi billion Rand industry in SA providing thousands of jobs in areas where economic development is slow. Also in September 2002 there will be in excess of 800 competitors from 42 countries arriving in RSA to compete at the Practical Shooting World Championship.

A separate chapter must be written which deals only with the sport and hunting aspects, and which should be user friendly to encourage overseas visitors to come to RSA and spend desperately needed money.

5. Chapter 19 paragraph 137 (a).

This clause states that for all the administrative transgressions that are included in this Bill a person will:

1. Forfeit to the state with no compensation all firearms
2. Be put in jail
3. Be refused a licence in the future.

How can the state confiscate valuable property in this way, for minor infractions. And then heap on the person all the other penalties.

In conclusion I must say that the process followed by the drafting team, and the way that the Bill is being steamrollered through Parliament reminds me of the way many oppressive bills were brought into law by the previous apartheid regime, where the opinion of the people was not taken into account, and the result was a tool for the state to oppress previously law abiding citizens, confiscate their property and brand them as criminals. This Bill if passed into law as it is, will be no different.