TRUVELO MANUFACTURERS

NEW PROPOSED FIREARMS ACT

It is commendable that the Government has Publicly declared its intention to fight crime and all law abiding citizens understand and agree that violent crime enacted with the use of firearms is unacceptable and we will support the Government in its efforts to eradicate this type of crime with better legislation.

However we do and always will strongly oppose any legislation which in practice will effectively only effect the law abiding population as is the case with the suggested new legislation.

We believe that the existing act already more than sufficiently controls the legal ownership of firearms in this country and purely by proper law enforcement where necessary can achieve control over illegal firearms as well.
The prohibition of illegal firearms is also clearly stated in this existing Act BUT the removal of these illegal firearms from society is purely a matter of LAW ENFORCEMENT and adequate punishment.

In fact it makes no logical sense to pass new legislation when at present the old legislation is not being properly enforced especially with regards to the illegal firearms in the country and even with regards to legal firearms.
The existing Firearms Act firstly requires a comprehensive restructuring and bringing up to date of the existing Firearms Registrar. The enforcement of all laws relating to the misuse of firearms and the adequate punishment of offenders. Many of the offenders using firearms to commit their crimes can be adequately punished under common law. i.e. murder, rape robbery etc. without having to enact a new Firearms Act. In any case to enact new legislation purely to increase the punishment for the misuse of firearms is a minor matter.

Where the new Legislation differs radically from the old act is its emphasis on curtailing the number of weapons that can be owned by a LAW ABIDING citizen. Even to the extend of removing firearms from persons who have been law abiding citizens all their lives.

This legislation in effect will firstly seriously impinge on the rights and way of life of legal owners of numerous firearms. Many of these will be people who have inherited these firearms, or have bought them as investments or for collection purposes, as well as those who take part in a varied range of sporting activities but who are not necessarily members of any club or association.
It will entail them having to dispose of their property and or being forced to join organisations against their will which is an interference with their constitutional rights and also highly impractical for persons living away from the bigger centres

The reason for passing Legislation to Limit the number of Firearms a person can own is stated as being to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands.
However it is my understanding and I believe that statistics have proved that the owners of ~ numbers of firearms are less likely to have them stolen or lost through neglect as these people generally look alter their property as it is of considerable value to them. Unless the Government can show otherwise there is no reason to target multiple firearms owners as per the new proposed act.

I therefore directly challenge the Government to produce statistical proof that Multiple Firearms owners are a threat to society before they carry on with this legislation.

As regards Legal weapons falling into the hands of criminals.
The existing Act covers the loss of weapons through Negligence and lays down penalties for persons who have lost weapons.
I therefore here again challenge the Government to once again produce the following statistical details for the past five years.


1) How many firearms were stolen from legally licensed Firearms holders?
2) How many firearms were Lost by legally licensed firearms holders?
3) How many of the above have been found guilty of negligence and how many have been
declared unfit to possess firearms?
The above to exclude losses from Government organisations, Police, etc.

I believe that the numbers are actually a drop in the ocean when compared with the number of legally owned firearms in the country, but again only needs the enforcement of existing legislation regarding the safe keeping of firearms and does not warrant the massive expenditure which will be required to implement and enforce new
legislation which will in fact make life unnecessarily complicated for law abiding firearms owners and infringe on their basic rights and which at the end of the day will have no effect on the crime situation in the country.

Once again by restricting the number of firearms a person can own gives such person less incentive to protect his investment compared to somebody who has a large investment in firearms.

The new act also envisages a Competency certificate which is commendable. But is likely to be an administrative nightmare, Firstly how is all the information on the application going to be verified?
It will require a massive bureaucracy at a tremendous cost to the country to be able to do this. Secondly, it requires the successful completion of the prescribed training and practical tests regarding the safe handling of a firearm.
Who is going to give this training and do the practical tests?
Training people before they apply for a competency certificate is in fact an extremely dangerous situation as any respectable training organisation will confirm. What it in fact means is that a person, who may be a criminal, can come for training in the handling of a firearm even although there is no chance of him legally getting a Competency certificate, a licence or a legal firearm. So in other words Firearms training organisations will be training criminals in the use of Firearms.
It is a lot more desirable from the side of the training organisations if the first requirement for any application for a competency certificate or Licence would be the issuing by the Police of a certificate to show that the person does not have a criminal record.

In fact the ideal set up required would be to ensure that, firstly, persons who have a criminal record are not trained in the use of firearms and , secondly, to prevent the time wasted by everybody concerned including the training organisation the Dealers the Firearms registry etc. would be for any person wanting to buy a firearm to first obtain a Clearance certificate from the Police.

For this he should have his fingerprints taken and his credentials checked by the police.

In fact the whole act can be made extremely simple, workable and cost effective if it would concentrate on licensing the Person by ensuring that whoever wishes to purchase a firearm or firearms is firstly a law abiding citizen, secondly, can safely handle the weapon and thirdly, has adequate security for such weapons when not in use.

Once the above has been established all that is needed is to register each firearm that is purchased by that person against his name at the firearms registry.
Thereafter if any such person commits a crime he can be declared unfit as his fingerprints will be on record, and he will have to give up his firearms.

The new act also envisages the renewal of licences after certain periods of time. This again will be an administrative nightmare and extremely costly and will also be a tremendous drain on the Police manpower.
This is also an unnecessary complication both for the Police to enforce and for the Legal Firearms owner. Because if the system works correctly whenever anybody is convicted of a crime who is a firearms owner the Police will know about it from the Criminal records and can then take action to declare such person unfit.

The implementation of firearms free zones, will not prevent the criminal from targeting those areas, in fact it gives him the assurance that he will have a soft target when he decides to carry out his crimes in those areas. These people have no scruples about robbing people in churches etc, or at funerals, so why should they be concerned about committing a crime in a firearms free zone.?

Where there is a requirement for Dealers and Manufacturers and Gunsmiths to renew on a yearly basis is ridiculous. With the legislation regarding continues returns etc and the requirement to inform the Registrar of any changes in the structure etc of the business on an ongoing basis, as well as the right of the Registrar to check on such instances whenever he pleases, it does not make sense to have to reapply every year for a licence to operate especially when one considers the amount of investment involved in such businesses. It appears that this requirement to renew these licences particularly is just another means of making money.

All in all the envisaged new act will be an unnecessary and extremely expensive exercise and already has been, and will at the end of the day have minimal effect on the crime situation in the country as it is targeting completely the wrong sector of society and in fact infringing on the constitutional rights of Law abiding citizens and will definitely be challenged in court again at great cost to the Government as well as the citizens of the country.

I do not believe that sufficient consultation has been carried out with all relevant parties
but if the government feels that this is the case I challenge them to produce the relevant facts and figures to prove that legal firearms owners are such a serious problem that it requires such drastic and costly intervention from the state.

I believe the money being earmarked for this exercise will be much better spent by using it to improve overall Law enforcement and to ensure that the Judiciary carries out its obligations to ensure that the overall crime situation especially violent crime with the use of any weapon be adequately punished to act as a deterrent for those contemplating any such crime in the future.

A.B. DU PLESSIS.
Technical Consultant
on behalf of
TRUVELO MANUFACTURERS (PTY) LTD
ARMOURY DIVISION