SAGA’s response to draft Amendment Bill

The recent release by government of the Bill 2015 to amend the Firearms Control Act, No. 60 of 2000 caused quite an uproar among many firearm owners the South African Gunowners’ Association (SAGA) said in a statement.

SAGA promotes the lawful, safe and responsible possession and use of firearms by people who are competent to possess them.

According to John I. Welch, SAGA spokesperson “We support all reasonable measures to rid society of crime and to make society a safer place for all to live in and to enjoy their freedom, rights and privileges. Freedom, however, comes at a price and often one needs to measure the price of freedom against safety.

“Therefore, SAGA firmly believes that free people must have the choice to decide themselves what hobbies or sport to partake in and generally how to run their lives, including the right to choose whether or not they wish to lawfully possess firearms, provided they live a healthy lifestyle and do not do crime – all peoples’ attitude should be to be civilly obedient to the law.”

Welch went on to say “Unfortunately, many of the proposals in the Amendment Bill will place a heavy burden on law abiding firearm owners without really having an effect on crime.

“In fact, the opposite may be true – some firearm owners might find the new provisions impractical and financially too cumbersome and then decide to rather not comply, hence becoming criminal. This must not happen.”

SAGA’s statement reads further: …a positive feature of the bill is that it creates a new regime of operation for Designated Firearm Officers (DFOs) and their correlative obligations and responsibilities.

SAGA is of the view that DFOs must be responsible for firearm-related matters only and not be involved in general policing. To ensure corruption does not creep in, the necessary internationally recognized checks and balances must be built into the system.

The National Commissioner of Police must take full responsibility and be held accountable for any and all criminal actions and misconduct of members of the police service. This will ensure that members who are fit and proper for the job and who have been properly vetted and trained are appointed.

Because of the impracticality and huge financial and security implications of the application of microdots and ballistic sampling, SAGA is opposed to these proposals. We are currently in discussions with experts in this technology and, unless we are ensured that these processes will achieve the intended objective, we shall oppose them. We are of the view that these additional security measures only need to apply to the police and other state departments since more firearms are probably lost or stolen from these officials than from private license holders.

It has come as somewhat of a surprise that the period of validity of a competency certificate that had been extended to 10 years in the 2006 Amendment Act, is once again to be reduced to five years. However, since SAGA was the first to propose that the firearm owner must be licensed and that firearms ought to be registered only, we shall not oppose this provision, provided the renewal of licenses is scrapped. We are of the view that if firearm owners are confirmed to be competent every five years, licenses do not have to be renewed, there must merely be verification that the licensed firearms are still in her or his possession.

SAGA will refrain from specifically commenting on the limitations placed on the type and number of firearms for dedicated hunters and sport-shooters, since the relevant associations are better qualified to do so. SAGA will support all their legitimate and reasonable proposals to achieve a better dispensation for their members. SAGA is not in favour of any restrictions or limitations on type or number of firearms, provided the applicant has a legitimate reason for wanting such firearm and that s/he is fit and proper to possess it.

SAGA is satisfied with the lifting of the restriction on private collectors and accredited training service providers to possess not more than 200 rounds of ammunition per firearm. This is in line with the favourable dispensation that already exists for dedicated sport-shooters, -hunters and professional hunters.

SAGA has never been in favour of prescribed minimum sentences for accused convicted of certain offences since we believe this is an unconstitutional interference of the legislature in the constitutional mandate of our courts. Judges and magistrates are suitably qualified and experienced to apply their mind to sentencing an accused and should not be prescribed to by the legislature.

SAGA welcomes the additional measures to strengthen the Appeal Board, that, hopefully, will lead to expedited service delivery and the provision that states that the administrative services to the Appeal Board may not be rendered by the Central Firearms Registry. Currently this dispensation creates the perception that the Appeal Board is merely an extension of the CFR and there was accordingly little trust in the process.

SAGA further welcomes the rectification of the process to license percussion cap revolvers. Despite the fact that the current Act provides that these items are in fact licensable firearms, there is no procedure in terms of which to license them. Although a similar provision exists for the licensing of receivers and frames the bill only now creates an opportunity to do so.

The bill also contains a clause to provide for the relicensing of firearms that had not yet been licensed under the new Firearms Control Act, in other words, that had been licensed under the repealed Arms and Ammunition Act of 1969 or even its predecessor. This clause intends to give effect to the interim court order that was delivered in the Gauteng North High Court on 26 June 2009 in the urgent application by the SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association versus the Minister of Safety and Security (Police).

Despite the fact that the intended provision might be regarded as a solution to the existing problem, it must be pointed out that legislation cannot give effect to a court order. The state will have to consult with the other parties with a view of reaching consensus and then approach the court proposing a settlement. These consultations have not as yet taken place and the matter has not been re-enrolled. This will have to happen prior to the amendment regarding the relicensing of firearms that have not yet been relicensed under the new Act.

The right of free, competent and law abiding people to choose whether or not to possess firearms for lawful purposes and to use them where it is lawful and safe to do so shall not be infringed.