PO Box 700

Fontainebleau

2032

May 26, 2000

Mr L. Phakati

The Portfolio Committee on Safety & Security

PO Box 15

Cape Town

8000

Please find below my comments, thoughts and feelings on the proposed new Firearms Control Bill:

What if the owner of said firearm lives in a rural community/farm/small holding where there are no accredited shooting ranges. What if the cost of visiting such a shooting range makes going there impractical to the poorer members of our community? Would a farmer be allowed to practise using his firearms on his/her farm (in a safe and responsible way)?

Again I reject the concept of arbitrary limits. Each application must be judged on the merits presented. The limits suggested are in any event ludicrous. There are perfectly valid reasons for owning multiple hunting rifles for hunting different species of game in different types of terrain. The fact that many hunters do not do this is more a reflection of economic realities than choice.

And limiting the number even further should a person own a shotgun or handgun for self-defence worsens the problem. Limiting shotguns to one is even more ridiculous and reflects a total lack of knowledge of firearms and their use. Shotguns in different calibres, barrel lengths and most importantly choke are made for specific purposes and applications. A shotgun for hunting geese is an entirely different gun to the ideal for shooting partridge. There is no allowance made for the popular sport of hunting with handguns.

As a whole the proposals present a serious threat to hunting activity in this country, and hunting is the basis on which conservation has been reversed from the downward spiral it had been in from shortly after colonial settlement until the 1960's when the current hunting system was implemented. Due to the above hunters are compelled, much to their regret, to opinion that the whole underlying approach to the proposals are misdirected and that the proposals have to be rejected in their entirety as unworkable, unenforceable and prejudicial to the law-abiding in stead of the criminal element of society.

In Northern Natal the bush is dense, subtropical. It is impossible to shoot an Impala over there at long range, because the forest-like vegetation interferes. These shots on Impala are often executed at less than 50 yards.

In the Mpumulanga and Northern Province bushveld, with its lower grass and trees, although still a bush, is a bit more open. Impala in that region is seen sooner, but it also provides less cover to the hunter to get close to the Impala. Through necessity and reality shots an Impala in the bushveld are longer than in forestlike Northern Natal. In the bushveld shots range up to about 150 yards.

The bushveld in turn contrasts with the Karoo savannah where trees are intermittent at best, where there is not cover to get close to the animals for a short-range shot and here Impala is shot at ranges of up to 300 yards or so.

The tree-less Karoo savannah in turn contrasts with the wide open plains of the Highveld and Northwest Cape, small Karoo and Namibia where a shot can be up to 450 yards and further.

For the triangular equation of recoil, energy and accuracy to remain in balance, it is not the figures at the muzzle which are important, but at the point of impacting the animal, as explained above. A rifle / cartridge combination that has a balanced equation for Impala or similar sized game at Northern Natal ranges, will not have the same for plains use on Impala on the Highveld.

The following table, extracted from the ‘Modern Hunting Cartridges in Africa’ manuscript indicates why it would be necessary for anybody who wants to hunt just 15 of the 50 species (each in every size and range) on an occasional basis with reasonable care by retaining a reasonably balanced triangular equation, actually requires a minimum of 15 different rifle and cartridge combinations. It is conceded that the equation can be distorted with some risk to make it possible to achieve the same with slightly fewer rifles, but in the absence of the ability to lend/borrow rifles it will become necessary for hunters to each acquire more rifles in future.

To propose that only two rifles will suffice for an occasional hunter can only be based on a lack of understanding or consideration of ballistics.

Hunting rifles are not the weapons of preference for the commissions of crime or illegal possession. To prejudice hunters by limiting them to two rifles or a shotgun will therefore not have any bearing on crime.

A rifle is designed to propel a projectile at a target, and unless directed by a human body and mind, a harmless item. No hunter can use more than one rifle at the exact same moment, so even if such a hunter intends committing a crime, it will be immaterial if he has two or two hundred rifles.

We are now entering a new era where rural black communities are economically empowered through utilising their communal land for sustainable utilisation such as hunting, which is a low impact high yield catalyst for their entry into the world of business. This process started with the CAMPFIRE programme in Zimbabwe and through the support of hunters it is now the norm for opening up new areas to game farming in stead of agriculture.

Hunters changed the way game is viewed in South Africa and that is why our country is one of the success stories of conservation in the world and why we could save the white rhino and other endangered species. The concept may be a bit foreign to urbanites who buy their food from stores, but nature sustains itself through the eternal cycle of life and death. The money from a few animals hunted, sustains the rest of the herd. For every animal a hunter harvests, he pays to maintain countless others and the habitat they prefer.

By limiting hunting rifles, it will limit the hunting South Africa’s estimated quarter of a million hunters will engage in. This will reduce the income of the game farming community, jeopardise jobs of unschooled rural 60 000 odd workers, and cause a reverse from game farming to agriculture with a repeat of the game decimation and conservation decline we suffered from 1652 until 1960’s.

Can weapon owned for sport be used for self-defense?

I believe I have covered the problems and questions re this above.

23. (1) (a) A firearm in respect of which a license may be issued in terms of this section is any firearm other than a prohibited firearm.

Where to use and practice? The act does not state this.

As I stated before I am completely opposed to this for the reasons already given.

I have dealt with disposal via a dealer earlier in this document. What also concerns me is the forfeiture of the weapon to the state without any compensation to the owner should a dealer not be able to sell the firearm in the prescribed time. This I believe to unconstitutional as well as grossly unfair.

I have dealt with disposal via a dealer earlier in this document.

Some of the early restrictions have reappeared such as limiting ammunition to 200 rounds per calibre with an annual limit of 2400. One hundred rounds is a totally inadequate and unreasonable limit. To many people a normal day at the range might consist of hundreds of rounds, especially in the rimfire and shotgun calibres. A typical afternoon shooting pigeons, which are treated as vermin, would be around 500 shots with a good days shooting being measured in cases of ammunition not boxes.

Many courses of fire in shooting sports also require much larger quantities of ammunition. Clay pigeon shooting for instance is normally 200 targets, silhouette shoots require 120 targets. Many shooters will complete this exercise more than once on any given day.

Many shooters especially in rimfire and shotgun calibres purchase their ammunition in case lots of thousands. It is important to note that these shooters are not necessarily competitive sportsmen, merely law-abiding citizens pursuing their chosen and lawful recreational activity.

The exclusion granted to ammunition purchased on shooting ranges is ironic. Shooting ranges are the one weak link at the moment and are the single largest source of illegal and uncontrolled ammunition. Existing regulations more than adequately control ammunition within the trade. These controls are reasonable and effective and are complied with by licensed dealers. However a large number of shooting ranges illegally manufacture ammunition and sell this ammunition illegally without proper license control. The SAPS are fully aware of this situation and I am surprised this Act does not reflect the simple fact that shooting ranges are the problem and not dealers.

There are sportsmen who have fired more than 50 000 rounds in practice for one event. Shooters who use such volumes of ammunition either purchase in bulk to obtain the best pricing or reload their own ammunition. In the case of reloaders, especially in handgun calibres, it is not uncommon for a person to load several thousand rounds at a time. Modern reloading equipment has a capacity to easily produce 1000 rounds an hour.

I do not support limiting the quantities of ammunition a person may possess; likewise this applies to components of ammunition. The quantities given are totally unacceptable and inadequate for even an occasional reloader. Quantities of propellant that may be possessed are controlled by the Explosives Act. The current limit is 2.4kg. This limit is under review and will probably be increased to meet the needs of bona fide hunters and sportsmen. I suggest the possession of propellant is best controlled in the Explosives Act where it belongs.

FIREARM FREE ZONES ARE A VERY BAD IDEA! If firearm free zones are declared criminals (who by their very nature would not obey the restriction placed upon these areas!) will know exactly where to find defenceless victims to rape, murder, rob etc. Should I be attacked in such a firearm free zone I will most certainly institute legal action against the state (if I survive!). Such zones infringe on my constitutional right to life. And the argument of having the choice of not going to place that are such zone does not work as some of these places proposed are churches and places of worship.

This brings me to the constitutional right to religion. As I Christian I draw from the bible for my teachings and nowhere does God forbid the keeping or carrying of weapons. Even the Apostle Paul carried a sword while travelling with Jesus. Therefore my religion allows me to carry my weapon (to my place of worship) and I will not have this right infringed upon.

American schools are, on the other hand, "gun free zones". Therefore, their schools make ideal targets for misguided gunmen, who already violate dozens of laws when they undertake such actions -- demonstrating that no number of victim disarmament laws will ever stop such creatures. (Washington, D.C. should be a peaceful paradise if "gun control" laws work. But instead that city has one of our highest murder rates -- isn't that curious?)

It would appear that the economic cost of this Act has not been adequately considered.

The arms industry employs some 20 000 people and contributes an estimated one billion Rand per annum to the economy. This Act will have catastrophic effects on the industry, leading to large-scale unemployment and bankruptcy.

There will be an additional secondary effect on the economy on support and other linked industries. Not least of which is the hunting industry which employs 70 000 people in the poorest rural communities and contributes in excess of one billion Rand a year to the economy.

Compensation will have to be paid by the State, both to the industry and to individual gun owners whose firearms become prohibited.

Compensation to the industry would have to take the form used in Australia and the UK where all prohibited firearms and their spare parts, accessories etc. were confiscated and compensation was paid.

It is vital that provision be made for this before any prohibition comes into effect and that the compensation paid is prompt and at fair market values. The same obviously applies to firearms owned by collectors and other individuals.

It is estimated the total value of weapons, parts, accessories and ammunition to be prohibited under this Act as being in the region of seven billion Rand. We should carefully examine the cost / benefit of such a system.

On the cost side the State will be squandering literally billions of Rand, creating massive unemployment while destroying industries that contribute substantially to the economy.

The question of compensation for prohibited firearms is a vital one. A comprehensive and fully funded compensation system must be in place before any firearms are declared as prohibited or restricted. Such compensation must be made promptly and at fair market value. The compensation scheme should also include all parts and accessories of prohibited firearms.

>The current gun right grabbing proposals have been under development for >three (3) years according to current information and the ISS is apparently >being paid something like R 6 million for it! Why has this been kept from >firearm owners all along?

It is totally illogical and nonsensical to authorise a person’s possession of a firearm for one purpose but prohibit that same authorised person to use the same licensed firearm for other lawful purposes. There can be no valid justification for approving a person’s possession of a firearm for sporting purposes yet punishing the use of that licensed firearm for lawful hunting.

This Act diverts attention and precious resources toward creating an intricate and impractical bureaucracy designed to address a non-existent problem, namely the administration of legitimate, lawful use of licensed firearms. These resources could better be used addressing more legitimate areas of concern such as controlling the negligent loss of licensed firearms and of course the activities of true criminals who by definition will not obey nor be in any way effected by this Act.

I fully accept and support the need for an efficient licensing and registration system. However I fear that the proposed system will prove unnecessarily complex and unworkable, this will result in a less rather than more effective control and administration of licensed firearms.

I are also greatly concerned that many of the measures in this Act will be counter-productive and actually lead to an increase in illegal possession of firearms. It will most certainly unnecessarily criminalise many of the legitimate actions of the millions of licensed firearm owners.

The only way crime can be addressed in the (new?) South Africa, is to empower the Police, open communication between the community and the police, in constructive and effective ways. Ensure the justice system is fair and powerful. Enforce current (effective) laws. Make use of maximum sentences and enforce them to the letter. Whether or not the death sentence will be effective in the fight against crime is irrelevant. If the government does not realise that the constitutional rights to life and freedom of EVERY South African is at stake when the above requirements are not met then there will never be peace in SA. Upstanding, law abiding South Africans are talking about the crime rate and what they will do if they or theirs are attacked or worse. They are not saying they will just sit back and take it. They are saying they will do something and it is usually illegal. The people do not believe that anyone can help them but themselves.

It is irresponsible and immature to blame an inanimate object for a society bereft of social skills and etiquette. The firearm, knife, axe, brick, etc. etc. are only a tool. The tool can be used for bad, as easily as it can be used for good.

URBAN POOR WILL BE THE FIRST VICTIMS. This legislation will also deny citizens of South Africa the basic civil right to defend themselves and the lives of their families. The first victims will be the urban poor living in the slums of South Africa's townships, where crime rates are the highest!!

The problem will not be solved by taking away guns from law abiding citizens - the majority of South Africans.

There is no recognition of the fact that the vast majority of firearm crime is not committed by licensed firearm owners. Nor is there any evidence that the drafters have considered recent studies which suggest that allowing citizens to carry firearms for self-protection reduces crime considerably.

The discriminatory practices of previous governments in this country contributed to the pool of unlicensed firearms by denying many South Africans access to licensed firearms. This drove many people to obtain illegal firearms for their otherwise legitimate protection.

The recent history of this country clearly demonstrates that any attempts at firearm control are totally ineffective without the active participation and support of the general populace. This Act as it stands will destroy all support from millions of citizens thus aggravating rather than reducing the problems of illegal firearms.

People will continue to seek and obtain firearms for protection, denying them access to licensed firearms will simply force them to obtain illegal ones. This in turn will fuel the demand for unlicensed firearms leading to an increase in the theft and robbery of firearms.

This legislation is also most likely to encounter massive resistance and non-compliance, particularly in respect of license renewals. This will simply create millions of new "criminals" whose only real crime is a failure to comply with administrative fiat.

Surely it is better to draw people, and their firearms, into the system than it is to alienate and criminalise them?

I believe that many of the responsibilities placed on the SAPS will be impossible to meet. This Act places a huge administrative burden on already stretched resources. I believe this will lead to the total collapse of the licensing system with disastrous consequences, both for firearm owners and law enforcement.

Should the proposed functions of the Registrar and Designated Firearm Officers be confirmed as proposed then I believe that reasonable time frames should be imposed on each of their specific duties, compelling these officials to fulfil their duties within a specified time. There is sound legal basis for such a requirement underpinned by the onus on the State to provide fair, unprejudiced and efficient administration. Failing such a requirement I can foresee the licensing system grinding to a halt through inadequate resources.

I support the upgrading of the Firearm Register to make full use of modern IT technology. However, despite the commendable sterling efforts of the staff of the existing Register much of the information in the current system is flawed. Here I refer specifically to the database of calibres and manufacturers. For instance the Register acknowledges only a handful of possible calibres when there are actually thousands. On the other hand the Register reflects thousands of non-existent manufacturers, an example would be the dozens of incorrect classification of Martini-Henry. The current Register staff has been trying valiantly to rectify this but in its own this is a task that would take dozens of experts years to correct.

It is important to note the practical effect of these errors in the basic database. Every firearm type/calibre is given a unique identifying code. Before any major upgrade of the system or relicensing of firearms this would have to be corrected. If this is not done then all of the data entered into the system will be inherently flawed from the outset.

I cannot reasonably expect any of these measures to have any direct impact on crime other than to perhaps reduce the pool of legally owned firearms for criminals to steal from. This will simply mean criminals will target State owned firearms, which is anyway already the case to a large extent.

In countries where there have been large scale confiscation’s of firearms such as Australia and the UK firearm related crime and other violent crimes have actually increased.

Administration of licensed firearms will become less efficient through a monstrous bureaucracy that will simply be unworkable and the already overtasked SAPS will have to divert huge resources away from their real task of addressing criminals.

There are absolutely no practical benefits to be gained.

There will be a huge growth in illegal firearm possession and actively encourage disrespect and disobedience of the law.

Perhaps most importantly the State will be transforming millions of law-abiding citizens into criminals. At the very least this will result in massive antagonism, distrust and animosity toward the State.

I do not believe the drafters of this Act fully understand the highly emotive nature of this issue. I believe that huge numbers of people will simply refuse to comply, many others would emigrate rather than accept this system, to many people disarmament is simply the last physiological straw.

The reactions of other more politically radical groups will certainly be unpredictable and possibly drastic. Is the imposition of this flawed legislation really worth the possible price of returning the country to the dark tense days prior to 1994?

It is impossible for police officers to physically verify the details on each and every firearm application. This would involve literally millions of wasted man-hours. The dealer has certified the details as correct; this should be accepted as such. Dealers are not restricted to local geographic areas. Their customer base can stretch countrywide. It would be unworkable for a police officer in Cape Town to inspect a firearm held by a dealer in Johannesburg.

This right to own firearms, however, must be balanced with strict, but fair licensing legislation.

Switzerland has the highest capita of guns per family in the world yet crime in that country is negligible.

Instead of firearm control to disarm responsible gun-owners and law-abiding citizens, crime must be controlled by the reinstitution of capital punishment, stiffer sentences, scrapping bail and parole and restitution for theft and other crime.

Making guns illegal will INCREASE the number of guns available to criminals.

Consider 'The War on Drugs'. Despite the concentrated effort of the USA the War on Drugs has failed. In fact Cocaine is more easy to obtain that 25 years ago. Cocaine is more pure than it was 25 years ago. Cocaine has not been stopped by laws against it, it has in fact flourished.

100 years ago common citizens had little ability to make guns, not so now-a-days. Technological advances now make it so that skilled of workers at even a medium quality machine shop can now make firearms. We're not talking making high quality sub-machine guns, but the ability to make cheap handguns that can be used for up close shootings where the weapons do not have to be perfectly milled devices. All a cheap handgun has to do is fire a bullet.

When guns are outlawed gun smuggling and illegal gun manufacturing will flourish. Guns will be made for profit illegally. Guns will no longer have registration numbers on them, guns will no longer have paper trails of ownership to follow, guns will no longer be regulated in anyway.

Guns may be made illegal, but guns will be everywhere, just as cocaine is. And like cocaine, the longer guns are illegal the criminals will get better at making and smuggling them,, an ability that will increase over time.