SUBMISSIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED FIREARMS CONTROL BILL: AS INTRODUCED.

2. Dealing with Three gun shooting, the following may be placed on record:

2.1 This sport requires dexterity in the manipulation of three guns, to with pistols, rifles and shotguns, based upon IPSC-rules, (International Practical Shooting Confederation).

2.2 The sport is practiced both overseas and locally.

2.3. It is an expensive, fast paced sport with severe requirements as regards the equipment used.

2.3.1. If one is to be competitive, semi automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols is an absolute necessity, both locally and overseas.

2.4. My local shooting club has been hosting such competitions for more than two years.

2.4.1. This has also generated an income for the club, to the benefit of all disciplines shot there and all club members.

2.5. The Three gun discipline is also hosted during the monthly club shoots at My local shooting club.

2.5.1. It is so well received at present , that it can authoritatively be stated, based on the number of participants, to be one of the four best attended disciplines of the eight disciplines hosted at My local shooting club.

2.5.2. It is important to note that practical pistol shooting is the strongest discipline as regards participants at My local shooting club’s club shoots, whereas Three gun shooting in fact incorporates said practical pistol shooting as one of the three disciplines on which Three gun shooting is based.

2.6. All the basic principles of practical pistol shooting apply mutatis mutandis in the sport of Three gun shooting and large magazine capacities as well as different classes of weapons abide.

2.7. Some local gunsmiths have already done a substantial amount of research and development to build firearms that would give participants the competitive edge.

2.7.1. This obviously entails time, money, effort and manpower put into it, creating revenue and job opportunities.

2.8. Although several action sports shooters have obtained licences for a semi automatic rifle and - shotgun in order to participate in said Three gun sport, the licencing requirements are extremely strict and such licences are not widely applied for, nor issued.

2.9. The members of the clubs and associations are also very aware of the pitfalls and dangers and therefore as a rule, rather jealously guard against abuse of the system, as every member has:

2.9.1. Made a substantial outlay of money to acquire the required firearms;

2.9.2. Gone to great lengths to obtain a licence;

2.9.3. At great expense, obtained a safe or vault and put serious safeguarding measures in place;

2.9.4. Vested interests, which upon abuse of the system, could suffer prejudice.

2.10. A bona fide sports person has to go through lengthy procedures and spend a substantial amount of money to be registered as such, not to mention the costs to compete in the sport.

2.10.1. Such a person can therefore usually be said to be a more than reasonably responsible and competent firearms owner.

2.10.2. I would at risk of being called arrogant, respectfully venture to suggest that Three gun competitors are, due to nature of the firearms and the stringent licencing requirements, even more of an upmarket firearms user.

2.11. Men of straw are as a rule, also unable to afford buying three expensive competition firearms, practicing with them and competing as such.

2.12. Local law enforcement agencies, the South African Police Services, the South African National Defense Force and security companies have also been shooting Three gun competitions for a long time on organized basis, amongst themselves and against each other.

2.12.1. These competitions, in the normal sense of things, are sport shooting competitions and do not necessarily compare nor relate to what the officers may be called upon to perform on the street and do not even purport to emulate a realistic training exercise.

2.12.2. Many of the members of said forces or services in fact also compete in the civilian sports shooting events hosted under the auspices of Three gun competitions.

2.13. Serious sports shooting usually requires at least one back up gun for any given discipline or class, given the quantities of rounds put through the firearms and the propensity for something to break at the most inopportune of times.

2.13.1. Failure to abide by this basic rule, may mean a whole lost season whilst a new custom firearm is being built again.

2.13.2. I therefore at this stage have several back up firearms for purposes of competing in Three gun shooting.

2.13.3. This basic principle applies to all action shooting sports that I am familiar with and practice.

2.14. I also have more than one firearm apart from the back up firearm, suitable for such competitions, as the given competition may require:

2.14.1. Faster shooting than my "primary" firearm is capable of;

2.14.2. More accurate shooting than my "primary" firearm is capable of;

2.14.3. Shooting a larger or heavier caliber in order to gain the competitive edge.

3. Another style of sports shooting also comes to mind when discussing "action sport", to wit the Steel Challenge.

3.1. These shoots consist of only steel targets, shot as per IPSC, (International Practical Shooting Confederation), rules.

3.2. Apart from a handgun division, there is usually also a shotgun division at each shoot.

3.3. It is also shot against time and specialized equipment rule the roost, pistols and shotguns of the semi automatic variations being the norm.

3.4. These shoots originated in the United States of America and have also been shot in the Republic of South Africa for the past ten tears or so, as far as my memory serves me.

3.5. A Steel Challenge competition was for instance held in Gauteng during August 1999 in order to generate funds for the National teams chosen to participate in the International Practical Shooting Confederation World Championships in the Philippines, during October 1999.

3.5.1. The National team members ran the administration of the Steel Challenge, although they did not compete.

3.5.2. I placed second in both the pistol division, (Standard gun) and the shotgun division.

3.5.3. I used the same semi automatic shotgun as per my Three gun applications.

i. Vide paragraph 2, supra.

3.5.4. I used the same semi automatic pistol as per my Practical pistol and Three gun applications.

i. Vide paragraph 2, supra.

3.5.5. Most of the participants in the shotgun division used semi automatic shotguns, (Versus pump/slide action shotguns), the first place also taken by a participant using a semi automatic shotgun.

4. Self defense considerations are inter alia as follows:

4.1. The consensus amongst a large number of knowledgeable firearms - and self defense authorities in the United States of America, is that a back up firearm or second back up firearm, (Or even more), is a life saver in many circumstances, especially where an attempt at disarming the intended victim is made.

4.2. The syndicates that I prosecute, know that I go about armed, in court and out of court.

4.2.1. There have been several requests and applications to the court by syndicate figures to order me to disarm myself in court, said applications not being entertained by the courts and no orders to the effect being made.

4.2.2.

4.2.3.

4.2.4. My wearing of firearms for self defense is mandated, even in court, as some of the people in the syndicates have either come from the ranks of the South African Police Force or have whilst being members, actively furthered the aims of the syndicates.

4.2.5. I also respectfully submit that the fears and necessity sketched here, is not some far fetched flight of fancy, but a very real concern, as a South African Police Services case docket has been opened and charges are presently in process of being preferred against one of the syndicate leaders due to his attempts to have me killed.

4.3. Depending on the locale of potential use, certain firearms tend to be more apt in the role of self defense. Factors worthy of serious consideration in this respect are:

4.3.1. Ease of concealment, (In court or elsewhere).

4.3.2. The caliber and type of ammunition as regards the distances at which the possible use is envisaged.

4.3.3. Backstops in case of over penetration.

4.3.4. The changed situation when out of court.

4.3.5. Whether it is summer or winter, what weather and carrying conditions it will have to endure and remain functional.

4.3.6. Where it might have to be used, (Rural areas/built-up areas, buildings/cars).

4.3.7. In what lighting conditions it would be used.

4.3.8. The possible number and type of assailants.

4.4. Without going into technical detail, I can in the interest of brevity merely state the following:

4.4.1. No one firearm can be expected to fulfil all the required roles.

4.4.2. One firearm is physically unable to fulfil the role of backup, as at least two firearms are needed.

1. Vide paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2, supra, in this regard again.
2. Vide paragraph 16.5, infra also.

4.5. It must also be stressed that the firearms so worn when in court, would not necessarily be the best choice if for instance:

4.5.1. I had to travel the highways;

4.5.2. I was traveling to - or from the shooting range, nor would it be convenient nor make sense to take such along, (Except in a supporting capacity);

4.5.3. At shooting ranges, I have access to my dependable and accurate competition firearm which does an even better task in the role of a self defense firearm.

4.6. I respectfully submit that in meritorious cases the Central Firearms Register should have the authority to grant the applicant more than one firearm for purposes of self defense.

4.7.1. i.

4.7.2.

i.

4.7.3.

i.

4.7.4.

5. Regarding the interaction between sports shooting and reloading, I respectfully wish to submit the following:

5.1.1.

5.2. All the ammunition so utilized, is reloaded by myself, as:

5.2.1. I am forced to shoot certain minimum quantities of rounds in order to be reasonably competitive;

5.2.2. I have no sponsors;

5.2.3. I am thus forced to shoot cost effective, reloaded cartridges;

5.2.4. Protracted practice over a long time is necessary to become competitive, as the necessary sporting skills can not be mastered overnight.

5.3. Frequently reloading small quantities of cartridges on daily basis prior to a match, severely inhibits sleep which severely dulls the competitive edge and ability.

5.4. Logistical reloading problems had been encountered in the past, when no - or insufficient reloading components had been available at the local firearms dealers and practice had therefore been impossible.

5.5. Consistency in components and procedures, is a prerequisite for safe and accurate reloading, especially to be competitive at the top levels of competition shooting.

5.5.1. Consistency may however vary between different batches of reloading components, which makes it imperative that enough reloading components of the same batches be available to a serious action sports shooter.

5.6. It is therefore important for a serious action sports shooter to have the ability to reload ammunition for at least a months’ practice prior to a National competition, or preferably, to shoot the season with.

5.6.1. This in my case, would suggest at least enough reloading components for ten thousand rounds of ammunition at any given stage, for the specific sporting firearm used for IPSC practical pistol shooting.

5.6.2. As such, a .45 caliber pistol would conceivably need at least four and a half (4.5) kilogram of propellant for one month’s practice.

5.6.3. This does not take into account any other firearms which’s use may necessitate other - and further reloading components.

1. Vide paragraphs 5.9 and 6, infra.

5.7. Arbitrary limitations in this regard prejudices the sports shooter who is not sponsored, benefitting the sponsored sports shooters who usually have access to sufficient stocks of ammunition/cartridges of the same batches, giving them an inequitable advantage in consistency in components and sufficient rest time away from reloading benches.

5.8. I may also mention that not every month of shooting requires such quantities of reloads, but that each scheduled competition brings about an escalation prior to the competition.

5.9. The needs as regards Three gun shooting could be said to apply mutatis mutandis.

5.9.1.

5.9.2.

5.9.3.

5.9.4.

5.9.5. This equates to between two and a half (2.5) and four and a half (4.5) kilogram of propellant.

5.9.6. This should take into account that I do not reload for my shotguns, as I prefer to shoot factory ammunition in my shotguns, inter alia due to the time constraints involved in reloading.

5.10. I respectfully submit that in my specific case I can readily motivate the need to possess at any given time, a total of nine (9) kilogram of propellant for sports shooting purposes.

5.10.1. Vide paragraphs 5.6 and 5.9, supra.

5.10.2. This does not take into account the quantities mentioned as per paragraph 6, infra.

5.11. The situation as regards primers are mutatis mutandis the same and it bears mention that no limitations are presently placed on the possession of quantities of such, with concomitant vested rights and expectations at stake.

5.12. It must be stressed that top competitors, (Or novices), may have more or less of a perceived need than that stated by myself and that I cannot suggest that I speak on everyone’s behalf.

6. Regarding the collecting of firearms, their recreational use and reloading, with specific reference to the quantities of propellant, I respectfully submit as follow:

6.1. Being a collector who shoots firearms, I wish to be able to reload at will for all my firearms.

6.1.1. Vide paragraph 1.6, supra, again.

6.2. Different firearms necessitate different reloading components, to wit cases, primers, powders/propellants, and bullets/projectiles.

6.2.1. No amount of haggling can change this, as all calibers need caliber specific propellants and will either not function reliably with certain types of propellant, or not operate at all, without running the risk of blowing up the firearm.

6.2.2. This situation also prevails to a lesser extent in regard to primers, where caliber specific requirements need to be addressed and dimensions vary.

6.3. I therefore have a definite need for more than one brand of propellant and various types of primers.

6.4. To shoot the different type and caliber firearms in my collection, I personally, would need to have at least five to six different types of propellant at hand.

6.4.1. Propellants come prepackaged in tins of five hundred gram.

6.4.2. If one is as rule of thumb, able to make do with the recreational use of one tin of propellant type each, this would at face value, seem to indicate two and a half (2.5) to three (3) kilogram of propellant, as an absolute, bare minimum.

6.4.3. This does not take into consideration the sporting needs as set out above.

6.4.4. Vide paragraphs 5.6, 5.9 and 5.10, supra, again.

6.5. Whereas certain rifle calibers in my collection would, however, only obtain approximately one hundred and fifty (150) reloads from one tin of propellant, it would seem equitable to have at least two tins of propellant per such rifle available.

6.5.1.

6.5.2. It may be borne in mind that certain large calibers, although I personally do not own nor reload for such, obtain perhaps fifty (50) reloads out of one container of propellant.

6.6. Reloading for recreational purposes the last fifteen (15) or more years, forms a vital and integral part of the pleasure of collecting and shooting firearms.

6.7. This situation is/was also a problem as regards the present legislation in the sense that only 2.4 kilogram of propellant may be possessed by a firearms owner.

6.7.1. Generally speaking, this problem is in all probability alleviated by the fact that each firearms owner in an household is entitled to 2.4 kilogram of propellant and that the total available quantity of propellant per household is thus higher.

6.7.2. The fact that no undue and apparent mishaps appear from members of households possessing propellants, suggests that the mere existence of a certain quantity of propellant on a premises, is not an act which promotes crime as such.

6.7.3. Consequently, satisfying the need to possess and have access to sufficient quantities of propellant and components by bona fide category firearms owners, would have no negative effects on the crime rate.

6.8. The recent Oklahoma city bombing in the United States of America where bona fide, everyday, agricultural objects and components with no apparent relevance to a bomb had been used, shows that:

6.8.1. A spate of serious bombings would not necessarily follow because of the availability reloading components, to wit propellants.

6.8.2. Propellant or reloading components are simply not needed to build any bomb, should such a desire exist.

6.9. I would also respectfully submit that:

6.9.1. Trying to distinguish between two and a half (2.5) versus twelve (12) kilogram of propellant, being extremely small quantities in the total picture, as being contra bonos mores, (Against the common good), does not do the bill justice as the public does not understand the reasoning behind it.

6.9.2. People tend to look for legal loopholes to circumvent laws that appear to only infract against the law abiding.

6.9.3. The need to possess propellant have already been identified and prima facie being given recognition in legislation.

6.9.4. The bona fide firearms owner of good standing as registered at the Central Firearms Register, who has legitimate needs for larger quantities of propellant, should be accommodated in this respect.

6.9.5. Satisfying these needs, the differences between the quantities of propellant presently available and actually needed by the bona fide classes of firearms owners being so small, would have no practical impact on the crime situation, nor cause any up to now, sudden, new wave of crime. (With the contrary also quite true, namely that prohibiting the reasonable possession as set out, would have no positive impact on crime either).

6.10. I would respectfully venture to suggest that should it be deemed necessary to regulate propellants in possession of the bona fide classes of firearms owners:

6.10.1. It would only make sense in the event of prescribed methods of storage as a possible safety measure.

6.10.2. Investigating suitable storage methods for "larger quantities", rather than mere prohibition of quantities, is a sensible option which would tend to the needs of all concerned parties.

6.10.3. It should be kept in mind that bona fide classes of firearms users have already been investigated by the South African Police Services and found to be responsible and trustworthy.

6.10.4. It should also be kept in mind that it may arguably be unfair discrimination, should firearms owners of small caliber firearms be allowed the capability of two thousand reloads, whilst others who reload for a large caliber are pro rata limited to a hundred and fifty cartridges’ worth of reloading quantities.

6.11. The situation as regards primers are mutatis mutandis the same and it bears mention that no limitations are presently placed on the possession of quantities of such, with concomitant vested rights and expectations at stake.

7. Without trying to prescribe the powers that be, I respectfully submit the following approach to be appropriate in dealing with the proposed draft bill:

7.1. It should be clear and concise.

7.2. It should not be ambiguous, nor lead to illogical or absurd results.

7.3. It should address a specific evil and not create more problems than it attempts to solve.

7.4. It should not prejudice nor impact on the subjects more than absolutely necessary, as this would tend to alienate the law abiding citizens and bring the administration of justice in disrepute. It must be fair and equitable.

7.5. It should be, in a logistical sense, possible to apply.

7.6. It should not lead to unnecessary litigation.

8. Perusing the proposed draft bill, certain provisions immediately appear to seriously impact on the existing situation and prejudice various vested rights.

Provisions which also appear fraught with potential problems in the application thereof, must likewise be considered with the constitution in mind.

Constitutional considerations that may need constant monitoring in disseminating certain clauses of the proposed act, can briefly be mentioned as follow:

8.1. Equality: Where the subjects, the public and the police are to be treated fairly.

8.2. Life: In that all persons have the opportunity to live life to the fullest and to protect life itself with the best available means of choice.

8.3. Freedom and security of person: Freedom of violence, which sustains the right to defend oneself from wrongful attack.

8.4. Slavery/servitude/forced labour: This includes the right not to be unjustly forced to without remuneration, work for the state.

8.5. Freedom of expression: This would include the opportunity to keep on enjoying property, sport and lifestyle, which does not prejudice anyone else.

8.6. Freedom of association: Which inter alia includes the right to congregate with people of like interests and practice a sport, whilst not being forced to be part of a group of people that one has a wish to avoid.

8.7. "Safe" environment: This would include the right to make it so, to wit by means of effective self defense.

8.8. Property: Not to be arbitrarily deprived of it and should it be forfeited, no other remedy being readily available.

8.9. Cultural: Inasmuch as the practice of a sport may have the effect of being an educational and psychologically uplifting experience.

8.10. Human dignity: Inasmuch as one is not to be treated like a criminal, being subjected to humiliating legalistic and punitive administrative procedures in having property forfeited to the State and perpetually having to supply fingerprints and pay "fines" like a criminal in order to be able to keep one’s property, whilst not having done wrong and in fact and in effect being punished for somehow being a bad person.

9. As regards the clauses of the proposed bill itself, I respectfully wish to personally briefly submit the following, without endeavoring to address the matter comprehensively, nor purporting to speak on behalf of any organization or association.

10. Ad Section 1.(1): (Definitions).

10.1. (Definition - Ammunition: primer).

The definition includes a primer, which does not discern between a used, (spent -), and a live, new primer, resulting in spent cartridge cases being brought within the ambit of the section.

10.1.1. This would in all probability cause many children who collect spent cases, as well as all types of interior decorating found in some old homes, where spent and polished brass cases with spent primers are displayed, suddenly to be viewed as criminal conduct.

10.1.2. This is of course not limited to such, but also impacts on all shooting sports and even the army who usually leaves the spent cases in the veld where they may fall.

10.1.3. Obviously many people will be left open to prosecution for not complying, or being able to do so, regarding the way ammunition is to be treated.

10.1.4. This not even considering the logistical problems the South African Police Force is going to face when they have to start following up on suspected crimes of this nature, (As they are by law supposed to investigate suspected crimes).

10.1.5. I respectfully suggest that only live primers versus primers, be considered for inclusion.

10.2. (Definition - Cartridge: including a primer).

The same considerations as per paragraph 10.1, supra, apply.

10.3. (Definition - Dedicated sport person: "actively participates in shooting sports and is a member of an accredited sports shooting organisation").

10.3.1. The requirements are definitely going to cause if not confusion, then litigation should any person be prejudiced by this subsection.

10.3.2. Freedom of association as envisaged by the Constitution, is in the line of fire here, as quite a few people shoot club competitions or actively shoot for sporting purposes at gun clubs, but are not members of an accredited sports shooting organization.

10.3.3. I would dare say that most gun clubs, if not all -, do not qualify as organizations.

10.3.4. My local shooting club Gun Club hosts the following shooting disciplines:

i. Practical pistol;

ii. Rimfire rifle silhouette;

iii. Rimfire pistol silhouette;

iv. Center fire pistol silhouette;

v. Center fire rifle, (Hunting rifle variations);

vi. Big bore rifle, (Hunting rifle variations);

vii. Clay pigeon;

viii. Three gun, (Rifle/shotgun/pistol combination of semi automatic version);

10.3.5. A club member could shoot up to eight disciplines which necessitates the use of ten vastly different firearms at club level by members.

10.3.6. This is not all that strange an occurrence as for example My local shooting club club’s vice chairman has competed in all the disciplines during the course of the year, the club secretary shot seven different disciplines at the one or other stage and I myself of more modest attempts, competed in four disciplines.

10.3.7. This would severely impact on the status quo of the more active members at the club, as they would need to be member of an extremely expensive array of organizations, in order to keep their firearms or to continue shooting even at club level.

10.3.8. This would have concomitant logistical problems to be an active participator, which would indicate an attendance at eight different shooting sports discipline’s competitions on Provincial level.

10.3.9. This would also impact on their vested property rights to be able to keep their firearms, as the financially crippling, enforced membership which seems to require the logistical impossibility of active participation at meetings of such an array of organizations, would force members to sell their firearms at rock bottom or ridiculous prices.

10.3.10. Shooting in a variety of disciplines had been possible at My local shooting club, as the monthly club shoots host all or most of the disciplines at each monthly shoot.

10.3.11. It is also not clear what the practical implications are in order to meet the qualification of active participation, as not every shoot/competition can be attended by all, whether due to work obligations, injuries or financial ramifications.

10.3.12. If the person need only be a paid up/serving member of an accredited shooting club, which in turn is an affiliate/member of the accredited sports shooting organization, then perhaps this would be a less prejudicial definition.

10.3.13. This definition has prejudicial results if left unaltered, as read with the definition of occasional sports person discussed per paragraph 10.9, infra, as well as the restrictions on the quantity of firearms that such sports shooters may possess.

1. Vide paragraph 18.3, infra, also.

10.4. (Definition - Firearm: [Section 1(1)(a)]: Any device).

10.4.1. Firearm as defined in (a), referring to any device, is ambiguous and too widely defined in the sense that:

1. It could be read as to mean the complete device, which does the task of propelling the bullet or projectile, or certain parts of the device.
2. Springs of air guns qualify as such and may have to be given serial numbers, which appears to be illogical.
3. How will these springs be identified and discerned from other types of springs, as any object readily convertible as such is also a firearm, as per section (b) of the definition?
4. Would this also include firing pins of firearms and how are they to be marked, what are the procedures to exchange a worn firing pin or upon breakage of such, being a reasonably common occurrence?
5. This seems to encompass rifle bolts or screw off shotgun chokes inter alia, with all the logistical impossibilities to number, register and decide how to administer any combination of parts as a firearm and when the removal or change of a part changes the identity of the firearm.
6. Will the hapless person who loses a shotgun recoil spring be brought to task for losing a firearm?
7. It may be worthwhile to rather consider a definition per section (a), referring to a complete device used to propel a bullet or projectile, although it raises questions as to what constitutes a complete firearm.
8. The submissions as per paragraphs 10.5, 10.6, 12.3, 18.2, 18.3, 19.3 and 19.6, infra, are mutatis mutandis applicable here.

10.5. (Definition - Firearm: [Section 1(1)(b)]: Any device readily altered).

Firearm as defined in (b), referring to any device.....readily altered, is casting the net rather wide in the sense that:

10.5.1. Firearms are brought under ambit of the bill by the definitions as per subsections 1(1)(a) to (d), thereafter being categorized according to inter alia sections 4, 14 and 15 to 19.

10.5.2. Categorizing firearms by the readily altered definition may arguably mean that firearms are to be defined in the category into which it may readily be altered into. This would lead to differing opinions and arguments regarding the category options.

10.5.3. The meaning of readily altered will also lead to problems per definition, as a layman may not find a firearm to be readily alterable whereas a handyman or gunsmith may well find it to be so.

1. In certain cases even gunsmiths may find a conversion too daunting, whereas a reckless lunatic with no concern for safety may find it to be physically and readily alterable.

2. Should all the parts and equipment be on the premises for consideration of the readiness of achievability or within a few hundred meters?

3. Even if all the necessary tools are on scene, or perhaps even the parts needed, is readily to be defined by looking at the knowledge of the licenced owner or his friend/family members? If so, how is the possessor’s abilities to be ascertained?

4. How much machining or filing and/or fitting is to be done before satisfying the definition?

10.6. (Definition - Firearm: [Section 1(1)(d)]: Any barrel, frame or receiver).

Firearm as defined in (d), also referring to the frame or receiver, is a new approach in the Republic of South Africa, with concomitant problems.

10.6.1. Many firearms have differing numbers on the frames, receivers, slides and as to what appears on the barrel.

10.6.2. Each part is also per definition of the proposed bill, a firearm on its own, to be licenced/registered on its own.

10.6.3. No changes without permission are allowed and the Registrar of firearms is to keep record of all aspects and to make decisions as to how conflicts are to be resolved.

10.6.4. Experts in sufficient numbers and of quality would have to be found for licencing purposes in order to discern between parts numbers, proof marks and serial numbers. How this mind boggling situation could be coped with logistically, and equitably, is unclear.

10.6.5. This then includes replacement frames or slides kept as spares should an old component crack or break before a competition.

10.6.6. Does this now mean that you may then have two or more firearms per definition, with one number only, or perhaps one firearm with two or more numbers, (Not even considering the situation should you put the spare slide on the licenced erstwhile complete firearm)?

10.6.7. Does this mean that even cracked slides are firearms to dealt with according to the time consuming red tape and taxing procedures prescribed for firearms to be destroyed?

10.6.8. Repairing such firearms would be a logistical nightmare to perform if not impossible, for both the South African Police Services and the licence holder, not to mention the gunsmith:

1. The application for destruction of the previous complete gun/parts would have to be finalized;
2. Applications for the new or perhaps second firearm as per definition, will have to be entertained;
3. The rest of the parts of the now incomplete firearm, would have to be dealt with in such a manner that the up to now legal possessor, is not left in illegal possession, if the "complete" licence is in fact per chance now canceled;
4. The new firearm/part will have to be licenced and processed (Having it’s own serial number as befits a substantial firearm under the wide definition), with either new numbers or perhaps all the old parts/firearm will have to be reprocessed;
5. What will all the renumbering’s effect be on the firearm’s working parts and safety, as all the existing and conflicting identifying marks and numbers would surely not be left on the firearms/parts?
6. How is confusion to be avoided and will this section as it reads at present, not create more impossible policing to be done without any real effect on crime?;
7. Decisions how to licence the now confusing affluence of numbers and parts and what serial numbers to issue, promise to be contentious and difficult to implement on ground zero.

10.6.9. This viewpoint is not farfetched at all, as firearms only have a limited life span which is quickly brought to conclusion by the top sportsmen, in for instance Practical pistol shooting.

1. Keeping the crucial spares for parts known to break at the most inopportune times, had been allowed up to now, without any of the stringent and prejudicial procedures presently envisaged.

10.6.10. Possession of these items should rather be prohibited unless in possession of a firearms licence for a firearm on which the part fit and I respectfully contend this definition to be ambiguous, unnecessary and prejudicial when referring to a frame or receiver.

1. I respectfully submit that the words frame or receiver rather be included in the prohibition as per section 99 of the proposed bill.

10.6.11. Without going into the matter any further, (As there are further valid submissions to be made if need be), I submit that keeping matters simple by sticking to the barrel of the gun as the wider definition, will prevent unnecessary confusion and litigation, as these matters are already largely clarified and that any perceived needs will not be served by further complication of the subject matter.

10.6.12. Zealously over-regulating of a matter, however well intentioned it might be, will only serve to regulate the sport community to extinction and the already overburdened South African Police Service to a standstill, especially if one looks at the technicalities and procedures involved.

10.6.13. Vide paragraph 12.3, on section 4(1), infra, also.

10.7. (Definitions - Machine gun/Fully automatic/Semi automatic).

The definitions does at first seem to comply with the logical requirements, but I respectfully submit that:

10.7.1. Almost any semi automatic firearm, if sufficiently abused/of old age, can be capable of firing more than one shot on single depression of the trigger;

10.7.2. It is only "when able to do so on demand or at will", that a firearm really qualifies as a machine gun.

10.7.3. One should be careful not to arguably bring into the ambit of the definition guns of which the springs have been incorrectly changed, broken sears, temporary gun smithing problems, etc. causing hammer drops, (Thus more than one shot per depression of the trigger, which can however not reliably be duplicated at will or upon demand).

10.7.4. Vide paragraph 12.7, infra, also.

10.8. (Definition - Imitation firearm).

It seems extreme to say the least, that even water pistols and plastic toy guns sold at chain stores, as in possession of untold number of children, be brought under the ambit of the act.

10.8.1. If a photograph of a firearm could be brought into the fold of the description/words anything that has the appearance of a firearm whether or not it is capable of operating as such; then the definition’s existance as a whole, is not without criticism.

10.8.2. Vide the submissions as per paragraph 12.6, infra, as being mutatis mutandis applicable.

10.9. (Definition - Occasional sports person).

Should this category of shooter and sports shooting mean to include gun club shoots, then the restrictions on the number of firearms so licensable as per section 16(5) are very prejudicial to vested rights and existing practices at my local shooting club gun club, to say the least.

10.9.1. Vide paragraph 10.3, supra, again, regarding the number of disciplines shot during club shoots at my local shooting club.

10.9.2. Vide paragraphs 18.1 to 18.5 and 19.1, infra, on sections 16 and 18.

10.9.3. The application of this subsection may be such that I am classified as an occasional sports person as well as a dedicated sports shooter, which seems to lead to prejudicial and absurd results, inter alia that I am to be trusted with sufficient ammunition for one firearm but not for another of perhaps lesser caliber, although I am a bona fide person.

10.10. (Definition - Private collector).

Although I am a member of a collector’s association, I am respectfully dubious of the section’s constitutionality which by direct implication specifies membership of an accredited association as compulsory, (The right to freedom of association).

10.10.1 Surely it behooves no detailed argument that a single person without any ties to an organization could be a competent and active collector of firearms.

10.10.2. What the result of the conflicting interests would be when a prospective - or existing collector refuses to affiliate to - or be part of an existing collector’s association, due to real and well founded or even merely perceived grounds for refusal, is open to interpretation.

10.10.3. What the state’s role/accountability would be after enforced membership upon the members as prerequisite, should civil litigation be instigated against an accredited collector’s association with potential liability for it’s members, remains to be seen.

1. This especially after the state has supplied limited resources/options taking into consideration that the associations are not government departments, but private associations to be accredited.

10.10.4. Vide paragraph 20.4, infra, also.

11.1. As a whole the purposes as defined, are not immediately and prima facie to be faulted, provided it is equitably and sensibly applied with due consideration of vested rights and prospective rights, especially taking into account that the act intends to establish a comprehensive and effective system of firearm control and management.

11.2. The whole of the act and the interests of the community at large, will thus have to be tested against this ambitious yardstick.

12.1. On a positive note, the absolute prohibition against licencing mentioned here, seems to be mitigated somewhat by the provisions of section 19(4) which provides for these firearms to be licenced by private collectors.

12.1.1.

12.1.2.

12.1.3.

12.2. Ad section 4.(1)(b)(i). (Prohibited firearms - Manufactured to fire .... a .... device that emits a chemical substance).

12.2.1. I recall 12 gauge shotgun cartridges commercially sold that contained flares for emergency purposes, that would probably satisfy the definition, if accepting that manufactured to fire means being able to fire.

12.2.2. This would not reflect the correct situation and it is not according to experience that one views clay pigeon shooters as possessing chemical "warfare" type of firearms.

12.2.3. Requiring sports shooters of the clay pigeon denomination to be collectors would however be manifestly unjust.

12.2.4. Perhaps requiring the firearm to be manufactured .... mainly/merely for purpose of shooting chemical substances may provide more clarity, although problems may be experienced in court to prove manufacturing intent, especially where the original designers/manufacturers may be unavailable.

12.3. Ad section 4.(1)(c). (Frame, body or barrel of prohibited firearm).

12.3.1. The frames, bodies and barrels of many fully automatic firearms are not readily discernable from their commercial semi automatic counterparts and should not be brought under ambit of this section by dubious later interpretation of this section.

12.3.2. I respectfully request that this section should perhaps make it more clear that this section does not prohibit the licencing or possession of firearms if allowed by other sections of the act, even though certain similarities may exist.

12.3.3. Viewing frames or bodies as firearms is a new and radical approach in the Republic of South Africa with concomitant problems and I would respectfully submit, not to be followed.

1. It is also unclear why the word bodies is included here.

12.3.4. Vide section 99 of the proposed act in this regard.

12.3.5. Vide the submissions as per paragraph 10.6, supra, again.

12.4. Ad section 4.(1)(d). (Prohibited firearms - ... projectile or ... any substance ... to assist in propelling any such projectile ... or any frame or body of any such projectile ...).

12.4.1. This is with respect, quite a forced definition to bring chemical substances into the fold as firearms per definition.

12.4.2. Surely these items is/can be covered in more apt legislation regarding weaponry or the explosives act?

12.4.3. Although I am not up to speed on the dynamics of such weaponry, I would dare to wager that components of the substances or perhaps even substantial part thereof are quite commonly available in the everyday use of firearms.

1. Vide paragraph 12.5, infra.

12.4.4. Forced interpretations and difficult to comprehend sections are not within the grasp of the general public and I would respectfully suggest that this be included in a more applicable section or act.

12.5. Ad section 4.(1)(e). (Prohibited firearms - any explosive or incendiary device or any substantial part thereof).

12.5.1. This probably brings even commercially available primers into ambit of the definition as prohibited firearms, as they contain more volatile substances, (Explosives?), than the propellants.

12.5.2. The act is also of no help in this regard, as no definition of explosives, primer or propellant is to be found, with perhaps the chemical components thereof.

12.5.3. The fact that a substantial part thereof is also per definition a prohibited firearm, further encourages confusion, as quite a few normal household appliances may qualify as such, perhaps certain chemicals or metal/mechanical components in electrical appliances may be used as incendiary devices?

12.5.4. The definition as per section 1(1) specifying that all items that may readily be altered to be a firearm, are firearms within the meaning of the act, could be argued to open the ambit of the act to untenable levels, if read with the wide definition here.

1. How many readily available substances/readily altered substances or substantial parts thereof are to be found in innocent household detergents/appliances?
2. The submissions as per paragraph 10.5, supra, are mutatis mutandis applicable.

12.5.5. It does not seem logical to be able to prosecute a person for illegal possession of six firearms, with the lengthy periods of imprisonment at hand, when the facts indicate possession of for example six primers, and perhaps even spent primers at that.

1. Vide paragraph 10.1, supra, again.

12.5.6. It seems manifestly unjust to unleash upon the public forced interpretations which may if applied stringently, require housewives to have degrees in alchemy in order to keep from falling foul of the law.

12.6. Ad section 4.(1)(f). (Prohibited firearms - Imitation of ... device ... in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e)).

12.6.1. If these imitations are to imply fully functional imitations of such devices, then the section may have some merits. However as it reads at present, the chain stores where imitation, plastic, water emitting toys for children are sold, may be the object of many prosecutions.

12.6.2. Vide paragraph 10.8, supra, again.

12.7. Ad section 4.(1)(g)(i). (Prohibited firearms - ... altered ... more than one shot with a single depression ...).

The submissions as per paragraph 10.7, supra, refers.

12.8. Ad section 4.(1)(g)(ii). (Prohibited firearms - The caliber... altered without the written permission ...).

12.8.1. Quite a few changed calibers, (In layman’s terms), are on the shooting scene and by bringing in such a drastic enactment so as to ban all firearms having even changed bores, will lead to litigation as a matter of consequence.

12.8.2. A definition of caliber is not found in the act, therefore the dictionary definition may apply.

1. Caliber is defined as "inside diameter of a tube/gun/barrel, etc.", whilst "bore" is the "hollow inside of a gun barrel; it’s diameter", (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English).

12.8.3. Polishing chambers, cutting free bore into chambers, cutting crowns into barrels, cutting expansion chambers, porting the barrels or correcting head-spacing is thus brought under ambit of this section.

1. I would venture to suggest that gunsmiths do this on an ongoing daily basis, with no ill effects on the community at large.

12.8.4. Countless actions legally and safely performed under existing law, will technically fall foul if performed under the new act unless crippling paper work is first performed.

1. This even though the work done will not make any difference to the type of - or variation of ammunition to be used in the firearm.
2. This anticipated flood of paper work to obtain ex post facto permission for work done, as well as gun-smithing work still to be done, whilst there is a losing battle being fought by insufficient law enforcement/prosecuting authorities at ground zero, militates against passage of this section as it reads at present.

12.8.5. If the wording is intended to prevent the changing of caliber to the extent of preventing a .22 rimfire being changed to .223 center-fire, then it does not specifically say so.

1. It is in fact open to any number of interpretations, some of which would allow substantial changes to the metal work so as to allow a totally different cartridge case to be used without falling foul of the bill.

12.8.6. How will anyone prove that the actions performed on firearms was done/not done before date of enactment of this act, that the owner knew about it and by declaring the firearm per se prohibited under these circumstances, is not infringing on the owner’s property rights, constitutionally seen?

1. Litigation may thus follow even though the "bore changing" had occurred at the factory.

12.8.7. What would be the impact on local industry, the courts, costs of expert witnesses and the police be, in light of the inevitable investigations into possible/illegal changes?

12.8.8. Perhaps a definition that would prohibit the firearm’s caliber being changed to the extent that the original and complete cartridges as licenced, does not fit the chamber anymore or can no longer be safely(?) fired, would make more sense.

1. Also, should the chamber be changed to such an extent that the chamber accepts an up to then different cartridge case/caliber that did not fit into the chamber previously, then licencing and proofing the firearm would be relevant, (As in SABS approved?).

12.8.9. The definition will have to take into consideration that some "calibers" can utilize more than one cartridge case of the same caliber, for example .357 Magnums can safely fire .38 Specials as a .375 Weatherby is able to fire .375 Holland and Holland Magnums.

12.8.10. I would respectfully suggest that changing the caliber, is probably to be coined as gun-smithing and therefore subject to other sections/regulations regulating the subject matter.

1. It should for clarity’s sake, not be double regulated.

12.8.11. Being in possession of a firearm/caliber for which one does not have a licence, is illegal in any case, whilst this section has the potential to confuses the issue.

1. Even though the Central Firearms Register may be given the authority to retrospectively authorize actions as per the definition, proving the alleged changes to have been done after the factory had "shipped" the firearm, is going to be extremely difficult if not impossible to prove in court.

12.8.12. Enacting sections which are going to be unenforceable or a logistical nightmare/impossibility, is contrary to the stated purpose of the act and definitely not recommended.

1. Vide paragraph 11, supra, again.

12.8.13. If not scrapped on strength of other sections/regulations dealing with the matter, this section should be very carefully scrutinized and changed to steer clear from any unnecessary complicating of the situation on street level, without addressing crime in the least.

12.9. Ad section 4.(1)(g)(iii). (Prohibited firearms - The barrel length... altered without the written permission ...).

12.9.1. The lack of definition regarding how the barrel length is to be determined, will definitely lead to litigation, as the exact place from which measurements are to be taken, gives rise to seven logical points for possible measurement, especially if gun-smithing work is to be done, resulting in changed dimensions.

1. Are barrel attachments, muzzle breaks, compensators, expansion chambers and internal expansion chambers part of the barrel length/muzzle?
2. Are barrel hoods/shrouds part of the barrel?
3. Where on - and what precise part of the visible internal or external dimensions are measurements to be taken in order to measure the barrel length.
4. Does the bullet have to touch part of the barrel, before that part is to be considered as the barrel?
5. What bullet and barrel diameter is to be used to ascertain the touching point?
6. What percentages of the bullet has to touch?
7. What are the grooves and lands’ effect?
8. Where does headspace or freebore enter the picture?

12.9.2. Does this mean that crowning/chamfering the bore of the firearm or grinding away the front 0.5 mm of the outer dimensions of the firearms barrel is to be done only after obtaining permission of the Registrar and that the metal scraps or filings then have to be given firearms numbers or dealt with in the prescribed cumbersome procedures for the destruction of firearms?

1. Barrel lengths which may or may not have been changed at the factory or been built with different specifications than the rest of the manufacture run, prior to being shipped, may lead to litigation with the concomitant problems of proof.
2. Are firearms factories also to obtain permission from the Registrar before cutting barrels to certain lengths, to refrain the firearms from being illegal ever after?
3. Vide paragraph 12.8, supra, again.

12.9.3. How would the non-expert police officer, non-expert prosecutor, non-expert legal representative and non-expert magistrate/judge grasp and apply the principles and apply them to any specific facts at hand and at what financial - or manpower burden on society?

12.9.4. What specific evil would be combated hereby and what are the possibilities that this would at best, only impact negatively on the administration of justice and the ordinary citizen’s property rights?

12.9.5. I would also respectfully suggest that bringing the subsection under the heading of prohibited firearms is quite probably going to lead to litigation and a lot of unnecessary investigative work, considering that the South African Police Services Forensic Laboratory specialists would have to assist in extreme volumes of firearms perused before "re-licencing" them.

12.9.6. I would respectfully suggest that changing the barrel length, is probably to be coined as gun-smithing and therefore subject to other sections/regulations dealing with the subject matter.

12.9.7. I respectfully submit that this section:

1. Only serves to complicate matters;
2. Overburdens an already overtaxed system;
3. Serves to confuse police officers and citizens alike in the complexity, technicality and vagueness of it all;
4. Shifts the focus away from the very real crime related problems to technicalities;
5. Should be scrapped as it reads at present.

12.10. Ad section 4.(1)(g)(iv). (Prohibited firearms - Serial numbers or identifying marks ... changed or removed without the written permission ...).

12.10.1. Day to day gun smithing work done on firearms, for instance polishing or burnishing the metal, will almost inevitably lead to identifying marks being changed, at least to the extent of edges being rounded and already vague marks/stamps becoming illegible/lost.

1. This is technically prima facie a transgression in terms of the proposed act.

12.10.2. Due to barrels being licenced in the Republic of South Africa as the firearm up to now, quite a few frames have had the numbers of the licenced firearm (Barrel), stamped into the metal of the frame.

1. Old and irrelevant numbers on the frames may thus have been changed or removed to either prevent confusion or for aesthetical reasons.

12.10.3. Even though a firearm may be licenced according to the proposed act, problems will be experienced as no-one would be able to say who, when and where anything was changed and as to whether the firearm had been licenced with the changes slipping through unnoticed.

12.10.4. Is the South African Police Services geared to supply the necessary Forensic Laboratory experts knowledgeable in this field, to ensure that all the factory markings and numbers on the plethora of makes/variations of firearms are there and unchanged?

12.10.5. How will changes be proved on old firearms or those from factories that have closed down?

12.10.6. This absolute and forceful removal of items up to now in legal possession of law abiding citizens, seems unwarranted in the sense that changing the numbers on firearms are prohibited elsewhere in the act, in any matter.

12.10.7. The fact that a frame, receiver, any device readily altered to be a firearm, etcetera, is viewed as a firearm according to the act, will definitely serve to complicate matters.

12.10.8. I respectfully suggest that this subsection be scrapped and that the sections dealing with serial numbers on the barrel as per the existing act, Act 75 of 1969, be retained due to the immense logistical problems involved.

12.10.9. I also respectfully suggest that there is in all probability no logical nor available proof that in keeping to the prevailing set of standards, would lead to anarchy.

12.10.10. Vide paragraph 10.6, supra, again.

12.11. Ad section 4.(2)(a). (Prohibited firearms - by the Minister).

12.11.1. The wide powers of the Minister raises some concern, if one is to view the already severe impact the proposed act and the stated purpose to comprehensively and effectively control and manage firearms.

12.11.2. The necessity to give the minister such powers must be questioned in light of the vast umbrella that the act is in process of raising.

11.12.3. Potential further incisions into the vested rights under discussion, by means of a carte blanche to the minister can with respect, not be supported.

1. Absolute power, with respect, tends to corrupt, if not immediately, then in future.
2. Acts are to be passed by parliament, not by the minister only, which this section would have the effect of authorizing.

11.12.4. The validity of this is questionable if considered in light of the constitution and all the rights enshrined therein.

13. Ad section 6.(4): (Antique firearms - Places to be discharged).

13.1. Although I am not a hunter at all, nor a collector of antique firearms per definition of the act and can therefore not claim to be directly targeted by the clauses, a few aspects immediately come to the fore when perusing the section cursorily.

13.2. The section seems to imply that hunting activities with antique firearms might be considered illegal under the new dispensation, whereas there are several people hunting with such firearms.

13.3. It also seems odd that this section does not per se sanction a farm owner with suitable premises to shoot his own muzzle loader on his own farm, nor make provision for others to also do so with his permission; This type of firearm is more of a collectable curio than anything else and definitely not in the same league as a modern firearm.

13.4. This totally ignores the fact that firearms owners, (And collectors such as myself), do sometimes wish to shoot the firearms in our collections on premises suitable for sporting or recreational use, (Though not being accredited shooting ranges), as had arguably been done the whole of this century.

13.5. I am unable to recollect any instance either in the news or during my prosecuting career, where any crime had been committed with a muzzle loader at all, especially any considerations which would sanction such extreme regulating measures as to how and where muzzle loaders may be shot, coupled to such long term of imprisonment upon contravention.

13.6. Firearms use within city limits have already been banned unless self defence or necessity is at stake. This includes public roads, farms and plots without permission of the owner.

13.7. I would respectfully suggest that as with any firearm, as had been done in the years past, the use thereof be permitted on suitable premises.

13.7.1. I respectfully suggest that no interests of the community at large are prima facie prejudiced by this.

13.8.. Vide paragraphs 17.4 and 18.4, infra, in this regard also.

14. Ad section 8: (Competency certificates).

14.1. Although the basic principle is sound, it must be kept in mind that the moral of the story is that the average firearms owner must be adept and competent in the handling of the firearm.

14.2. This is not possible unless adequate practice is put in and a reasonable degree of capability is maintained.

15. Ad section 13.(1): (Additional licence).

15.1. This section is to be applauded, but has some problem areas that need be addressed.

15.2. Who is the responsible person when the firearm is stolen?

15.3. We do not live in a perfect world and clarity must be given of who has the ultimate say regarding the possession of the firearm, should a dispute arise between the first licence holder and the additional holder.

15.4. Is an additional licence holder allowed to acquire a further firearm and obtain his or her "own" firearms licence for self defense, as the act apparently at present only recognizes the right to one firearm for self defense?


15.5. Is anyone allowed to give permission to a third party to handle or fire the firearm under supervision of the first or second licence holder?

15.5.1. No mention of this seems to have been made by the act which purports to want to comprehensively administer firearms use, which suggests that such use is prohibited.

15.5.2. I respectfully submit that there exists a need for such use and that this had been an ongoing practice at shooting ranges for many years, as far as human memory prevails.

15.5.3. I respectfully request that specific permission for such actions be written into the wording of the proposed bill.

15.6. Vide paragraph 17.3, infra, also.

16. Ad section 14.(5): (Restricted firearm - only one licence).

16.1. The advisability of the inflexible and rather severe curtailing of the discretion of the Registrar of firearms as envisioned, is doubtful.

16.2. As experience has showed, extreme and strict interpretations usually do not make provision for all scenarios and invariably lead to injustice and prejudice.

16.3. As the Registrar is in any case to look at the necessity of possessing a firearm and the issuing of a licence, why limit his discretion in such a manner?

16.4. If an applicant is able to show good cause and is of good character and able to safely and competently handle the firearm, what reason is there to take away all discretion from the Registrar in the issuing of more than one licence should circumstances so require?

16.5. As only one licence for self defense is allowed, will a restricted firearms licence for self defense notwithstanding section 15(3), not have an influence on the issuing of a second, "normal" self defense firearms licence?

16.5.1. It seems rather severe that once licenced, the semi automatic rifle may for instance be the only firearm allowed for self defense, as such a firearm whilst appropriate in certain circumstances, will not be acceptable at dress functions nor during the holidays.

16.5.2. Vide also paragraph 4, supra, again.

16.6. This section cannot be supported.

17. Ad section 15.: (Self defense firearms).

17.1. Ad section 15.(1)(a): (Self defense firearm - semi automatic).

17.1.1. It seems that a semi automatic rifle for self defense purposes is allowed, but that a shotgun of semi automatic ilk is not.

17.1.2. Likewise a pump action shotgun is allowed for self defense purposes.

1. There is however no difference in the lethality of being shot with a pump action shotgun to that of being shot with a semi automatic shotgun.
2. Interestingly enough a pump action shotgun as used for sporting purposes and in the hands of a skilled operator, surpasses the performance, (Speed and accuracy), of a semi automatic shotgun in the hands of a relative "novice", action sports shotgun shooter.

17.1.3. Taking into consideration the capability of shotguns, there is no earthly reason why a semi automatic rifle may be allowed for self defense but not a semi automatic shotgun.

1. A shotgun, (Only having very close range effectiveness), has extremely limited application and capability when compared to a semi automatic rifle.
2. Personally, I do not consider a shotgun as effective a self defense tool as is so widely proclaimed, when compared to a pistol or rifle in the hands of an experienced operator, unless at very close range.
3. However, every scenario and self defense need has to be entertained on its own merits and it may well be that a shotgun with concomitant limited risk of long distance, runaway ricochets, is most apt under certain circumstances.

17.1.4. The licencing of fully automatic firearms are prohibited by section 4(1) in any event and the mention of such in section 15(1) seems redundant.


17.1.5. The stringent and inflexible attempts to force firearms into certain categories and not taking into account the realities that firearms have diverse applications, seems to lead to anomalies.

17.1.6. I respectfully suggest that the proposed stringent categorizing of firearms that may only be licenced and used for very limited purposes, whilst not looking at what should be the main thrust of licencing attempts, to wit the person applying for the licence, is in effect placing the wrong emphasis on the whole matter.

17.1.7. I respectfully suggest that a serious look be taken at the retention of the present system of bona fide categories of shooters and firearms owners, whilst some sort of recognition may still be given to the fact that differing types of firearms exist.

1. The discretion of the Registrar of Firearms in the issuing of licences, apart from the fully automatic variations of firearms, should be retained.
2. Recognition should be given to the fact that all modes of licensable firearms may be used for sports shooting, self defense, recreational shooting, collection or hunting, (Hunting by laws permitting).
3. Should the Registrar for instance be unmoved by an applicant’s motivation in the case of an application for the licencing of a semi automatic firearm, the licence need not be issued.

17.1.8. I respectfully suggest that to refrain from enacting illogical sections:

1. The references to number limitations and the limitations of the types of firearms eligible, be omitted from the act and left to the devices of the Registrar of firearms;
2. All applicants showing good and prima facie valid reason or cause for a firearms licence to be issued, be entitled to the issuance of such a licence.
3. At the very least, the reference to semi automatic shotguns be removed from this section.

17.2. Ad section 15.(3)(b): (Self defence firearm - satisfy ... need ... by means other than ... firearm ...).

17.2.1. The right to self defense is the most basic of all rights and pertains to the right to liberty and life, enshrined in the constitution as such.

17.2.2. Any infringement on these most basic and elementary of rights, is to be combated at all costs, because without that, there is nothing.

17.2.3. Quite obviously the right also by implication insists that the right must be effectively exercised, as any other approach will mean that only lip service is paid to the rights, in fraudem legis.

17.2.4. The subject must thus be placed in a position to have the most effective tools of choice available to him or her, as the most basic rights’ exercise insists on this approach.

i. Should a firearm be that tool of choice, the constitution militates against any infringement on the rights.

17.2.5. Therefore, should the subject show a possible, reasonable prima facie need for self defense and be of good character, placing an onus on the subject to show that no other means than a firearm would satisfy the need, is unconstitutional in the extreme.

17.2.6. This subsection is unconstitutional and needs to be scrapped.

17.2.7. Vide paragraph 17.3, infra, being mutatis mutandis applicable.

17.3. Ad section 15.(4): (Self defense firearm - only one licence).

17.3.1. This section is unconstitutional in the extreme and needs to be scrapped.

17.3.2. The limitation infringes on my constitutional right to defend myself with the best available means or adequate means to do so, given my personal circumstances.

i. Vide paragraphs 4, as well as 17.2, supra, again.

17.3.3. It might also bear fruit to consider the situation of a border farmer who is constantly in the veld, on the field and on the road on his farm and various types of remote areas.

1. This farmer may licence one compact rifle or shotgun, or perhaps a "big" caliber handgun of fairly large proportions in order to be effective at self defense.
2. This farmer would have to visit town with this large firearm, go on holiday with it and carry it with him, constantly, as his only firearm allowed for self defense.
3. The proposed bill also requires firearms to be used only for the specified purposes, which means that the farmer would have no other legal options.
4. It is manifestly unjust and unreasonable to expect one firearm to fulfill all possible needs.

• Vide paragraphs 4.3 to 4.7, supra.

v. It is also manifestly unconstitutional and unjust to expect the farmer in the example to go unarmed, because of the physical attributes of his only firearm so allowed by law.

• Taking into account that his need for self defense with a firearm is already established.

vi. This further example of a situation not catered for, merely illustrates the need for the Registrar to have a discretion as in the past.

17.3.4. Additional licences in terms of section 13(1) raises further questions.

i. As one is to be allowed only one licence for self defense and one firearm may be licenced on two people’s names, the second licencee thus has a firearm for self defense according to this subsection.

ii. The second licencee is therefore not entitled to obtain one specific firearm for him/herself, as would have been the case had none been additionally licenced.

iii. This is hardly fair if the licencee of first instance, for instance has to leave home with the firearm, leaving the second licencee without a firearm for self defense.

iv. Vide paragraph 15, supra, again.

17.3.5. Furthermore, if firearms are used for self defense and a defense of necessity or self defense is raised to the satisfaction of the prosecutor or the court, it is of no consequence at all:

1. What firearm was used.
2. Whether the firearm was licenced for self defense, hunting, sport or restricted use, as the defense of necessity is an absolute defense if raised successfully upon prosecution.
3. Whether more than one firearm was used or carried at that stage.
4. Even if the firearm had been grabbed from the possession of a bystander without permission and used, as the defense would hold good against prosecution.

17.3.6. The inflexible and strict clauses which gives no recognition to bona fide categories of people or possessors being entitled to more than one firearm or for diverse applications and certain types of firearms not eligible for licencing, notwithstanding good cause, is not supported and to be scrapped from the proposed bill.

17.3.7. An act or law of no consequence and with no positive effect on the criminal element, which merely serves to burden the community with prejudicial and inane laws, brings the administration of justice into disrepute.

17.4. Ad section 15.(5)(b): (Self defence firearm - only ... on ... accredited shooting range and in accordance with the rules of that shooting range).

17.4.1. This subsection makes a revolutionary statement in that it raises an accredited shooting range’s rules or shooting club’s local rules to the power of an act of parliament.

1. Non-compliance with the bill, including this subsection, comprises a crime.
2. This subsection requires the subject to shoot and comply with all rules of the shooting range operator/regulatory body.
3. By not complying with range/club rules, this means that the subject has fallen foul of the bill.
4. Bringing unpublished and vague/ambiguous aspects into ambit of the act, with the concomitant penalties, a lot of which will surely be localized and ill founded club rules, is ill advised. Things that immediately come to mind, are rules that govern:

• Language on the range;
• Use of the toilets;
• Cleaning up the range;
• Who may use the braai facilities;

1. Although the thought of punishing the selfish club members who do not flush the toilet properly, does have some appeal, the punishment envisioned here hardly seems equitable nor justifiable.
2. It can hardly be argued that these local club rules will stand the test of constitutionality nor that the correct procedures had been followed to make it as powerful as an act of parliament.
3. That this will help in the fight against crime, can clearly not be motivated.

17.4.2. It also seems odd that these firearms owners, as in the case of antique firearms owners, who should perchance reside on suitable premises to shoot his firearm, (To wit his own farm), not be allowed to do so.

1. This totally ignores the fact that firearms owners may sometimes wish to shoot the firearms on premises suitable for sporting or recreational use, (Though not necessarily being accredited shooting ranges), as had arguably been done the whole of this century.
2. How is this section to be enforced under these circumstances when the South African Police Services is called upon to investigate possible crimes of this nature where for example a farmer may ignore the clause?
3. That people residing on suitable premises may have to drive a few hundred kilometers just to shoot a few practice rounds, seems to defy logic if one looks at the vested rights and practices of these firearms owners.
4. This section seems to be in conflict with the stated purpose of the act to be effective, ensure efficient monitoring and be enforceable.

17.4.3. Any actions where a firearms owner abuses the use of firearms, is already covered elsewhere by other sections, acts/bills and the common law.

17.4.4. It is respectfully submitted that subsection 15.(5)(b) is prejudicial and complicates matters unnecessarily, justifying in scrapping it.

1. Vide paragraph 13, supra, again.
2. Vide paragraph 18.4, infra, also.

17.5. Ad section 15.(5)(c): (Self defense firearm - only ... used ... in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed).

17.5.1. This carte blanche is not to be encouraged on such an important aspect such as the manner in which a self defense firearm may be used.

17.5.2. Parliament and the High Courts define guidelines for this in a transparent manner, unlike the veiled, total power envisaged here.

17.5.3. Regulations should, with respect, rather be reserved for regulating aspects which does not strike at the heart of constitutionally enshrined rights.

18.1. Ad section 16.(1)(a): (Occasional sports shooting firearm - not semi automatic).

18.1.1. This infringes on the vested rights of sports shooters, inter alia club members at my local shooting club, where Three gun shooting has been practiced on an organized basis at club shoots and competitions for more than two years.

18.1.2. These actions have not prejudiced the community at large and need not be curtailed.

18.1.3. Vide inter alia paragraph 10.3.4, supra, regarding the disciplines shot at my local shooting club gun club.

18.1.4. Vide paragraphs 2, 10.3.4.viii and 10.9, supra, also.

18.2. Ad section 16.(1)(c): (Occasional sports-shooting firearm - barrel or frame).

18.2.1. This approach with all due respect, can not be supported.

18.2.2. It is respectfully suggested that the words or frame be omitted from the act, bringing the definition of firearm into line with the present and reasonably well known law in layman’s terms.

1. Vide paragraphs 10.6 and 12.3, supra, again.
2. Vide paragraph 19.3, infra, also.

18.3. Ad section 16.(5): (Occasional sports-shooting - four licences in total).

18.3.1. The restrictions on the discretion of the Registrar is not to be supported.

i. Surely the good and old fashioned common sense approach is not so out of vogue that senior police officers at the Central Firearms Register are to be left with virtually no discretion at all.

ii. Stringent licencing requirements and screening of applicants, as had been the case in the past few years, is to be recommended and has had positive results.

iii. This is especially so as regards the benefits flowing from the creation of the bona fide categories of firearms owners.

18.3.2. As I may arguably be quantified as an occasional sports shooter as regards some of my firearms, the proposed act creates logistical impossibilities and incongruities:

1. More than one firearm may be motivated for self defense in my case, although not be possessed as the act reads at present.
2. Ten or more firearms may be motivated for the shooting disciplines at my local shooting club.
3. I am also competing on national - and provincial level in practical pistol, three gun shooting and steel challenges, which again, is motivation for score or so of additional firearms.
4. I am also a private collector of firearms.
5. How am I and my firearms to be coined and shuffled? How will one ascertain how many rounds of ammunition are used or kept for one firearm used for occasional sport and another for dedicated sport, both being of the same caliber?
6. What of the prohibitions on firearms not to be used for more than one purpose, when they manifestly appear suitable for such roles?
7. Will I have to acquire further firearms of exactly the same type for sporting purposes, or self defense purposes, even though I possess such in my firearms collection?
8. How is one to decipher mathematically how many firearms are allowed for each category of firearms as the act intends to read, what the discerning guidelines are to be and how will all the police officers equitably apply these intricate rules?
9. Why should I be forced into a perpetual nightmare of repeated licencing of firearms as each and every firearm reaches maturity?
10. What is for example to be done in the case of a sports shooter who has a frame, (To wit one of four licences), as the new act reads, who then starts to buy new parts, (More licences), in order to build up a new and complete firearm?

18.3.3. I respectfully suggest that the proposed bill is attempting to create too intricate a system of firearms classes, rather than classes of firearms owners and firearms users, which:

1. Lacks in it’s acknowledgment of the vested rights and expectations of the sports shooter;
2. Results in difficult to understand intricacies, trying to ascertain how many firearms may be possessed and used in whichever manner;
3. Results in incongruities and prejudices the law abiding and bona fide subjects in practical terms.
4. Creates logistical re-licencing problems.

18.3.4. Vide paragraphs 4, 10.3, 10.6, 12.8 to 12.10, and 15 to 17, supra, again.

18.3.5. Vide paragraph 19.6, infra, also.

18.4. Ad section 16.(6)(b)(i): (Occasional sports-shooting - suitable hunting premises).

18.4.1. This section seems to authorize, (Quite logically I would respectfully submit), using such firearm on (any) premises suitable for hunting, which would include the example of a farm owner as used per paragraphs 13, 17.3.3 and 17.4.2, supra.

18.4.2. This would also seem to suggest that the sections under discussion as per paragraphs 13 and 17.4, supra, should be/could be changed in accordance with the wording of this section at the very least.

18.4.3. It is also respectfully suggested that such premises need not have any game on it, to make it suitable for hunting, for purposes of these sections.

1. It would however perhaps be more apt to describe the premises as premises suitable for shooting on and not necessarily hunting.

18.5. Ad section 16.(6)(b)(ii): (Occasional sports-shooting - accredited shooting range ... in accordance with ... rules ...).

The submissions as per paragraph 17.4, supra, are also applicable here.

18.6. Ad section 16.(6)(c): (Occasional sports-shooting - regulations).

18.6.1. A carte blanche to issue regulations pertaining to existing and vested rights, is to be treated warily and preferably avoided.

18.6.2. The submissions as per paragraph 17.4, supra, are also applicable here.

19. Ad section 18: (Dedicated sports-shooting).

19.1. Ad section 18.(1)(b): (Dedicated sports-shooting - Semi automatics banned).

19.1.1. I respectfully suggest this section to be manifestly unjust and prejudicial if one takes into account my personal situation.

1. Vide paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, supra.

19.1.2. The South African Police Services has already licenced several semi automatic firearms, (Including rifles and shotguns with larger than three round capacity), to myself for sport purposes and it is adding insult to injury to now suddenly come to the conclusion that:

1. No bona fide/dedicated sport may be practiced with such;
2. No bona fide/dedicated sport is possible with such;
3. I am suddenly not to be entrusted with the sporting use or recreational shooting of my semi automatic firearms/rifles.

19.1.3. This I would respectfully submit, does not make any sense in light of the fact that I, (As far as I know), did not commit such a sin so as to justify so serious an incision or prejudice to my constitutional rights.

19.1.4. It leaves a very bad taste when one is involved in the prosecution of professional criminals at great personal cost and discomfort, having had to make serious sacrifices over the years, only to find the carpet in process of being pulled from underneath oneself by a measure which has little probable value in combating crime.

1. Vide paragraph 1.4, supra, again.

19.1.5. Being a collector I shall probably be entitled to keep my firearms, raising the question as to when already being in possession, why the use or my sporting use thereof should be banned?

1. Surely if one intends to commit a crime with the firearm the procedures involved in licencing and the costs involved would have been prohibitive.
2. In any event, shooting the firearms in bona fide sports shooting events will not further the commission of any crimes any further?
3. This anomaly militates against the words semi automatic to be included in the definition of firearms banned for sports shooting.

19.1.6. This also impacts negatively on the club members at my local shooting club partaking in the sport of Three gun shooting, apart from the logistical and logical implications.

1. Vide paragraphs 2.4, 10.3, 10.9, 17.1 and 18.1, supra.

19.1.7. This is also prejudicial to myself as well as other shooters, as the sport of Three gun shooting has been shot on an organized basis at national level.

1. The possibility of sending a team or teams over to the United States of America to compete some time in the future, has in actual fact already been raised in some circles.
2. Vide paragraph 1.2.5, supra.

19.1.8. The local gun-smithing industry, being to a large extent dependent on the local market, would be negatively impacted by shooting disciplines being banned, resulting in the loss of potential income.

19.1.9. It would also mean that all the research and development costs put into the sport, going to waste.

19.1.10. Section 18.(1)(c) allows three shot semi automatic shotguns for dedicated sport purposes, which does however not satisfy the needs of Three gun shooting.

1. If however three round shotguns are allowed for sport purposes, then nine or ten round shotguns should not be considered as a problem, as a bona fide sport with vested rights exists.
2. If the clay pigeon shotgun sports shooters should be allowed a semi automatic shotgun with adequate magazine capacity for their sport, then discrimination against three gun shooters in refusing them like treatment, is with respect, contrary to the constitutional rights of these shooters.
3. Large magazine capacities are required.
4. As mentioned, semi automatic shotguns rule the roost in Three gun shoots, inter alia as they absorb the recoil better.
5. One gains a competitive advantage over competitors using pump actions for each shot fired.
6. Personally I have a ligament problem in my right shoulder which precludes me from shooting really large/big calibers, which is another reason why I have need of semi automatic shotguns for sport purposes.

19.1.11. The problems in precisely ascertaining the quantity of rounds fitting into a firearm will not be addressed at any length here, but suffice to say that:

1. Looking at the semi automatic variation of shotguns for our purposes, they are usually of the same basic configuration or principles;
2. The magazines are usually tube fed and permanently affixed under the barrel;
3. The rounds thus lie behind each other in line;
4. The overall length of for 12 gauge shotgun rounds depending on the type used, varies considerably;
5. It could well be that whereas a magazine would take only three rounds of the longer "magnum" type loads, four or five rounds of the short variation would fit into the magazine.
6. This is especially so when taking in consideration some shotguns will have slightly oversize magazines fitted to enhance spring and operating reliability.
7. That this situation would cause problems for the South African Police Services and the public at large, needs no further address.
8. It is not clear how such a discriminatory distinction, which has dubious results, is to be motivated.
9. Vide also paragraph 19.2, infra, regarding the address on section 18.(1)(c).

19.1.12. Allowing semi automatic shotguns to be used for what appears to be clay pigeon sports shooting and Three gun sports shooting, suggests that allowing three gun shooting to continue as a vested sport, semi automatic rifles suited to the task may also not be banned.

19.1.13. I respectfully submit that the non-licencing of so called fully automatic firearms are already dealt with as per section 4.(1)(a).

19.1.14. I also respectfully submit that, should the classification of the firearms for licencing purposes as such not be scrapped, the following changes may be considered:

1. Section 18.(1)(a) may be changed to the extent that handgun is substituted with the word firearm, provided the criticisms against too wide an interpretation is taken into consideration.
2. Section 18.(1)(b) must be changed to defend and reflect the rights of bona fide sports shooters, either being scrapped or the wording thereof being changed to perhaps to delete the words nor semi automatic, as well as to substitute the word neither with the word not.

19.1.15. Vide paragraph 8, supra, regarding the various applicable constitutional rights, as most of them, if not all, are arguably being infringed on.

19.2. Ad section 18.(1)(c): (Dedicated sports-shooting - Semi automatic shotguns able to fire more than three shots in rapid succession, banned).

19.2.1. The use of the word rapid in the prohibition creates the difficult to administer situation where my wife may not think a semi automatic 12 gauge shotgun to be capable of rapid fire due to recoil, whereas a clay pigeon sports shooter may consider an over and under double barrel shotgun extremely rapid.

19.2.2. No definition of shotgun is given in the act.

1. When one considers the fact that shot shells or rounds containing shot are available for .22 Long rifle, 9 mm Parabellum, .45 ACP, .38 Special, .357 Magnum, .44 Magnum, etcetera, then the question arises as to whether that means that three shot semi automatic versions of such firearms are relevant to this section?
2. Also, some designs traditionally known as "shotgun" designs, have been specifically manufactured as slug guns, which therefore are not shotguns, strictly speaking.
3. This is not necessarily known to the layman and probably not to most of the police officers who have to apply the law at street level.

19.2.3. I respectfully submit that should my submissions as per paragraph 19.1, supra, be accepted, no real benefits are to be obtained from this section and that it should be scrapped due to the prejudicial and contentious nature thereof.

19.2.4. In any event, the further anomaly by the mere mention that three round shotguns may be allowed, contradicts the absolute prohibition as per section 18.(1)(b).

19.3. Ad section 18.(1)(d): (Dedicated sports-shooting - A barrel or frame any of the above; or).

19.3.1. The submissions regarding the advisability of adding a frame of firearms as substantial firearms in their own right, have already been raised in this writ and it is respectfully submitted that only a barrel be included in the wide definition.

1. Section 99 of the proposed act declares it a crime to possess the slide , bolt or breach-block, without a licence for a firearm capable of bearing the parts and by declaring a myriad of parts to be substantial firearms is only going to lead to confusion.
2. I respectfully submit that consideration rather be given to include the word frame in section 99 of the proposed bill.
3. The submissions as per paragraphs 10.6, 12.3 and 18.2, supra, are mutatis mutandis relevant here.

19.3.2. In any event, how will the multiple licencing of the spares be handled, when each spare is to be regarded as a substantial licensable firearm whereas only a certain quantity of firearms are allowed for certain categories of shooters or firearms?

1. This is a very real consideration to be kept in mind when looking at the upper echelons of the sports shooter fraternity as the amount of operating cycles that a firearm is able to handle is limited and spare parts are an absolute necessity.

19.3.3. I would also respectfully submit that it is manifestly unjust and prejudicial to require a sports shooter to licence all the individual parts, (Frame and barrel as well as fully functional firearm), as firearms with all the concomitant costs involved.

1. After all, the spare parts are actually only that, spare parts for the firearm that is already paid for and licenced and definitely not in any real sense a substantial firearm in own right.
2. Vide paragraph 18.3, supra, in this regard also.

19.4. Ad section 1 8.(4)(a): (Dedicated sports-shooting - A further licence).

19.4.1. It is respectfully submitted that the use of the word a in the act sends the wrong message in that only two firearms may be allowed for sports shooting.

19.4.2. As indicated by this writ and not lamenting the matter any longer, it is suggested that the act be changed to reflect the needs and vested rights of the sports shooters by:

1. Deleting the word a;
2. Substituting the word licence with licences;
3. Substituting the word firearm with firearms.

19.5. Ad section 1 8.(4)(b): (Dedicated sports-shooting - Further licence: Affidavits by the sports shooting association).

19.5.1. The placing of an onus on the administration of the accredited association with no indication as to what is expected of the association regarding the affidavit, is not to be supported.

19.5.2. The red tape for the association in supplying and/or obtaining affidavits, is not to be supported.

19.5.3. The South African Police Services should merely need to be satisfied of the necessity and for the bill to require the means of proof to be so stringent and inflexible, creates logistical complications and unnecessary red tape.

19.5.4. It is respectfully suggested that this subsection be scrapped.

1. Vide paragraph 20.2, infra.

19.5.5. It is respectfully suggested that should input be required from the shooting association, an official letter should suffice, as the supplying of fraudulent information is prohibited by not only common law, but also by the proposed act itself.

19.6. Ad section 1 8.(5)(a): (Dedicated sports-shooting firearm - Only used for hunting or sporting purposes).

19.6.1. The section brings about the untenable situation that I am forced to carry both my competition practical pistol and my self defense pistol, when attending competitions.

1. This is a great inconvenience seen in light of the fact that one is only allowed one pistol on one’s person during action shooting competitions.
2. What to do about the necessary "albatross" around one’s neck in these circumstances, as the situation will be prone to disaster, due inter alia to the physical rigours imposed by the sport?

19.6.2. It must also be kept in mind that should one need to use the firearm in self defense or of necessity, these defenses would hold good against any procedure or penalty that the proposed act is able to launch against the subject.

19.6.3. Quickly putting away the one’s sports shooting firearm if attacked on the shooting range, then grabbing the empty self defense firearm as specified by club rules, loading it and only then defending one’s life or property or that of one’s family and friends, negates the stark realities one is faced with in a crisis situation.

1. The subject’s survival rate would in all probability be non-existent, with resulting losses of firearms and life.

19.6.4. Perusing the act, the converse is of course true, namely that one may practice one’s sport with a self defense pistol.

1. Licencing a pistol meant for practical pistol purposes as a self defense firearm, may thus alleviate the very real potential problems in fraudem legis.
2. Perhaps another method would be for one member of a family to licence the firearm for dedicated sports shooting whilst the other licences it for self defense, which means that there is a severely discriminatory clause at work here.
3. Why should two people walking down the road, happily married and both rightfully in possession of the same firearm, both be entitled to use the firearm for sports purposes but only one of them be entitled to use it in self defense?

19.6.5. The illusion is also created that the constitution by implication holds hunting and sporting purposes, (Being specified in the section), in higher regard than self defense or necessity, (It being specifically omitted in the section).

1. This obviously is as far removed from what the true situation is supposed to be that it behooves no further address.

19.6.6. The act should with respect, promote responsible, competent and capable use of firearms, especially when self defense as at stake, as these situations could arise anytime and at any place.

1. Practical pistol shooters are without doubt more familiar or most knowledgeable with their competition pistols and the use of such sports shooting firearms is thus to be preferred to their/any other firearms.
2. Refusing these already strictly screened sports shooters to use the best suited firearm, with which they are the most competent and familiar with, in self defense, is not in the communities’ interest nor their own.
3. -This logic defying situation may be avoided should one be allowed to use a competition firearm for self defense, should the need arise.

19.6.7. Looking objectively at the situation, I respectfully submit that the distinctions that the act is trying to draw here, does not succeed to convince on basis of logic applied to situations at ground zero.

1. No parliamentary act with unjust, absurd or unenforceable clauses should slip through, however.
2. It is respectfully suggested that the situation created by this section, (And similar sections), is untenable and that the distinctions should be scrapped, as it does not realistically take the matter any further, but only creates double standards and potential problems.
3. Vide paragraphs 17.3 and 18.3, supra, again, the submissions being mutatis mutandis applicable.

19.7. Ad section 1 8.(5)(b): (Dedicated sports-shooting firearm - Used ... only on certain premises ... according to range rules).

19.7.1. The submissions regarding the use on specific premises have already been dealt with.

19.7.2. It is respectfully suggested that the section should allow shooting on premises suitable for not only hunting and on an accredited shooting range, but also on any suitable premises.

1. This had been in fact the situation the whole of any living shooter’s memory.
2. Changing this would definitely need good and valid motivation, with a specific evil that needs to be addressed with no other remedy available.

19.7.3. Raising club rules to the level of an act of parliament can not be supported, as indicated previously.

1. Vide paragraphs 12, 16.4 and 17.4 supra.

19.7.4. A further consideration is to be found in the word used, as it may only denote the actual firing of the firearm using live ammunition or may perhaps include what is known as dry firing.

i. This consists of exercises inter alia to present the gun fluently from the holster, going prone in a safe manner with the firearm, doing magazine changes, etcetera, without ever using live ammunition for the exercise’s purposes.

ii. This is done not on the shooting range, nor during competitions, but with an unloaded firearm at safe facilities, with safe backstops and privacy in mind.

iii. Should the word used be construed as to include dry firing, it will impact negatively on the shooting sport as a whole and seriously prejudice up to now totally acceptable conduct.

iv. How are the South African Police Services going to police this section?

v. Are warrants to search going to be carried out or listening devices going to be planted, to ascertain if top level competitors are breaking the law in their own homes, practicing for competitions?

19.8. Ad section 1 8.(6)(a): (Dedicated sports-shooting association - Register ... information ...).

19.8.1. Depending on what information may be prescribed, this may be a very serious infringement on my right to privacy.

19.8.2. Even though I compete in public in the sense that it is on private property with spectators allowed, it does not mean that it is now permissible to keep and have available something akin to a spy dossier on me.

1. How is the state or government, (With a possible duty to supply to a third party the information they have access to), going to perform their duties?
2. Is this information depending on the contents, going to be sufficiently safeguarded so as to protect the members of the association against abuse of confidential information?

20. Ad section 19: (Private collections).

20.1. Ad section 19.(1): (Private collections - Firearm ... approved for ... historic, technological, aesthetic or scientific characteristics by an accredited collectors association).

20.1.1. As beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so too it is with collecting firearms.

1. Any direction may be taken by a collector and as such every firearm so collected may have some characteristic or the other, although not of special significance, that would arguably bring it into the ambit of the section.
2. The section’s definition is therefore of little practical value, apart from stating the obvious.

20.1.2. The difficulty envisaged with the application of the wording, is however that for every firearm bought or acquired by a collector, said collector would upon application for a licence be required to submit a certificate from an association asserting the specific firearm to be approved in terms of the all encompassing definition.

1. The practical and logistical difficulties involved, militates against the clause be given effect.
2. The onus placed on non-governmental parties/persons to perform official duties on behalf of the government bodies and the applicants, albeit members of the association, is questionable to say the least.
3. These associations are without profit motive and the onus smacks of veiled slave labor.
4. Who is to decide how a firearm is to be adjudged and as to whether the association has exercised the quasi-judicial decision correctly or perfunctorily?
5. In case of disputes or even court proceedings following, who will carry the costs involved, as the state forces the subjects to perform these tasks.
6. Is it equitable for the state to expect the subject to execute these tasks, where the task and onus to correctly licence firearms is actually on the state?
7. What about personal differences and personality clashes influencing decisions in the associations and no guidelines supplied as to how these free services are to be performed nor any penalties forcing the association in performing these tasks equitably, speedily and correctly.

20.1.3. I respectfully submit that the application of this section has dubious value inasmuch as it places an onus on the subjects and the associations, with serious prejudice to the individuals involved.

20.2. Ad section 19.(2): (Private collections - Ammunition ... approved for ... historic, technological, aesthetic or scientific characteristics by an accredited collectors association).

The submissions as per paragraph 20.1, supra, are mutatis mutandis applicable here.

20.3. Ad section 19.(4): (Private collections - Firearms ... prohibited and restricted ... may be licenced ...).

This section is to be commended, as it also seems to recognize realities and the discretion of the Registrar.

20.4. Ad section 19.(5)(b): (Private collections - Affidavit by chairperson of accredited collectors association).

20.4.1. The placing of an onus on the chairperson of a non-profit association to supply affidavits, is questionable and not to be supported.

1. Members of such associations should - and usually do have certificates to confirm membership.
2. Certified copies of such certificate for the period in question should suffice, especially as the supplying of false information is punishable by law, whether supplied under oath or not.
3. Section 19(5)(a) specifies that the Registrar must merely be satisfied that the applicant is a member of a collector’s association, which prerequisite would be complied with by supplying a certified copy as mentioned.

20.4.2. What might be seen as a contentious aspect is the fact that the constitutionally enshrined freedom of association is at stake here.

1. The subject is however forced to partake in an association in order to be able to collect firearms, which is a substantially different situation from the dedicated sports shooter who specifically wishes to participate in a given association’s sport.
2. I started collecting firearms before any associations came to the fore in the Republic of South Africa, although I am at present a paid up member of a collector’s association.
3. Vide paragraph 10.10, supra, again.

20.5. Ad section 19.(8): (Private collections - Firearm ... may not be used unless the Registrar authorizes it’s use).

20.5.1. I respectfully wish to submit that the main object of any firearm is and has always been, to be fired, with extremely scarce exceptions.

20.5.2. I have always been able to shoot the firearms in my collection and to suggest that the Registrar is to suddenly in this regard now have a discretion to decide whether my firearms in my collection can be shot and to need permission to utilize and enjoy my own property, is unacceptable in the extreme.

20.5.3. What evil is avoided by limiting me in such a manner, after I have been found a fit and proper person to possess and shoot my firearms in the past, as well as having been a collector for some time, is with respect, quite beyond me.

20.5.4. This can be described as putting me into a psychological prison with the threat of now not necessarily qualifying to use my own property as I see fit, even though I do not pose any threat to my fellow man.

20.5.5. I am with respect unable to see any identifiable need for the Registrar to be empowered so as to be able to limit all use of collectable firearms.

1. Should there be a very specific instance that has to be catered for that would not have resulted in refusal of a licence, then that specific instance should be catered for without prejudicing potentially every owner of a firearms collection.

20.5.6. The submissions regarding self defense use of firearms apply mutatis mutandis.

1. Vide paragraphs 1.6, 4.7 and 19.6, supra, again.

20.5.7. This section is with respect not to be supported and should be scrapped or rectified to address a specific evil.

20.6. Ad section 19.(9)(a): (Private collections - On an accredited shooting range ... in accordance with the rules of ... range).

20.6.1. The issue of raising shooting range rules to the level of an act of parliament has been dealt with and the clause can therefore not be supported.

1. Vide paragraphs 17.4, 18.5 and 19.7, supra, again.

20.6.2. It is respectfully suggested that the firearms may be shot on any suitable range so as to include premises suitable for hunting or sports shooting or even on farms without game, as this has been the norm up to now.

20.7. Ad section 19.(9)(b): (Private collections - Only used ... in accordance with written authorization issued by the Registrar).

20.7.1. This section is not to be supported and should be scrapped.

20.7.2. The act should freely allow the safe utilization of firearms according to constitutional property rights on suitable ranges, as is presently allowed and required by law in any event.

20.7.3. Vide paragraphs 17.5, 18.6 and 20.6, supra, and the rest of this writ as mentioned.

20.8. Ad section 19.(11): (Private collections - Permit to collect ammunition ... not more than two hundred of one caliber).

20.8.1. Although I am also a collector of ammunition, I do not regard myself in as serious a light as when looking at practical pistol shooting.

20.8.2. Problems might arise as to how caliber is determined, for instance does the bullet or bore diameter have to vary or the cartridge case, if so, by how much, etcetera.

20.8.3. The number of rounds so allowed might cause problems as certain calibers have a plethora of variations and makes available, especially as one has to take into consideration that many collectors keep spares to barter with other collectors.

21. Ad section 24.(2): (Identification marks on firearms).

21.1. Ad section 24.(2): (Identification number on firearms - On the barrel and on the frame of the firearm).

21.1.1. The approach of bringing a frame into ambit of the act as a substantive firearm of it’s own accord, is not supported as indicated previously.

21.1.2. The necessity to put the number on the frame versus only on the barrel is therefore not supported.

21.1.3. Vide paragraphs 10.6, 12.3, 18.2 and 19.3, supra.

21.2. Ad section 24.(6): (Identification number on firearms - Altered ... tampered ... must notify the Registrar ...).

21.2.1. This section is superfluous in the sense that no one may erase or change numbers without being a gunsmith, who in turn has to have permission and all firearms or barrels should have serial numbers on them.

21.2.2. This section is a potential logistical nightmare for the public and the Registrar likewise.

1. How much alteration will be required, similarly the illegibility?
2. What precisely are the manufacturer’s serial number or any other identification number on a firearm and how does it pertain to the licenced number per the Registrar?

21.2.3. This section can not be supported as already mutatis mutandis set out in this writ.

21.2.4. Vide paragraphs 12.3,18.2 and 19.3, supra.

22. Ad section 25: (Renewal of licences).

Section 28 of the act is in interaction with this section and all submissions pertain mutatis mutandis to both sections.

22.1. There is an adage that states freedom once conferred, cannot be revoked, which upon the draconian application of these subsections dealing with the renewal/revocation of licences, may cause quite a bit of litigation.

22.1.1. Once a licence is issued and the firearm bought and paid for, there comes into existence vested rights of diversified nature, most of which are protected by the constitution.

22.1.2. Requiring the subjects to again apply for those rights to be recognized after it already being in operation for years and, in some instances, even before any act to regulate firearms came into being, infringes on these vested rights and interests.

22.1.3. Vide paragraph 8, as well as all my personal circumstances as set out in this writ, supra, again.

22.2. These new clauses are in effect creating up to now unheard of discriminatory clauses and mountains of red tape to throw at a category of citizens, to wit firearms owners.

22.2.1. When the collectors are taken as example, it appears that continued possession of firearms would probably become logistically impossible as fifty licences would mean fifty days spent processing licences at the police station, as the licences lapse one by one.

22.2.2. Literally piles of paperwork, coupled with the painstaking, continuous taking of fingerprints by scores of police officers, will do little but necessitate further job creations in an already understaffed and overworked South African Police Service.

22.3. The clauses are in effect also creating up to now unheard of punitive taxes to beleaguer a category of citizens, to wit firearms owners.

22.3.1. Financially the continual forced acquisition of revenue stamps would cause firearms to become prohibitively expensive to keep, also inter alia to the detriment of vested property rights.

22.3.2. Due to the severe financial burdens in order to buy and keep firearms, no second hand market would now suddenly exist for such, further burdening the law abiding subject who finds the value of his/her estate dwindling.

22.4. This can in no way be said or seen as some magical method to lessen crime at all, when taking the collector or bona fide sports shooter into account.

22.4.1. Trying to put such clauses into effect, creates distrust as to the intent of the bill, the police, the courts and government.

22.4.2. The system of jurisprudence as a whole, runs risk of falling into disrepute as the system is perceived to be incompetent; Criminals are not seen to be caught and punished but property rights are under attack by the law.

22.4.3. Treatment of the sports shooter and collectors borders on that being tendered to criminals and is humiliating to say the least.

1. The address as per paragraph 8.10, supra, is applicable.

22.5. Certain practical aspects are also lost in the dust of all the new sections.

22.5.1. What of the dedicated sports shooter who is forced to forfeit or sell firearms and is thereafter again able to take up the sport?

22.5.2. A myriad of reasons beyond the shooter’s control might have been at work in preventing his or her adequate participation in the specific sport.

22.5.3. Who will have to carry the financial burdens of again rigging up to compete and what of the Constitution’s protection of civil rights?

22.5.4. Is it equitable to open up the portals of potential prejudice to the law abiding licencee to this extent if he or she has not done anything wrong?

22.5.5. This situation is of such a severe nature that it could not reasonably have been foreseen nor been the intended result and is therefore to be avoided.

22.6. However, should the intent of re-licencing merely be to confirm the existence of the firearms and the confirmation of continued possession of such by the licenced holder, then there exists much more appropriate alternatives for these laudable purposes.

22.6.1. The confirmation of continued possession cum existence of the firearms per licences issued to the subject, is to be addressed;

22.6.2. A contentious and continually threatening infringement on the constitutional rights of the subject is to be avoided;

22.6.3. The firearms as a collection can be inspected as such, not "re-licenced" on a one off, continual basis;

22.6.4. No distinction need be made as to the different classes of firearms as the licence holder needs to be the person to be categorized, resulting in specified periods of inspection being applicable.

22.6.5. Bona fide categories of sports shooters and collectors, would therefore be inspected for the existence and possession of their firearms on a date as determined in the schedule, not on varied and continuous occasions.

22.6.6. No further taking of fingerprints with all the administrative red tape is necessary, as it is not an application for a licence, but merely a confirmation of facts.

22.6.7. Only one fee by means of the customary revenue stamp method, would be payable for purposes of the confirmation on date of confirmation, rather than the financially crippling repeated re-licencing.

22.6.8. I respectfully submit that all the safeguards regarding negligent loss, reporting of residential address changes, destruction or theft of firearms would still be applicable.

22.6.9. No prima facie prejudice appear to the efficient policing of the situation, should these suggestions be given effect.

22.6.10. The converse is actually true, in the sense that pushing ahead with the present unaltered bill containing the categorizing of firearms rather than the licence holders, would have:

1. Seriously flawed and perverted results, as set out in this writ;
2. Logistically impossible implications for the South African Police Services in applying the provisions;
3. Ill will generated by the public as it prejudices vested rights;
4. The effect of in fact being a veiled mechanism to disarm the lawful firearms owner and deprive said of property - and various other vested rights as mentioned per paragraph 8, supra.
5. A negative effect on the impact of the bill as regards the acceptance thereof by the public.

22.7. This would with respect, constitute an unwarranted discriminatory measure against my property and other rights, when compared to the other classes of property owners not being targeted likewise for punitive taxes, etcetera.

22.8. I respectfully submit that a general buying clause enabling the state to buy unwanted firearms could also be enacted, allowing for people who wish to do away with their firearms, but no provisions forcing firearms owners to hand in their firearms should be allowed, as this is extreme and severe under our constitution.

22.9. It must be kept in mind that it is the criminal element that needs to be addressed and not the law abiding, by creating hardship and prejudice for upstanding citizens.

23. Ad section 27: (Notification of change of circumstances).

23.1. Should it be accepted that a subject has vested rights and that he/she inter alia has property rights and the right to privacy, then the vast field that this section seems to cover, is not to be commended.

23.2. For instance even the subject’s right against self incrimination may be infringed by this section’s prescription that information is to be divulged.

23.3. I respectfully submit that the only constitutionally sound onus that may be placed on the subject are those that deal with the loss and theft, or absolute circumstances that by law has come to pass and which disqualifies the subject.

23.4. A clear and concise description of what would constitute such circumstances would however be needed to give effect to any criminal sanctions following. An example might perhaps be a conviction in court for a violent crime.

24. Ad section 48.: (Reloading ammunition).

24.1. Ad section 48.(2)(a): (Not more ... than 2.5 kilogram of propellant ... 2400 primers in possession at any time).

24.1.1. Even though the prejudicial effects of this section may seem to bypass myself as sportsman, it has negative implications.

i. A need for at least the following types of primers can be motivated in most instances:

• regular small pistol primers,
• magnum small pistol primers,
• regular large pistol primers,
• magnum large pistol primers,
• small rifle primers,
• magnum small rifle primers,
• large rifle primers,
• magnum large rifle primers.

ii. The quantities mentioned as per paragraphs 4 to 6, supra, need to be considered as well as the potentially flawed and slow supply lines at gun shops when the shooting season is in full swing.

iii. Primers are sold in modest bulk packaging of one thousand (1 000), which means that I could motivate perhaps at least eight thousand (8 000) primers in my possession at any given stage, without taking into consideration my practical pistol and Three gun sports shooting needs.

iv. The total need (Conservatively stated), could thus be stated as being for between twenty to thirty thousand (20 000 to 30 000) primers at my disposal at any given stage.

24.1.2. The justness of the limitation is also questionable as regards occasional sports shooters.

Vide paragraph 10.3, supra, again.

24.1.3. Frequent shooters and their family members may consume more components, due to them using more firearms than a person who for instance is in possession of only one self defense firearm which is rarely used.

24.1.4. It is respectfully suggested that the quantities could be double that and in some cases still be inadequate, especially if one is to consider the need for different components for each firearm.

24.1.5. A normal active shooter with a child or wife that also shoots, may easily consume two hundred rounds of .22 rifle rounds at a sitting, with a hundred or so self defense pistol rounds per person the norm.

i. This may happen once or twice a month;

ii. This practice is not to be discouraged as a competent firearms owner is much to be preferred to an apathetic one and practice makes as near as possible to perfect as is possible.

iii. Should the shooter be an active club level shooter who shoots in more disciplines, the amounts may double or triple.

iv. It is therefore respectfully suggested that in order to refrain forcing a shooter who does not want to be a dedicated shooter to apply to become one, the quantities be raised to at least three times as many primers.

24.1.6. Taking into account the clauses as per section 97 of the proposed bill, the allowed total quantity of two hundred rounds per firearm is wholly inadequate.

1. The so allowed totals is also unfair in the sense that additional licences in respect of the same firearms would have to be obtained in fraudem legis, should this be allowed, merely to be able to acquire larger quantities of ammunition;
2. As this makes no conceivable nor practical impact on the personal circumstances of the parties so as to inhibit crime, the quantities should be raised substantially.
3. The question is also raised in my mind as to how section 97 would be made to apply to my situation, now not being allowed more than a certain quantity of rounds for some of my firearms and large quantities for others.
4. I respectfully suggest that the scrapping of the individual firearms as the norm for regulating firearms use and needs, in lieu of rather categorizing the person or shooter, would do away with much of the vagueness and anomalies.
5. This makes perfect sense when one considers the fact that people have perceived needs which have to be addressed, not the firearms.
6. The anomaly also exists that with these small amounts of powder, a shooter who may have the legal limit of tinned propellant in possession, as well as a quantity of cartridges, will suddenly be in contravention if bullets have to be drawn from the loaded cartridges, should the total quantities of loose powder after drawing the bullets, exceed the limit of 2.5 kilograms.
7. Vide paragraph 26, infra, also.

24.2. Ad section 48.(2)(b)(i): (Not purchase more than 2.5 kilograms of propellant ... 2400 primers during any 12 month period).

The addresses as per paragraph 24.1, supra, refers.

25. Ad section 90: (Carrying of firearms).

25.1. The meaning of carrying attached to ...person, may lead to difficulties, in the sense that it is ambiguous when considering how a woman carries a firearm in her handbag.

25.1.1 Can be understood to mean having it in her hands, but that when the handbag is put down the act is contravened, or must it be strapped to her person?

25.2. Would a handbag qualify as a similar holder to a rucksack?

25.3. It is uncertain as to how the South African Police Services will interpret the bill as to whether the firearm is to be covered by the holster or as to whether clothing would suffice as complete cover.

25.3.1. No commercially available holster exists to my knowledge, that completely covers a handgun;

25.3.2. This seems to suggest clothing to be adequate cover.

26. Ad section 97: (Limitations on primers and propellant).

26.1. This subject has already been addressed as per paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, supra, with special reference also to paragraph 24, supra.

26.2. I respectfully suggest the amounts allowed to be inadequate, seen in light of the vested rights and customs.

26.3. I also suggest that as mentioned, the better storage of components rather be considered than the limitations on quantities.

26.4. By putting an onus on the Registrar to also entertain all the applications that are sure to follow, is straining the system with prejudice not only to the subjects, but also to the South African Police Services and the community at large.

27. Ad section 149: (Firearm free zones).

This section has serious implications on the right to life and liberty and to be free of violence because the right to self defense is implicated.

27.1. Due to my work situation and personal circumstances, a 24 hour per day guard for me as well as my immediate family can be motivated.

27.1.1. Vide paragraphs 1.4 and 4, supra, again.

27.2. As mentioned I respectfully submit should I not be forced to go about without adequate means of self defense.

27.3. The bland statement that all other parties in gun free zones will also be unarmed, is flawed in the extreme, as firearms are:

27.3.1. Smuggled anywhere and everywhere;

27.3.2. Usually authorized to be worn by police officers to all places, without interruption, (The matter of fact and one of the major problems being that even policemen assist the syndicates that I prosecute);

27.3.3. The most effective means of self defense under normal circumstances. This is especially so when:

1. The opponent/s outnumbers oneself;
2. The opponent/s are more violently inclined and physically capable of violence;
3. The opponent/s are in possession of knives, which are apparently not banned in firearms free zones;
4. The opponents are armed with any manner of blunt instruments, meant to be used to inflict injuries or worse;
5. The opponents are armed with firearms.

27.4. I therefore respectfully submit that any clause such as this being given effect, will have the anomaly as result that I, as officer of the court and prosecutor, may due to the fact that I prosecute criminals, be refused a reasonable opportunity and means to defend myself.

27.4.1. This whilst police officers who may even be secret members of the syndicates, are allowed to bear arms.

27.4.2. It is further of consequence as anomaly, that even in the normal run of the mill course of things, the one component of the prosecution is not allowed to bear arms, whilst the other component of the prosecution, to wit the police, are allowed.

27.4.3. Surely firearms in possession of most police officers are there mainly for self defense purposes and as no one persons’ life may be valued higher than that of another, it raises questions about the validity of such enactments if it pertains to public domain or areas.

27.5. I respectfully suggest that should such a clause be enacted and given effect, persons who show a special and real need to go armed, be given the opportunity to do so within the framework of the law, even in gun free zones.

27.5.1. Any other approach would mean that there is a vastly prejudicial and discriminatory situation being forced upon me.

28. Perfunctory mention may be made of several other sections that seem to have potentially unjust results or impractical implications. Due to a lack of time, the ambit of this writ and the length thereof, I would however refrain from such.

29. Although I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to respectfully tender this set of submissions, I wish to stress that it is by no means meant to be comprehensive nor have I perused all the relevant clauses, due to the time constraints involved.

30. I also trust that these submissions would be of some assistance and that serious consideration be given to the suggestions contained herein, as I have endeavored to place all facts on record in as objective manner as is possible under the circumstances.

I. Z. PANSEGROUW.