Section 120, (Chapter 15 - Presumptions) of the proposed bill speaks of a person is presumed guilty of possession of a firearm unless that person can raise any reasonable doubt as to the contrary. This presumption is in dangerous contravention of our constitution and our rights. This section not only affects firearm owners like myself, it effects all South African citizens.

For example, one could visit the local Spar after a robbery has taken place. The robbers may have fled, leaving behind several unlicenced firearms and anyone innocently walking in to buy a loaf of bread will be, under the proposed legislation, presumed guilty until that person can give a very good reason why they are innocent. This is totally against our common law and contradicts our present law.

This tells me that the bill is trying to secure convictions by taking away the need for the police to prove a person’s guilt instead of using proper law enforcement procedures.

Keep the existing act pertaining to this section, deploy more properly trained policemen, more resources for those policemen and an effective criminal justice system. The criminal must know that CRIME DOES NOT PAY and that he will be caught and punished.

At the moment, crime IS paying.

Chapter 6 clause 19(4)

The right to life is entrenched in our Constitution. Who has the right to tell me how I can defend myself, with what instrument and with what force? In this day and age it seems that the criminal has far more rights than the law abiding citizen. When a criminal gets the best treatment in the best hospital at the expense of the tax-payer, the victim is left to fend for himself/herself and has to bear all his/her own hospital costs.

As far as I am concerned, it is my right to defend myself, my family and my property with whatever lawful means possible. It is my right to have a firearm for self-defence or for sporting purposes or for hunting. It is unreasonable of the government to prescribe to me that I cannot use my sporting firearm for self-defence. If the government deem me responsible enough to have a firearm – whether it be a handgun, rifle or shotgun – then I have the right to use this firearm for any lawful purpose. The lawful purpose can then be for self-defence, sport, hunting, collecting, culling etc. etc.

At this moment, my house has a solid brick boundary wall with an electric fence; the house has an alarm which is linked to armed response; I have two large dogs; the house has massive burglar bars on all the windows, yet the Police still cannot protect me. Even with all these precautions, an intruder came over my wall early last year and without the security of my handgun I would not have attempted to chase the burglar away. Fortunately, no shot was fired and the burglar and his accomplices fled the premises.

Any attempt to restrict me in my lawful right to protect myself, my property and my family is an infringement of my constitutional and human rights. I view this proposed legislation as the first step in removing my rights.

Once the person has met with the governments criteria with regard licensing, any firearm may be used for any lawful function including self defence.

Revolver (this firearm can carry five to six cartridges)
Pistol (this firearm can carry up to16 cartridges)

The proposed legislation seeks to stipulate and categorise uses for each type of firearm. This is clearly unworkable and unenforceable. It is also not based on any clear evidence that this type of legislation is required.

I have several shotguns, which I use for Clay Target Shooting, bird hunting and pest control. These shotguns are used on formal Clay Target shooting ranges, informal Clay Target shoots, farms and private property. All these uses are perfectly legal – why is there a need to list them in this legislation? According to the legislation (Section 19 (4)), I will no longer be able to use my shotgun on a farm. Is this the real intention of the bill?

The same goes for my rifles. I go to the local shooting range to sight them in; I use them for hunting on various farms and for target practice. This leads me to my next question: why should I have to report to the government each time I use one of these firearms in order to continue to justify retaining the licence? This is not going to do anything other than cause more bureaucratic burden on the state. It will not reduce crime. Although this is not exactly stipulated in the present bill, it was in the previous version and is now covered by regulations (Section 18(5)), which we don’t have.

In my culture and upbringing, the use of hunting and sporting firearms are a major part of my life. I feel that I do not need to justify to the Central Firearms Registry my ‘need’ to have a multiplicity of firearms.

As my hobbies of hunting and sport shooting are perfectly legitimate and honourable pastimes, why does this government feel the need to persecute me and victimize me to take this enjoyment away? My hobbies and sport are not a threat to the national security of South Africa, nor a threat to the safety of its citizens. This fact can be borne out by the evidence of responsible behaviour of 99.9999% of its participants.

I have been shooting and hunting for 25 years (I am 36 years old) and have participated in many South African National Teams for Clay Target Shooting. I still do not see the need to justify why I need more than one or more firearms. My sport alone has several different disciplines which require different types of shotguns.

1) FITASC Sporting

The preferred equipment for this discipline is a 12 gauge over and under shotgun with 28 inch or 30 inch barrels.

2) ATA Trap

The preferred equipment for this discipline is a 12 gauge over and under shotgun with 30 inch or 32 inch barrels. Trap shooters usually prefer a higher stock.

3) Olympic Trap (singles and doubles)

The preferred equipment for this discipline is a 12 gauge over and under shotgun with 30 inch barrels.

4) Olympic skeet

The preferred equipment for this discipline is a 12 gauge over and under shotgun with 26 inch barrels. Skeet shooters prefer a lower stock and a lighter weighing firearm for ease of movement.

When I go hunting for biltong and meat I usually shoot kudu and eland. My preferred rifle is a .300 Holland and Holland which is owned by my brother. I personally use a .30-06 most of the time and up until the amendment of section 8 of the arms and ammunitions act, I could borrow my brother’s rifle without a problem.

I reload my own ammunition that I have designed which is 100% compatible with my rifle.

If I shoot springbuck I need to use a small to medium size caliber, like a .243 caliber or a .22-250 caliber as the 30-06 caliber is to heavy for springbuck shooting.

I also help a couple of my farmer friends with pest control so I use a light caliber rifle for this task as the .30 06 caliber rifle is to much of a heavy caliber for small game. Here I have also designed reloads for maximum accuracy.

If I am responsible enough to have 2 firearms then there should be no limits imposed.

If the government persists in its reasoning that the more licenced firearms in circulation, the more firearms there are available to be stolen, where is the proof of this?

Hypothetically, once all licenced firearms are removed from circulation/society, what is the government going to do then about all the illegal weapons? i.e. all the R1s, R4s, and R5s? And all the police pistols which have been stolen? How is the government going to protect me from all these illegal weapons in the hands of criminals? This is a perfect recipe for a thriving black market for illegal firearms. The logic is not there, and the proof is not there to suggest that we will all be safer once licenced firearms have been removed from law-abiding citizens

Licence the person to be in possession of a firearm. When this person applies for their first licence, ensure that stringent checks are done to ensure that he/she is a law abiding citizen, conforms with the existing law and is responsible to be in possession of a firearm. Once this person has met the governments criteria, they should be able to have as many as they want and should be able to use any of the weapons for any lawful function including self defence.

Section 94

The proposed bill states that I can only have 200 cartridges at any one time.

As a sportsman involved in Clay Target Shooting, one provincial championship entails 200 targets. The rules of my discipline allow for two shots per single target. With 8 national and provincial championships, this is 1600 targets, ie 3200 shots.

This is apart from regular club competitions per month and regular practice sessions. I presume the drafters of the bill did not confer with my sports association over these issues because if they had, any ammunition limits would be strongly argued against because there are no practical benefits.

I also shoot Guinea-fowl, francolin, geese, pigeons, duck and quail. Depending on the quarry that I am hunting, I need to use different shot sizes, eg. For geese I will use a number 4.50mm or 5.10mm size pellet, whereas if I am hunting quail, I will use a number 2.00mm or 2.25mm size pellet. I can shoot between 50 and 500 shot in a day, so again it is impossible to have only 200 cartridges at any one time.

If I go hunting game, for meat and biltong, I need to have a number of rifle cartridges. For example if I shoot springbuck, I usually shoot between 25 and fifty shots. I also need to keep my eye in practice, so I shoot another 25 to fifty shots at target practice. In other words I need more than 200 rifle cartridges as I use a couple of my rifles as well as my shotgun and handgun. So it would be very unfair to limit any firearm enthusiast or me to only 200 cartridges.

We often buy in bulk because prices are better and supply of local ammunition is erratic at best, and non-existent at worst.

In principle, the idea of ammunition restriction is pointless, a waste of time and a waste of resources at the CFR. There is no evidence to prove that sportspeople are a danger to society.

From what I have seen, the initial draft of this bill included various clauses for dedicated sportspeople. For example, in order to be given the accreditation one had to shoot at least 50% of the competitions in a year. This no longer appears in the proposed bill, but it has been governed by regulations. These regulations have not been given to us. Why not? Where is transparency which this government keeps on talking about? I think that most of the restrictive clauses which were contained in the previous draft are now going to be covered in the regulations. These regulations will not have to pass through the legislative and parliamentary procedure and therefore can be passed without consultation. This is an infringement of our constitutional rights whereby we must be consulted in proposed legislation because it directly affects us.

This also effectively gives legislative powers to the executive, which is unconstitutional.

Chapter 2, sub section 3A

This type of clause gives far too much power to the Minister for Safety and Security. Why have a 70 page bill when there are several clauses which could reduce it to about 3?! If the Minister has the power to make any firearm or ammunition prohibited; or to declare any place a ‘gun free zone’; or to simply change the law by regulation; or to change anything else he wants to; why have this bill in the first place?

With regard to prohibited weapons, as the proposed law stands, the Minister can declare my shotguns or rifles prohibited and confiscate them without compensation. This is theft. This is unconstitutional and this is undemocratic. This goes against our property rights.

According to chapter 2 of the bill of rights, property section 25 (2b) of our constitution, compensation must be determined by a court of law, but the proposed bill states in chapter 19 section 140 the Registrar will decide on compensation, this is unconstitutional.

Why have this clause? If a new type of handgun comes onto the market, why would it be declared prohibited? There are already very good descriptions of which firearms/items are prohibited. The same goes for a rifle and a shotgun. So there are possible explanations: One, the minister wants to have a clause so that if the drafters have missed something, they can enact it without going through parliament. Two, at any point, the minister can simply declare a certain type of shotgun or rifle prohibited without the need for the legislative process

Declaration of prohibited weapons must be passed by parliament, not just presented to parliament and /or remove this clause from the proposed bill.

These should not be restricted. When I coach young people or ladies, the semi-automatic shotgun is perfect for this as recoil is minimal. It is not a preferred firearm of choice by criminals, so why restrict it? There is most definitely a legitimate need for this type of firearm in sport shooting. Whether one is a dedicated sportsperson or an occasional sportsperson, the need for a semi-automatic shotgun is perfectly reasonable and legitimate.

This legislation is clearly and simply aimed at restricting the law-abiding citizen for the sake of it.

To me it looks like the ultimate goal is total control over people – and you cannot do that if they are armed.

The new South African Government speaks of democracy, but there has been no transparency in the creation of this proposed Firearms Control Bill. I believe the reason for this is to implement controls over the South African people, with as little resistance as possible as the Government understands its own people and fears their displeasure at the lack of progress it has made in upliftment. Examples of what could happen are countries such as Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

It is obvious that the ultimate goal of the SA government is to disarm all its civilians – this has even been confirmed by Azar Cachalia. However, to suddenly tell all the SA citizens that they must hand in all their firearms within a 24 hour period would cause absolute havoc! So now the government is working its way gradually towards this goal.

I implore the Portfolio Committee to send this legislation back to the drafting committee with the following strict instructions

1. To make use of the expertise of the National Firearms Forum and its members
2. To instruct it to re-draft the bill to ensure that it complies with the South African Constitution
3. To read and understand about firearms for: Hunting, sport and self-defence
4. To take notice of well-documented research and proof about the rights to self-defence