TRANSVAAL AGRICULTURAL UNION
June 9, 2000

Herewith our comments on the Revised Firearms Control Bill. Firstly we need to state in the strongest possible manner that we are dissatisfied at the way the legislator went about publishing this Bill. Although we have constantly tried to obtain an official version of the Bill, we did not succeed. Please find attached the letter from the Government Printers, Pretoria in response. Secondly we are extremely disappointed with the fact that the people most affected by this bill, the gun owners were not involved in drafting of the Bill. Finally it goes without saying that the time allowed for commentary is totally insufficient, particularly when viewed against the unavailability of the published Bill.

TAU again urgently requests that further opportunity for written and oral comment be allowed once the official document has been made available and has been obtained.

The TAU’s request for oral comment has also not been answered.

With this as background, the following submission is made based on specific principles established or ignored in the revised Firearms Control Bill, restricting the rights of the individual in a democratic society.

1. PUBLISHING OF THE BILL

Publishing the Bill as a section 75 Bill illustrates a specific approach to obtaining acceptance of the Bill by Parliament. It is therefore not strange that, seen against the background of the total approach taken with the drafting and introduction of the Bill since June 1999 that a large measure of suspicion has been established and this should be addressed as a matter of urgency and in view in the government’s alleged approach to transparency.

2. The right to private property

Every person has the right to private property in a democratic society – be it his car, house, farm, water or fire arm. That is the basis of a free and democratic society. When a person has the means to legally obtain and keep an object, that object legally belongs to that person and cannot be expropriated by the State or any other person. This act gives the State the right to expropriate a person’s firearm, alternatively to criminalize a tool and its legal owner.

3. RESTRICITNG AMMUNITION AND FIREARMS

We shall not become involved in a debate on the amount of ammunition or weapons a person should be able to obtain in a certain amount of time. When the principle of restricting the amount of ammunition or firearms is established, it automatically implies that that amount may be lowered. A ceiling on any private property is unacceptable in a democratic society – like South Africa.

A democratic government cannot prescribe to it’s citizens the amount of property they may hold. Government cannot force someone to own no more than a certain amount of cars, why should this be applicable to weapons or ammunition. A car in the wrong hands is certainly just as dangerous as a firearm… Will the same principles eventually apply to all private property, once established?

4. PURPOSE AND CONTENT OF THE BILL

Although the Act alleges the intent to curb violence, it has failed dismally in adhering to par. 7(2) of the Bill of Rights and is penalising law abiding citizens for it, as well as limiting the individual’s rights in terms of 12(c) by curbing his/her ability to protect him/herself in the absence of the State doing so.

According to the legislature the purpose of the Act is to remove illegal firearms and to control legal firearms. However, the Act is really only reducing the number of legal firearms. We support par. 2 of the purpose, if that is the true intention of the Act.

It however seems that there is little common ground between the purpose of the Act and the content thereof. How could the reduction of legal firearms curb crime and violence in this country? Reducing the number of licensed firearms will only leave law abiding citizens unable to defend themselves while the criminals govern the streets.

Government should first address crime, before attempting to remove legal weapons form society.

5. GUN FREE ZONES

Although one can certainly not have a problem with the principle of a gun free zone, there is no such thing as a crime free or violence free zone in South Africa today. History has proved that people can easily be gunned down in a tavern, restaurant, church or a the gate of a farm and women are raped in public places. The emphasis should thus be placed on making public places crime free rather than focussing on making them gun free. A gun free zone is a paradise for a criminal carrying a firearm

6. COMPETENCY CERTIFICATES AND LICENSES

If a person was declared competent once, and a licence issued, that license should remain legal unless a criminal offence where the use of a firearm was involved is established in a court of law..

The State does not have the manpower or the capacity to administrate the increased burden.

Furthermore we stress that the individual does not keep a diary for a period of 60 months, and knowing that the Registrar does not have the ability to notify licence holders in time to renew licences, the burden is placed on the individual, leading to a situation where a legal firearm can be confiscated because of an administrative oversight.

Failure by the State to renew licenses, whether on purpose or due to the administrative burden can easily result in all licensed firearms becoming illegal weapons eventually resulting in:

1. a criminal’s paradise once it becomes known that the whole of society is disarmed;
2. disarmament without expropriation

The Registrar will not have the funds the resulting long bureaucratic line and clumsy system of administration would require, which means that the burden of this will also eventually fall on the law abiding citizen. The person, who needs a weapon merely to survive in a corrupt, crime ridden South Africa, will not be able to afford this. The South African economy can surely use this money better for social upliftment.

Failure to renew licenses whether on purpose or due to administrative burden could result in all firearms being made illegal with extensive implications. This may not be the eventual goal of the present government, but could quite easily be that of a future government and is therefore totally unacceptable by organised agriculture. Also, the financial burden placed on individual firearm owners can quite easily be viewed as an additional form of taxation placed on private property and can thus create a irreparable rift between government and its law abiding citizens while the issue of illegal weapons is not addressed at all. Thieves and murderers do not require or apply for licenses.

The State does not have the capacity to renew competency certificates in such short intervals. The legal owner of a firearm often does not have the financial ability to cope with this situation. The resulting burocratical red tape is also unacceptable. The TAU is further concerned that intervals between expiry of competency certificates and licences are not synchronised.

1. AGE OF APPLICANTS FOR FIREARM LICENSES

The TAU agrees with the exemptions made in the Bill for persons under the age of 18 to apply for a license. However we would like to see same exemptions made for people under the age of 18, whose lives are under constant threat – for instance farmers and their children.

2. COMPENSATION

This legislation will create a society where the legal owner of a firearm will have great difficulty in disposing of that firearm through a dealer as it also affects the market value of the private property. It is doubtful that the State will have the means to compensate all firearm owners for the firearms at market value, if it cannot be resold. This is viewed as a means of expropriation and is therefore totally unacceptable to organised agriculture.

The powers allocated to the Minister could easily lead to the abuse of power by government. Although the current Minister of Safety and Security is not under suspicion, no guarantees can be given regarding future governments. Therefore specific restrictions should be placed on the Minister and power returned to parliament where it obviously belongs.

As the Bill is even now incomplete, we will welcome and appreciate the opportunity for further comment, and participation in public debate on the Bill.

The TAU would like to refer to the submission on the previous Bill dated 20 January 2000, which is attached to this.

TAU would like to confirm that its motivation and comments which is attached has not changed and is still very relevant, therefore needs to be taken into consideration. We look forward to having the opportunity to table further motivation and comments, thus to make a substantial contribution to an acceptable Firearms Control Act, which would be conducive to a situation of trust between the democratic government of South Africa and its law abiding citizens.

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Portfolio Committee for Safety and Security on an extremely important and sensitive subject, The Firearms Control Bill.

We wish to place on record that this submission shall in no way repudiate or replace the written submission to the Committee, dated June 9, 2000.

We further wish to place on record that the Union will support legislation aimed at curbing violence by clamping down on illegal firearms in South Africa and the neighbouring countries. As victims of countless farm attacks and murders which is at present severely restricting the activities of the industry, employing some 600 000 workers and supporting their families, we are of the opinion that all attempts should be made to reduce the level of violent crime in our country.

In fact we will actively support such efforts, on condition that such measures does not infringe on the rights of our members.

Nevertheless, we have a number of concerns and viewpoints regarding the proposed legislation, which needs to be tabled.

The contribution of the agricultural industry, including game farmers and the hunting fraternity, to the national economy is considerable and not to be ignored. We feel that any disruption or negative action regarding the industry will also reflect on the national economy.

Organised agriculture will state categorically that the prosperity of South Africa is of major concern to us and therefore will appreciate any actions to enhance that prosperity and wealth creation, to the benefit of all South Africans.

The present tendency regarding farm attacks and murders in our opinion does not have much in common with the national crime statistics, with more than 5 000 attacks and 800 murders since 1994. With this in mind and as background, farmers will not be convinced that a reduction of and stricter control over legal firearms, shall have any impact on the possession of illegal weapons used in farm attacks and murders.

We understand that it is simply impossible at present for Government, the South African Police Services and the South African National Defence Force to guarantee the safety of a farmer or the employees on any specific farm. It is thus up to us the people themselves to protect the area and its inhabitants. Hence it is a fact that farmers co-operate with the security forces in maintaining law and order.

The problem lies obviously not with the licensed owners of firearms, but rather with the criminal element within the South African society. It is that element which needs to be focused on, without restricting the rights of law abiding citizens.

It is the unknown number of illegal weapons in South Africa that is creating a problem for Government and by attacking the owners of licensed firearms through legislation is simply establishing a paradise for criminals who has never cared for the legal system, neither its enforcers. They would simply adore a situation where everyone else was defenceless and bunched together in gunfree zones and with the Police out of reach. Let us not get down to examples of which there are many.

In terms of the Constitution of South Africa, each individual shall have the right to a safe environment and is it the duty of the State to create and maintain such an environment for all.

We suspect that the anti-gun lobby will suggest that this is the ultimate goal of the proposed legislation. We differ form that viewpoint as criminals do not apply foe licences and do not fear the legal system. They have never, nor will they in future, have any respect for gunfree zones. In fact these zones will be where the sort targets are to be found. Fruit ripe for the picking.

Similar legislation has not delivered the required results anywhere it was applied, why should it do so in South Africa. With the crime situation as it is, no room is left for experimenting, especially where the lives of innocent people are concerned. That is a recipe for disaster. Something all South Africans can do without and which Government does not need, if it wants to build a prosperous country.

We believe that by rather encouraging people to obtain a licensed firearm, a climate will be established through which firearms can be controlled and policed effectively. It should be relatively easy and affordable to trace the owner of a registered firearm as opposed to that of an illegal weapon, if effective control measures are in place. We further believe that current legislation is more than adequate if enforced.

We are of the opinion that any legislation restricting the rights of individuals to defend and protect themselves, while the responsible authorities are incapable of doing so, is in fact equally as criminal as the actual crime, therefore should be urgently revisited.

Apart from the above, a firearm is a tool to a farmer, protecting his precious crops, of for the protection against snakes etc. Restriction of ammunition is thus irresponsible and unthinkable.

A matter for consideration is the investment made into firearms. As regard to arms in addition to the limitations placed by the legislation, we need to know who will stand in for the loss in re-sale value of a firearm, once the legislation has distorted the market. Will Government reimburse owners when the re-sale value of firearms are pushed down while owners are forced to rid themselves of it?

The Bill specifically enforces membership of sport or hunting organisations. We believe that this infringes on the individual right to associate of not and raises a contestable issue.

The fact that licences will have to be renewed, creates specific problems. We believe that this section in the Bill leaves the door open for a number of situations. Although it is the present Governments intention to curb violence, a future government could quite easily exploit this and decide not to renew licences after a specific date, resulting in presently legal weapons becoming illegal, with severe penalties on law abiding citizens.

This Bill, if it becomes applicable, will only result in more illegal firearms, as it is part of human nature to protect oneself and its own, irrespective of whether it is by legal means or not. With this as background, we plead with you, the Committee, not to allow a climate where your normal citizens are left defenceless, because of legislation drafted through you. It is your duty to protect the people of South Africa. We would prefer supporting you, rather than oppose your Bill.

It is our democratic right not to be penalised because of the Governments inability to control illegal arms and / or crime in general.

The Transvaal Agricultural Union is affiliated with the National Firearms Forum (NFF) and would further support the comments that the NFF will table at a later stage.

Finally, we propose that experts on the technical issues, as well as on safety, apart from the official structures be drawn in to assist in the drafting of a Bill which would eventually have the support also of firearms owners. This, and only this would be conducive to trust in the goals of the South African Government.

Conclusion:

We quote Mr. Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun owners of America:

"A free people need to be armed.

Disarmed people can be easily exploited and oppressed.

If a Government doesn’t trust it’s citizens with weapons, then the citizens cannot trust the Government with power.

A Government that fears the people is itself to be feared.

For this reason a Government should never have a monopoly of force or weaponry."

We thank you.

JACK LOGGENBERG

TRANSVAAL AGRICULTURAL UNION