I am a member of SAGA, SA Wingshooters, a private wingshooting syndicate called On the Wing and the current Chairperson (and of course member) of the Bushveld Conservation Bureau. I also help out as "Gun" at working gundog field trials.

This hunting season I participated in the following hunts:

My areas of concern are:

_________________________

Section 17 : Licence to possess firearm for occasional hunting and sports-shooting states:

And definition (xx) states:

This provision limits an occasional hunter to four firearms and includes in the count any self-defence weapons the hunter may own. This provision appears to be based on the beliefs that a) a hunter needs to be a member of an accredited organisation before he is no longer an occasional hunter and b) that an occasional hunter (however defined) can satisfy his hunting requirements with an arbitrary limit on the number of firearms he may own. In my opinion these beliefs are incorrect.

As a hunter I would be reluctant to produce a standard that would separate the occasional hunter from the dedicated hunter. There is no clear distinction that can be made as there are varying degrees to each hunter's involvement in the sport. Some may only hunt occasionally (because of time or financial constraints) but are dedicated to the sport. Put another way they hunt as often as they possibly can. How would one classify such a hunter?

Hunting is an incredibly varied sport and the more aspects a hunter is involved in the more firearms the hunter is likely to need. In order to expand on this I would like to describe the Bushveld Conservation Bureau (BCB) to the Committee.

The BCB was formed in 1986 in answer to a problem that farmers experience - what to do when faced with problem animals on their farm. The problem animals I refer to are stock- and crop-raiders; for example jackals can take newly-born lambs, warthogs and baboons wreak havoc on mielie fields and pigeons can eat up to 30% of a sunflower crop. There are some measures a farmer can take, for instance electric fencing has been tried to limit access to mielie lands and of course the farmer can use poison or traps to kill or catch jackal. Electric fences are expensive to install and maintain and experience has found their effectiveness to be limited. Poison and traps are obviously not specie specific and poison in particular is not environmentally friendly.

To help out the BCB offers its services as a problem animal hunting club. We will go to a farm and selectively hunt those species (or even individual animals) that are causing the farmer problems. Our activities are specific to the farmers problem, we will not target the wrong animals and there are no lingering side effects to the environment. In some instances the farmer could of course do his own hunting; but that supposes he has nothing better to do with his time (and as we all know farming is a full time occupation) and in some instances (like pigeons) a single gun is just not enough to have an effect. We do not charge for our services nor do we pay the farmer for the hunting, we do it for the love of our sport.

We are based in the Gauteng region and at present we have more than 90 members. Currently we are not accredited with the SAPS as a hunting club although we have applied for such recognition. Reading on you will find some of our hunting activities commonly consist :

These are small animals, requiring small bullets that do not over-penetrate.

Typical firearm/calibre --- Rimfire or Centre-fire .22 rifle

Slightly larger animal, allowing for larger calibre

Typical firearm/calibre --- Centre-fire .22 rifle up to 6mm rifle

Small animal, shotgun can be used as it is possible to get close enough to these animals.

Typical firearm/calibre --- Rimfire .22 rifle/12 gauge shotgun

These animals are nocturnal but also are very intelligent animals. Shots are generally long distance.

Typical firearm/calibre --- 6mm rifle up to .30 calibre rifle

Large animal, notoriously tough. Requires a medium calibre rifle.

Typical firearm/calibre --- 7mm rifle up to .30 calibre rifle

Baboons operate in troops, are far more difficult to hunt accordingly and shots are normally long distance.

Typical firearm/calibre --- 6mm rifle up to .338 calibre rifle

However these will be rifles designed for long range shooting.

Generally this shooting is over sunflower fields. As a result shotguns will be used exclusively.

Typical firearm/calibre --- 20 or 12 gauge shotgun

Figure: 1

This is not an exhaustive list of our activities, nor is it a definitive list of the firearm requirements. For instance a number of handguns have been made in what are considered traditional rifle calibres; thus shooting a warthog with a Thompson Contender handgun would be entirely appropriate. It is important to note that the hunter is obligated to hunt his prey with an appropriate weapon. It would be totally unethical to attempt to shoot a jackal or a warthog with a rim-fire 22. While it would be possible to kill the animal the chances of wounding it and thus causing it unnecessary suffering are just too great. Likewise to use too large a calibre on a small animal is just as inappropriate and potentially dangerous through ricochets.

In the light of this participating in all the common activities of the BCB would require rifles in centre-fire 22, "normal" 6mm/.30, "long range" 6mm/.338 and a shotgun; typically in 12 gauge. However the vast majority of hunters own a rim-fire 22 rifle (a requirement I will cover later) and thus as an occasional hunter within the BCB would have to forego some of the BCBs activities.

In addition to these activities the BCB members indulge in other hunting activities, such as the annual biltong hunt. In my case I participated in two such hunts and for those I used my .375 rifle; a calibre you will note is not even mentioned in the above list.

I currently own 4 firearms, but do not own a centre-fire .22 rifle. This is the next firearm I would like to buy, but this Bill would prevent this should it come into law. Even if I were declared a dedicated hunter; which is defined as:

I would be restricted by section 18 which states:

Of the organisations to which I belong only SA Wingshooters is accredited. This would see the Chairperson of a wingshooting organisation supporting an application for a rifle that will not be used for wingshooting; a paradoxical situation I am sure the drafters of this Bill could not have desired. Furthermore if the Chairperson decides not to support my application (purely on the grounds that it is to be used outside the ambit of the organisation) that will effectively mean refusing my application. That surely is a privilege only the Registrar should enjoy. In order to "beat the system" I would have to join an accredited rifle hunting organisation, pay lip service to its membership and get a supporting affidavit from its Chairperson. I'm sorry but surely that can't be the intention of this Bill and I cannot see myself acting in this way.

As Chairperson of the BCB this clause poses several problems. The Bill does not state the requirements in order to be accredited. Is it to be a formality or will the Club have to meet certain criteria to be published later? If it is the latter I cannot support a provision that might threaten the very existence of the Club.

If such accreditation is granted another set of problems present themselves, problems I would like to discuss later. This is a Catch 22, or rather "I'm damned if I do and I'm damned if I don’t".

There is a final paradox, if I felt the need to acquire a handgun for self-defence I would have to achieve recognition as a dedicated hunter to go over the four fire-arm limit. In other words I would have to become a dedicated hunter in order to protect myself.

Section 94 states:

Any person who is not a dedicated hunter or sportsperson (which includes myself at present) that owns either a rimfire 22 rifle or a shotgun would fall foul of point 94.1 every time they bought ammunition. Shotgun ammunition is typically sold by the "case" of 500 (20 boxes of 25 cartridges) and 22 rimfire ammunition is sold by the "brick" of 500 (10 packets or boxes of 50 cartridges). Moreover each calibre has several types of ammunition available.

In order to show how shotgun ammunition is classified I ask the Committee to please refer to the following cut-away drawing of a shotgun shell.

Figure: 2 [PMG Note: picture not included]

Shotgun ammunition is graded according to the size and total weight of the shot (3) that is loaded in the shell. There is no other difference between the different types of shotgun ammunition; yet this difference is fundamental to the decision of which ammunition to buy or reload. The popular sizes of shot are 7 (or 7½) used for pigeons and clay pigeon shooting, 4 and 5 for ground bird and smaller waterfowl, 3 and 1 and sometimes AAA for large waterfowl.

The various standard weights available are 24, 28 32 and 35 grams; although magnum loads up to 40 grams or more exist. If one starts determining the various permutations of shot size and weight it is easy to foresee difficulty in keeping within the 200 cartridge restriction. In practice the average hunter is likely to have a case (500) of no. 7 ammunition, several boxes (of 25 cartridges) or even a case of no. 5 and an assortment of various other shot sizes.

It is possible to fire up to 300 – 400 rounds on an exceptional pigeon shooting day. For the sportsperson a round of clay pigeons comprises 25 of these clay pigeons. As this sport normally limits the shooter to two shots per "bird" potentially 50 shots could be fired at these 25 clays. Very seldom is the sportsperson going to shoot just one round in a day’s sport, this Bill would effectively limit the extent to which a hunter or sportsman could participate in their sport on any given day.

For the 22 rimfire rifle the projectile can be either solid or hollow-point and it can be propelled at either sub-sonic, standard, high or even hyper velocities. It is not uncommon for the average hunter to have a brick (500) of subsonic and a brick of high velocity .22 ammunition and also an assortment of the other types of 22. cartridges.

If application is made in terms of clause 94.3 the restriction on the annual purchases can be lifted, but not on the limit of 200 at any one time so this particular problem cannot be alleviated. I expect almost every dedicated hunter and sportsperson will apply to have the annual restriction lifted, to the point where this will become the norm.

I have highlighted two ammunition types but it is possible to exceed these limits with just about any ammunition type, especially when taking into account definition

The problems of limits for reloading will be dealt with, but suffice to say primers are available in packets of 100 or "bricks" of 1000, and as they are fairly cheap (around R15/100) they are normally bought in large quantities. While it appears that the solution is to buy fewer primers at a time there are problems with this as I shall point out later.

In the memorandum of objects of the Firearms Control Bill

(B34 – 2000) it is stated:

I humbly suggest that the restrictions proposed in the Bill cannot and will not have this desired effect, for several reasons.

1. To be facetious, I could commit a lot of crimes with 2 400 rounds of ammunition a year.
2. What are the criminal's actual ammunition requirements. How often are shots actually fired during the average hijacking or armed robbery?
3. There have been several reports in the media of arms and ammunition thefts from the Army and SAPS, this provision will not stop this source at all.
4. Is there evidence to indicate that ammunition is being unlawfully sold to criminals currently? If so what is being done to punish the perpetrators?

It is my understanding that it is illegal to sell ammunition to anyone without a dealer's licence under the current Law, and I know that it is currently illegal to reload for a third party; surely these restrictions should be sufficient? It seems to me that all legal firearm owners are being punished through this Bill because of an inability to enforce the current Law. Although the exact detail of the regulations that dealers will have to adhere to is not available it seems clear that ammunition purchases will be recorded and the data will be available to the CFR and the SAPS. May I suggest that this data could be used to determine suspicious ammunition purchases and the SAPS investigate the people involved.

Section 96 states in part:

I must assume that the drafting team was not fully aware of the processes involved in and reasons behind reloading when they drafted this section.

The reason any hunter and most sportsmen reload is not merely to save costs; on the contrary unless one reloads a large amount of ammunition it is difficult to recoup the cost of the equipment. People primarily reload in order to achieve better accuracy than factory ammunition achieves. Firearms are unique and a load that works well in one firearm is not guaranteed to work well in another. To quote from Somchem’s (our local propellant manufacturer) reloading guide "A given load can function satisfactorily in one weapon but not necessarily in another of the same calibre". To overcome this hunters invest in several thousand rands worth of reloading equipment and develop a load that is accurate in their rifle.

Figure: 3 [ PMG note: Photo not included]

The four main components that make up a complete cartridge are the bullet (1), the brass or case (2), the powder or propellant (3) and the primer (4). Changing any one of the components alters the performance and accuracy of the load. Thus developing a load involves a process of trying different powders, primers, cases and bullets. Once a suitable load has been established it is normal for the reloader to purchase sufficient quantity of the particular components to satisfy several year's requirements. This is firstly so that a particular load can be reproduced as none of the components used in the original load have changed and secondly it is quite expensive to load up and shoot the large number of rounds required to establish an accurate load.

It is recognised that different batches of a particular propellant will behave slightly differently, so if propellant from a new batch is purchased (even though it is of the same type) it is necessary to return to the drawing board and re-check the load's performance.

I feel the drafters were also not aware that different firearms require different propellant and different primers. 2.5kg of propellant equates to 5 standard tins (each tin holds .5kg).

Figure: 4

The above table lists the 10 types of powder manufactured by Somchem and indicates the usage for each type. The following table compares our local powders against the various powders made internationally. With a limit of 5 tins the experimentation that reloaders engage in will be severely limited.

Figure: 5

The implication of this all is that reloaders will be severely restricted by the very provisions that were to have made their lives easier.

There also appears to be a contradiction with clause 94.1 as this restricts the owner to no more than 200 cartridges, and a primer is defined as being a cartridge.

Section 18 states:

My objection to this is mainly aimed at the vagueness. What if the information to be kept potentially invades the member's privacy? If such information pertains to the members hunting activities within the Club I would happily support that, but these clauses are too open-ended. What mechanism will exist to determine what is to be prescribed, and what will be involved in changing them?

Furthermore section 18 states :

Provision 18.3 concerns me as Chairperson of the BCB greatly as I am not sure what is required, does it merely want an affidavit re-confirming the applicant's membership or must the affidavit motivate the application itself?

If it is the former I suggest at the very least the wording be changed to reflect this, although I am not sure that this clause is needed.

If it is the latter this would not always be practical or possible. Firstly this seems to imply that one firearm (the applicant's first firearm) should be enough to satisfy his hunting needs. This is incorrect as I have pointed out earlier. Secondly, as mentioned earlier how can a Chairperson support an application when the firearm being applied for is to be used outside the auspices of that Club's activities?

_________________________

The Bill seeks to classify firearms into specific categories and to limit the use of the firearm to that category. This limitation poses enormous problems to the hunter.

Firearms licenced for hunting purposes will have the following restrictions in force:

Once again I must point out that currently SA Wingshooters is the only accredited club that I belong to, and currently SA Wingshooters' only concern is bird shooting (with shotguns). I would no longer be allowed to hunt with my rifles if this Bill became Law.

When a hunting party arrives on a hunting farm it is common to ensure that the rifles are still functioning satisfactorily by firing one or two test shots at a target. This also serves to satisfy the farm owner and/or guide that the hunters can shoot straight and are not dangerous when handling a firearm. Unless each and every hunting operation applies for permission to allow practising on their land (a monumental task in paperwork) this tradition would become illegal. No hunter wants to find out that his rifle is no longer shooting straight when he wounds an animal instead of killing it outright and I am sure this is not the intention of this Bill, but unfortunately this is a potential consequence of this provision.

There is a further aspect to the restriction - the impact on the sport of field-trialling. This sport simulates bird hunting conditions and tests the skill of the gun-dogs involved with regards to their ability to find and retrieve birds. The trials are held on the land of an agreeable farmer under the auspices of one of the gundog clubs. In these trials a mixture of live and "saluted" birds are used. A saluted bird is a bird that is already dead which is thrown into the air for the dog to see and is accompanied by a shot from a shotgun to attract the dog's attention. In either case a shotgun with live ammunition is used.

I have participated as a "gun" (the person who fires the shotgun) at these trials in the past and will do so again, but I and others like me would be forced to stop should this Bill be passed. This usage of the shotgun would not be classified as hunting nor would this be conducted on accredited premises and therefore it would be illegal for me to participate with my hunting shotgun. The limit on ammunition usage also would impact on these events - the "gun" is not expected to use his own ammunition so one of the organisers is going to have to "blow" his annual limit on buying ammunition for the event.

Effectively this Bill would mark the end of working gun-dog field trials. If these trials presented a danger to the population at large then I could understand this but I do not believe that anybody's safety has ever been threatened by this sport and effectively outlawing it makes no sense to me.

In addition to our hunting activities the BCB holds several shooting competitions per year. Some have been held at shooting ranges and some have been held on rural farms. In the latter case we would be breaking this Law if we continued this practise as we are not accredited, the premises would not be accredited and we would not be using our hunting firearms for hunting purposes.

As mentioned earlier the vast majority of hunters own a .22 rimfire rifle. This rifle will be mainly used for recreational shooting, commonly known as "plinking". Typically this involves shooting at a target when out in the bush, or on a shooting range. It is a method whereby the hunter can practise his shooting skills inexpensively and effectively. Firing 20 shots from a 22 costs about R6 and is not hard on the shoulder with regards recoil. Firing 20 rounds from a .308 rifle can cost anything from R125 up and the recoil will certainly start becoming uncomfortable. It is also the ideal calibre for introducing new members to the sport because there is no recoil to frighten the newcomer.

Currently the Law allows the discharge of firearms outside city limits as long as it is not within 100 yards of a public road. May I suggest that this remain the case, as long as firing the weapon poses no danger to anyone why restrict its use to a subset of its safe uses?

I suggest that the concept of categorising the use of a firearm is problematic and is a solution to a problem that does not exist. If the State has trusted me enough to issue me with a licence to own a firearm surely it can trust me enough to use it responsibly? If I abuse that trust by using the firearm irresponsibly then proceedings to declare me unfit should be instituted and my licence(s) revoked.

_________________________

While I fully understand the reasoning behind wishing to declare areas as gun-free I must ask whether such declarations will work in practice. As I understand it the Law draws the line between the law-abiding and the criminal, in itself it does not prevent crime, it cannot force a person to obey the Law. I fear that declaring an area to be gun-free might have the opposite effect, for now the criminal element will be certain than no law-abiding citizen will be armed within that area and so it becomes a soft target.

Furthermore how is the law-abiding citizen to approach visiting such a gun-free zone? Assuming I am armed and my son's school has been declared a gun-free zone, how would I collect him at the end of school? It would be illegal and irresponsible to leave the firearm in the car while parked outside the school so in practice the only thing I could do is to go home, lock the firearm in the safe and then go and fetch my son. This would of course leave me defenceless for the duration of this trip.

In practice who would enforce the gun-free rule, are metal detectors manned by armed guards to be erected at all entrances to these areas? Only if that gun-free status is enforced can anybody be certain it is in fact gun-free. When contemplating this provision I ask the Committee to bear in mind - if an area is to be declared gun-free who are they trying to keep away. Is it the legally armed citizen or the illegally armed criminal we are trying to keep out?

_________________________

This is one of the most concerning areas of the Bill for me. I must strongly object to a Bill that makes extensive reference to regulations that will govern my use of my firearms, but those regulations are not available for comment. It's as if the Bill is only a skeleton with the regulations to form the flesh later.

Because the Bill depends on the regulations and these can be altered by the Registrar (or Minister) at will, it seems to me that the Bill can be changed at will and without Parliamentary scrutiny.

I must please beg the Committee to ensure that these regulations be made available for public comment before this Bill is offered to Parliament for approval, and that some system of check and balance be instituted for scrutinising any proposed changes to these regulations.

I would like to suggest an audit of all existing firearms and licences to ensure that any unreported lost or stolen firearms are discovered and the person responsible punished. Each firearm owner could report to his local Police station with his firearm(s) and present it/them for inspection. Details such as current address could also be verified at the same time. This would help in getting the Central Firearms Registry up to date.

_________________________

There is no doubt that in the same way obtaining a driver's licence involves a competency testing mechanism so should the competency of a firearm owner be tested. However the Bill seeks to retest the competency with each licence application, which is where it differs from the driver's licence scenario. I think that difference shouldn't exist and I suggest that the firearm owner should be licenced and the individual firearms be registered.

To elaborate: when a licence for a first-time applicant is received I agree with the requirement of a competency certificate and the background check through fingerprint checking. A basic confirmation of the applicant's competence could be easily verified by the Firearm Control Officer handling the application, confirming that the applicant has indeed completed the course. The suitability (and indeed existence) of the applicant's safe could be checked by a visit to the applicant's residence. This process would serve to confirm the eligibility of the applicant and would effectively licence the applicant as a competent firearm owner.

I feel that the procedure for handling subsequent applications does not need to be as stringent however. It is safe to assume that if the applicant has not committed any crimes with his first firearm he/she will not do so with his/her second, statistically, licenced firearm owners commit very few crimes, and multiple firearm owners commit even fewer. I feel subsequent licence applications should largely be a process of registering the firearm to the applicant as his/her competency has been verified and his/her track record has proven him/her to be law-abiding.

_________________________

I want to place on record my objection to the Bill is not based on a knee-jerk reaction to fight any fire-arm controls purely on principle. As a law-abiding citizen I am just as concerned as anyone else about the crime problem within our country and I would support any measure that would effectively see this problem tackled. What I cannot support is a measure that will impact on my and my Club's sport but at the same time will not have any effect on the crime problem. Legal gun-owners are law-abiding people, statements to that effect have been made in Parliament by the previous Minister for Safety and Security, we ask please don't criminalise us or sacrifice our sport, hobby or ability to defend ourselves on the altar of "doing something about crime". We know what will and won't work, we live with firearms and we understand what owning a firearm entails. I appeal to the Government to make us part of the solution, together we can find a solution that will work.

_________________________

6 June 2000

I wish to express my objection to the proposed Firearms Control Bill, but I wish to place on record that my objection is not to the principle of firearms control, but to the unnecessary over-regulation of legally licenced firearm owners this Bill proposes.

My specific objections to this Bill are:

1. Lack of consultation.

This Bill claims that consultation with a number of organisations representing firearm owners has taken place. As a member of SAGA (the South African Gunowners Association) I contend that true consultation (as opposed to mere information dissemination) has not taken place, and I challenge the drafting committee to provide proof (such as minutes) of such consultation.

2. The ammunition quantity restrictions proposed.

Practice makes perfect in all aspects of firearm ownership, from self defence through to hunting and the competitive shooting sports. In addition certain types of very commonly used ammunition are only sold in quantities that exceed these limits. I foresee the Registrar is going to be inundated with requests by firearm owners to have these limits increased. Furthermore I object to being allowed to own a firearm by being issued a licence for it, but I am restricted in how much I can use that firearm. Might it not be better to only restrict the amount of ammunition a particular person can own or use if the Registrar is able to show a need for that restriction? In effect isn't this the way this is going to work in practice - the Registrar will (I hope) lift this restriction on most (if not all) of the firearm licences issued through application by the firearm owner.

3. Restrictions on the number of firearms a person may have..

It is a sad but true fact that I see far more media reports of Police officers being murdered for their service weapons that I see of private citizens being killed for the weapons in their gun safe. I challenge the Government to provide the statistics to back up the contention behind these limits - that reducing the number of firearms held in a gun safe will significantly reduce the number of weapons stolen by criminals. I may own ten firearms and they may all be self-defence weapons but I still can only carry one at a time; the other nine will be locked away in my safe. In fact the Government has conceded in the past that multiple firearm owners tend to safeguard their weapons best. If this is the case why does this Bill make multiple firearm ownership so difficult? Surely this should be encouraged?

It is a requirement under the current law to provide motivation when applying for a firearm licence, and it is up to the authorities to decide if the motivation is sufficient. By placing limits on the Registrar his freedom of discretion is being unnecessarily restricted. It is safe to assume whoever is appointed to the position of Registrar will be qualified for the job, surely his judgement can be trusted?

4. Point 2.1 of the memoranda at the end of the Bill states in part "At the renewal stage the personal details of the applicant will be updated and the applicant will be required to show that he or she still needs the firearm. "

The word need is subjective, how can any hunter or sport shooter show that they "need" the firearm? I support the idea of a regular audit of firearms and updating the details of the firearm owner, but not the re-licencing process. If my circumstances have changed and I no longer have a use for a particular firearm and it now stays locked in my safe what danger does it pose to society?

5.)The introduction of administrative offences.

This states the Registrar "may" cause to be delivered. What hgappens if the Registrar does not deliver this infringement notice to the infringer? Surely somebody who is to be charged with an offence must be given notice? The ability to mount a defence depends on such notice.

6.) Classification of a firearm's purpose

If a firearm has been licenced for hunting or sporting use the Bill prohibits its use for any other purpose. This implies that if I am the victim of a criminal attack and I defend myself with one of my hunting weapons I am going to be charged with an offence. Now instead of one crime there are two. Surely this cannot be the purpose of this Bill. It has been stated that common law will protect a person under these circumstances, if this is so why does this restriction exist in this Bill?

7.) Unavailability of regulations

The Bill refers extensively to regulations, but these regulations are not available as yet. In effect the Portfolio Committee is being asked to sign a blank cheque by approving this Bill as these regulations could contain anything the drafters feel like including. I view with deep suspicion the fact that these regulations are not available, is the drafting committee hiding something?

As a hunter I can only comment on those parts of the Bill that affect hunting but in general I don't agree with singling out and then limiting various categories of firearm owners as a crime control measure. To me the highest rates of armed crime - armed robberies and hi-jacking, are already crimes under the current law. Would not the time, money and effort being spent on a new law that is unlikely to directly affect these crimes be better spent on law enforcement which will directly affect these crimes?

I request the Portfolio Committee to refer this Bill back to the drafters and I would like to suggest that the drafting committee make use of the services of organisations such as the National Firearms Forum and also to check the constitutionality of this Bill. I also suggest that the regulations be made available for comment before the Bill is passed to Parliament.

Finally I request the opportunity to address the Portfolio Committee in person to make a verbal presentation.

NEIL JONES