The furore surrounding the publication of the draft Firearms Control Bill, as well as the subsequent deluge of submissions and objections lodged with the Secretariat of Safety and Security, should have been sufficient evidence for the Government to realise that the issue of disarming legal gun-owners is not one which they will be able to quietly slip through Parliament. The legitimate and responsible gun-owning public have spoken as one on this issue. The NNP stands firm in its opposition to this severely flawed and ill-conceived draft law. The ANC must realise that legislation by 'stealth' is impossible in a country possessed of a vigilant civil society and a committed and tenacious political opposition.

We do not, however, oppose this legislation simply for the sake of opposing it. Our position is one that is based on wide-spread consultation, exhaustive in-depth research, the most current international and regional data available, and a reasoned and rational analysis of the inherent flaws contained within the draft Bill. Simply put, this is a very bad piece of law-making, and the NNP will continue to oppose it until it is sufficiently amended to protect the rights of law-abiding South Africans and the supremacy of the Constitution.

The over-arching flaw of the draft Bill lies, not only in the individual provisions, but also in the underlying tenets and assumptions incorporated in the drafting process. The inference from Section (2) is clearly that the prevention of crime is to be effected, inter alia, through the draconian control of the proliferation of legal firearms. There is also a clear commitment, evident in the provisions of the Bill, to the idea that criminals can and will be stopped by laws - specifically laws regulating and restricting legal, private, and responsible ownership of firearms to an unreasonable degree. This discounts entirely the fact that it is the application not the proliferation of laws that has a positive impact on levels of crime. These assumptions fly in the face of fact, precedent and common-sense.

• The Right to Life, and the corresponding right to self defence, is infringed by the provisions limiting the choice of legitimate firearms that may be used in defence against unlawful attack, and also by the restriction established by the Bill on the use of firearms not specifically licensed for the purposes of self-defence in the defence of life and property.
• The Right to Property is potentially curtailed by the provisions that allow the state unreasonable power to dispose, under certain circumstances, of firearms belonging to private individuals without equitable compensation. The Bill effectively discriminates against firearms as a special form of property to the detriment of legal and responsible firearm owners.
• The Right to Freedom of Association is restricted by the Bill which makes licensing of firearms for hunting and sport conditional on membership of certain accredited associations or bodies.
• The Right to Privacy is potentially infringed by the provisions requiring hunters and sports shooters to regularly account for the minutiae of their private activities and movements to the Registrar of Firearms.
• The Right to Fair Trial is severely infringed upon by the establishment of the principle of the presumption of guilt and also by the creation of administrative transgressions carrying severe penalties from which there is no right of appeal to a Court of Law. The sections of the Bill which introduce these transgressions would, effectively, create an alternative and parallel '"justice" system in which citizens are denied recourse to the courts.

These encroachments upon the protections of the Bill of Rights, and on the status of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, are of so serious a nature that it remains a near-certainty that if passed into law, this Bill will be repeatedly (and for the Government embarrassingly) challenged by civil society in the Constitutional Court.

The powers and discretion granted to the Minister by the Bill are considerable - especially in regulating unspecified matters. These powers are patently open to abuse, clearly circumvent the oversight function of parliament, and have rightly been described (by no less a source than the South African Detective Service) as "draconian".

Impracticality

The implementation of the provisions of the draft Bill will place severe and unnecessary strain on the criminal justice system at all levels. International experience of the unreasonable regulation of firearms has time and again achieved little more than the diversion of police manpower from the front-lines of crime prevention to areas of significantly lower benefit. The additional burden to be placed on the already understaffed Central Firearms Registry is unrealistic and, in combination with the estimated cost of implementing the new regulations (estimated by some to be in the region of R500 million annually), makes the draft Bill extremely impractical.

South Africa does not need more laws. We need better enforcement of existing legislation and regulations. Laws do not stop criminals - application and enforcement of the law does. As a first priority we must address the real problem of gun control - the flow of illegal firearms into and throughout our country. What is required is an action plan to address the curtailment of illegal arms trafficking in the Southern African region, the staunching of the flow of illegal firearms into South Africa, and the reduction of the current stockpile of illegal firearms in the country.

In order to ensure responsible gun ownership in a regulated environment, the NNP favours licensing of the firearm owner. Since firearms are inanimate objects it is the owner that will ultimately determine their use, responsible or otherwise. Owners should be made subject to background checks as provided for in the Bill, excluding the requirement for membership of an organisation or association as a prerequisite, and be required to provide satisfactory evidence of appropriate competence and appropriate basic conversance with the law. Specifications should be determined by the South African Qualifications Authority with the full participation of associations and organisations representative of the firearm owning community. Requirements must, however, not be unnecessarily onerous, and should not discriminate against any class of citizen. It should be required that competency with firearms be established only upon first licensing. Discretion in the issuing of an Owner’s licence should be circumscribed in the Bill by the provision of additional jurisdictional facts and there should be a mechanism of appeal to a court of law. Owner’s licences should be renewable every 10 years or upon material change of relevant circumstances (in other words re-registration instead of re-licensing).

Licensing of the owner should be followed by registration of the particular firearm(s) in the name of that owner. Once the owner has been adjudged to be a fit and proper person to possess firearms, there should be a reasonable limit to the number of firearms to be registered in a particular owner’s name, subject to the owner progressively meeting the requirements for firearm storage. Such a reasonable limit in the case of firearms for self-defence would be 5 firearms, in the case of collectors it would be unlimited, and for serious hunters and sports shooters a reasonable limit should be stipulated in legislation after proper consultation with all relevant role-players. The Registrar’s discretion in the registration of firearms should be closely circumscribed and generally limited. An audit of firearms registered in the name of a particular owner should be conducted either with each renewal of the owner’s licence or with each application for registration of an additional firearm.

Licensing of existing owners and registration of the firearms of current firearm owners should be automatic and competence requirements should be waived in the case of the licensing of owners with an unblemished record of firearm ownership over a specified number of years.

The NNP strongly supports a legal framework that regulates responsible gun ownership. We believe that the current Act, though in need of some improvement, by and large provides such a framework. The NNP will continue to oppose this draft legislation until the Government realises the extent to which it has been severely flawed. The disarming of legal, responsible gun-owners and the deprivation of South African citizens of their constitutional rights (especially of the right to self-defence), as envisaged in the draft Bill, is not compatible with our policies.

The Firearms Control Bill should be withdrawn. If nothing else, the following should, at least, be done:

• An approach must be adopted that sets as its first priority the curtailment of illegal arms trafficking in the Southern African region, the staunching of the flow of illegal firearms into South Africa, and the reduction of the current stockpile of illegal firearms in the country;

• Existing legislation should be properly enforced;

• Existing firearms in the country, including those belonging to the Government, should be audited in order to rehabilitate the database of the Central Firearms Registry;

• The precepts and statistical basis upon which government policy towards unreasonable restriction of civilian firearm possession and use are based and which underlie the Firearms Control Bill, should be objectively re-examined; and

• If justified by the latter, the provisions of the Bill should be thoroughly reworked in close consultation with associations and organisations of firearm owners conversant with the technical complexities and nuances of private firearm ownership in South Africa.