COMMENTARY BY

THE SOUTH AFRICAN GUN OWNERS ASSOCIATION (SAGA)

1.1 On 24 April 1997 Mr Sydney Mufamadi, the erstwhile Minister for Safety and Security, announced in Parliament

• that his Department was of the view that a progressive policy was needed which would contribute to a drastic reduction in the number of firearms in circulation;

• that a committee had been appointed to undertake research into and to make recommendations for a new firearms policy, and

• that the committee had been tasked to investigate stricter measures for obtaining firearm licences.

1.2 The committee consisted of Mr Peter Gastrow - the director of the Institute for Security Studies and former member of Parliament - other staff members of the Institute, and three police officers, only two of whom had some knowledge of firearms. Given the importance of its task and its members’ lack of expertise, one would have expected the committee to consult widely with local firearms organisations, owners and dealers. This did not happen. We do not know what research the committee did but, for reasons which were never revealed, it rejected all offers of assistance from firearm organisations.

1.3 Two years passed before the committee produced a report. The full document was not disclosed and we don’t know what policy recommendations it contained but its unrealistic legislative proposals relating to the possession, sale, repair and use of firearms and ammunition stunned the entire firearms industry and all lawful owners of firearms. If adopted the proposals would bring about that a large number of LAWFUL owners would lose their arms. This, and some of the impractical and wholly unreasonable effects of the proposals, evoked an outcry from the entire firearms community. Assurances by the Department’s spokesmen that the proposals were merely points for discussion fooled no-one. Firearm owners expressed their dismay in the media, scores of petitions were signed and thousands of angry protesters took to the streets of cities like Pretoria, Cape Town and Durban.

1.4 This is how matters stood when the 1999 general elections took place. Mr Mufamadi lost his portfolio and later, when questions were asked in Parliament, it emerged that the new Minister knew very little (if indeed anything) about the Gastrow proposals. A departmental team was then tasked to draft a firearms policy. Within months a document was prepared, submitted to Cabinet and approved, but carefully kept from the public eye. SAGA only received a copy after repeated requests and long after the publication of the Bill referred in par 1.

1.5 During the third week of November 1999, the Firearms Control Bill was released and published in the Government Gazette on 3 December 1999. It incorporated the essential principles of the Gastrow proposals which had already been condemned by all members of the firearms community. To add insult to injury, very little time was allowed (although extended) for comment. Like several other organisations SAGA prepared and lodged its submission in great haste only to learn much later that the State law advisors were not prepared to certify the proposed legislation and that the Department would reconsider the proposals. The Bill which is now before the Portfolio Committee is the reconsidered version.

2.1 It is difficult to understand why there has been so much secrecy about the proposed legislation. The Gastrow committee was appointed without consultation with interested parties or prior notice to them. The committee refused to consult locally and later the Department refused to disclose its full report. (Judging by the new Minister’s amazement when he was questioned in Parliament, it must have been kept even from him.) There was no consultation for purposes of the preparation of the policy document which the Minister requisitioned or before its consideration by Cabinet; and when Cabinet eventually approved it, it was only released upon SAGA’s insistence.

2.2 It is all very well to say that interested parties have an opportunity to air their views now. The point is that they had no input in the formulation of a policy which has now been embodied in draft legislation. It is hardly likely that any suggestions will be entertained which entail a departure from an already adopted policy. The Bill shows a remarkable resemblance to the Gastrow proposals and Government knows how these proposals were received. Its reluctance to disclose its policy creates the impression that it is not prepared to face a public debate thereof.

2.3 The situation has been aggravated by the fact that many important aspects have been left to be dealt with in regulations which will only be promulgated after the adoption of the legislation. We don’t know how the Minister is going to fill in all the gaps in the Bill. To say that this is highly unusual in a democratic and open society is an understatement, particularly since s 41(1)(c) of the Constitution expects transparency from all spheres of government and s 59(1)(a) enjoins the National Assembly to facilitate public involvement in the legislative and other processes of the Assembly.

2.4 It is recorded that SAGA WAS NOT CONSULTED ABOUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL DURING THE PREPARATION OF EITHER THE PREVIOUS OR THE PRESENT VERSION THEREOF. The statement towards the end of the Bill that this organisation has been consulted is not correct.

In some respects the present version of the Bill is a vast improvement on the previous one but the objectionable basic principles of the proposals have been retained. The features which mainly call for adverse comment are

• the system of specific-use licensing,

• the fact that existing licences will lapse with a consequent loss to existing licensees,

• the renewal of licences,

• the unacceptable levels of control by the Minister,

• the purpose of the legislation.

3.1 Sections 15, 17, 18 and 19 authorise the licensing of firearms for self-defence and for occasional and dedicated hunting and sports-shooting. The system of specific-use licensing entails that firearms licensed for one purpose may not be used for others. But there are exceptions. Firearms licensed for dedicated hunting may, eg., also be used for sporting purposes, and firearms licensed for dedicated sports-shooting may also be used for hunting. The objectionable part is that no firearm licensed for hunting or sports-shooting (whether occasional or dedicated) may be used for self-defence. This incongruity leads to quite absurd results. Consider, eg., the case of a householder who is attacked in his own home and only owns a rifle licensed under s 17. If the legislation is approved, he will not be entitled to use his licensed firearm. Why? BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN LICENSED FOR THAT PURPOSE! (More will later be said in this regard.)

3.2 In any event, the system of specific-use licensing cannot assist in the prevention of crime which is said to be the main purpose of the legislation. How, eg., does it serve the stated purpose that a householder may not use his hunting rifle to save his own life and possibly the lives of his family too? Precisely the opposite is true for, if he is not allowed to use it for that purpose, the rifle will most probably end up in the hands of his assailant who may turn it on its owner and later put it to similar criminal use again and again. Likewise, when a house is burgled and the owner’s firearms stolen, what does it matter that some of them have been licensed for self-defence and others for hunting?

3.3 The system will moreover be counterproductive in that, instead of curbing the proliferation of firearms, it will bring about a greater number of licensed firearms in private possession than is actually required. Under the present system many people own a single firearm which they keep for self-protection and use for the occasional hunt or sports-shoot. Under the proposed system hunters and sports-shooters who are in need of a self-defence firearm will have to apply for that licence as well. If it is granted each of them will own at least one firearm which they could well have done without.

3.4 SAGA has no objection to the present system which requires every application for a licence to be properly motivated (eg. the applicant wishes to acquire the firearm for self-protection or for hunting or sporting purposes). Every application should be considered on its merits and, if it is granted, the licence should not be issued for any specific purpose.

3.5 It is inevitable that an undeterminable number of licensees will lose at least some of their firearms if the legislation is adopted.

3.6 This is probably the main single cause of dissatisfaction on the part of firearm owners and why the Gastrow proposals were so vehemently opposed. SAGA is aware of a general and growing feeling of disturbingly grave resentment all over the country at the prospect of the loss of firearms. It must be realized that the ownership of firearms, whether it be for self-defence, or for hunting, or sports-shooting, or simply for the sheer pleasure of owning a beautiful piece of equipment, has become part of the South African culture. In saying this we do not only have a particular section of the community in mind. Many members of sections who were in the past precluded from obtaining licences have since become licensees who are as proud of their firearm possession as anyone else and do not take kindly to the idea of losing them.

3.7 One often hears about firearms with which the owners are not prepared to part because they are family heirlooms or are treasured for some other reason. The prospect of losing firearms like these has raised the hackles of many owners. And rightly so. In some cases the loss will be more sentimental than real, but it is this very type of loss that no money can compensate. In other cases there will be a substantial pecuniary loss as well. One would at the very least have expected a provision in the Bill for proper compensation; but that expectancy is dashed by ss 140(2)(c) and (5) which in effect provide that the owner will receive, in the absence of agreement, an amount determined by the Registrar, in accordance with the Minister’s guidelines which have to be established in consultation with the Minister of Finance taking into account inter alia the financial constraints on the State and its ability to pay all claims for compensation. This will obviously not be adequate; and s 154(3) rubs salt into the wound. It provides that any forfeited firearm which the Registrar regards to be of special value need not be destroyed but shall become the property of the State! (One may well ask what will become of them as State property.)

3.8 In a radio interview last year one of the draftsmen of the Bill claimed that the Minister does not wish to alienate Afrikaners (who are, quite wrongly, supposed to be the people who mostly own inherited firearms) and had given instructions that their right to retain them be protected in the legislation. But the only "protection" offered in s 153 of the Bill is a permit to possess inherited firearms issued in the Registrar’s discretion subject to such conditions as the latter may impose !

3.9 Firearm owners rightly ask why existing licences have to be terminated and why properly licensed firearms must be forfeited at all? Faced with these questions another spokesman for the Department (a former member of the Gastrow committee) made the startling revelation that, unlike most white licensees, members of other racial groups who have not had the benefit of practical training, have been issued with licences which they do not deserve because they do not know how to handle the firearms in question. Whether this a correct statement of fact, we do not know. But if it is, the fact that there are those who have undeservedly obtained licences cannot justify the hardship to competent and responsible firearm owners. The police must surely know (or must be able to find out) who the people concerned are. Why can’t they act against them? Why must all other licensees suffer?

3.10 This is in any event not the reason that Mr Mufamadi advanced. What he said in Parliament was simply that a reduction in the number of firearms is desired. His statement has never been repudiated. Mr Mufamadi did not disclose what he sought to achieve by such a reduction; but, judging by subsequent statements by spokesmen for the Department, one gathers that the argument is that the proliferation of illegally possessed firearms can be stemmed by reducing its main source which is believed to be firearms stolen from or lost by lawful owners. This argument will be dealt with later.

3.11 SAGA’s considered view is that licences once granted should endure for the lifetime of their holders or until they are properly cancelled in terms of the Act. To our knowledge spokesmen for the Department have not as yet explained comprehensively why it is considered necessary to limit the duration of licences; but it has been suggested that regular renewal is the only effective way in which the Central Register can be kept up to date. Whilst we appreciate and share the desire to keep the Register constantly updated, we are of the view that this can be achieved by regular calls upon licensees to present their licences and firearms to their designated firearms officers to check all relevant information and to take such further steps as may be required. The cumulative effect of Item 1(1) of Schedule 1 and ss 30 and 27 will be that there will be a massive accumulation of applications for renewals every five years which may well prove to be unmanageable or too costly. The system which we propose will avoid this because it will enable the Department to stagger the times for the presentation of firearms and licences and will cost very little.

It has also been suggested that a system of renewal is necessary to ensure that licensees maintain the standards of proficiency and suitability required of them. (This is presumably the reason for the presence of s 27(3).) We do not agree. After the legislation comes into operation every applicant for a licence will have to pass a competency test and SAGA believes that there is no need to re-test such a person over and over again. Accordingly, even if a renewal system is adopted, we suggest that the renewal should at least follow AUTOMATICALLY upon the presentation of an application and payment of the prescribed fee (like motor vehicle licences which are renewed every year without re-testing the driving skills and road knowledge of the owner).

3.12 It is accepted that there must be a reasonable measure of control. But the Bill goes much too far in granting power to the Minister. The following are examples of the unacceptable levels of control.

3.12.1 Certain firearms are PROHIBITED and may not be possessed or licensed at all. A list of these appears in s 4(1). But, under s 4(3)(a), the Minister may (by notice in the Gazette) prohibit any type of firearm in addition to those already listed. In the same way, in terms of s 16(1)(b), he may extend the list of RESTRICTED firearms. It is difficult to understand why additions to the two lists cannot be affected in the normal manner by way of amendments to the Act. In both cases the notice in the Gazette must be preceded by its submission to the Speaker and the Chairperson of the NCP for tabling in Parliament. The intention must plainly be to give Parliament an opportunity to debate the Minister’s decision before it is put into operation and, if this is so, one cannot understand why the Act cannot simply be amended from time to time as and when required. (It may be mentioned in passing that at least two items (viz firearms of which the calibre or barrel length has been changed without permission) do not belong in the list of prohibited firearms. Hundreds, if not thousands, of rifles have been modified in either of or both these ways. Many hunters find it convenient to use short barrelled rifles in the bush; and many others use rifles of which the calibre has for various reasons been changed. There are, eg., many 303's around which have been fitted with so-called sporting barrels, and probably even a larger number of target rifles which have been re-barrelled to a calibre more suitable for hunting. They have been re-licensed and there is no reason why they should suddenly be prohibited. (What the relevance of the barrel length of a rifle is, is in any event a mystery.)

3.12.2 S 150(1))(m) is of doubtful constitutional validity. Whereas the preceding paragraphs of s 150(1) grant the Minister the power to make regulations relating to a variety of specific matters, para (m) authorises him generally "to provide for any other matter that the Minister may consider expedient to promote the purposes of this Act". Regulations do not go through the parliamentary process and in effect para (m) gives the Minister carte blanche to rule by decree and to regulate almost every facet of the firearms and hunting industries, all sports-shooting activities and indeed every firearm owner’s use of his arms in whatever way he deems expedient to promote the purposes of the Act in whatever way he considers best! A similar provision appears in the 1969 Act (and in certain other Acts) but its constitutionality has never been tested. And, apart from the question of constitutional validity, such a provision is wholly unnecessary. Sec 150(1) already contains an array of specific powers. It is hardly likely that any matters will arise which will require para (m) to be used. It seems to be nothing but a blanket provision to cater for any eventuality which has not presently been foreseen.

3.12.3 In terms of s 147 the Minister may designate other state officials as police officials. This is certainly not advisable. Police officials will have extremely wide powers of inspection, search and seizure under Chapters 13 and 14. With additional training ordinary policemen who are accustomed to search and seize in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act will know how to exercise their new powers. But the same cannot be said of other State officials. Many of them will probably not even know what to look for when they conduct a search or inspection. Besides, the probability of abuse is simply too great to allow other State officials to perform these important duties. One of the objections to the Gastrow proposals was that the SA Police Service would not have the manpower or resources to perform its functions thereunder. The same can be said of the present proposals. The problem cannot be solved by harnessing the resources and unskilled manpower of other departments because the control of firearms is a specialized subject which cannot be entrusted to people who do not know what they are about.

3.12.4 Then there is the Minister’s power to declare firearm free zones under s 143. Suggestions that there should be zones where firearms may not be carried were first heard in this country after people had been shot at public schools. (It was as a result of such an incident that the Minister of Education said, eg., that firearms should be banned from schools because places of learning and firearms do not go together.) Much as one would like to support these sentiments, one should not allow one’s emotions to cloud one’s judgment and ignore the realities of the situation. Periodic outcries for strict firearms control are not uncommon. They usually occur when emotions are running high after tragedies like the random shooting of innocent civilians or mass family murders. (Incidents in countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States come to mind.) But it is interesting that, hard upon the heels of strict firearm control (including a costly buy-back scheme) instituted in Australia under pressure of public hysteria as a result of such an incident, there followed reports of a man who had wiped out an entire family by gassing them. The point is that people who are set upon violent crime will always find ways and means of attaining their purpose with or without firearms.

In South Africa we have unfortunately reached the stage where the carrying of firearms for protection against violent and often lethal attacks cannot be condemned. Go to any Co-operative or some other place where farmers are wont to gather. See how many of them are armed. Can anyone blame them? No, we all know what is happening around us. And, when these people go to town on weekdays to pick up their children at school or to church on Sunday, they don’t leave their pistols at home. After all they have to return to their farms - sometimes after dark - not knowing what to expect. Carrying firearms has become a way of life to them. So, what do they do when the school or church has been declared a firearms free zone? Do they take their firearms to the local police station which is more often than not only equipped for the safekeeping of a few firearms? And what about the ever present criminal section of the community who will certainly not be put off by the prohibition and will soon become aware of the times when there will be ample stocks of firearms ready to be taken from poorly equipped and protected police stations?

These are the South African realities. We dare not create a situation where the criminals remain armed (and even become better armed) and their intended victims become toothless soft targets.

3.13 A remarkable feature of the Bill is the emphasis in the Preamble on the constitutional rights to life and personal security. The Preamble opens with four observations, viz

• that "every person has the right to life and the right to security of the person, which includes, among other things, the right to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources";

• that "the adequate protection of such rights is fundamental to the well-being and social and economic development of every person";

• that "the Constitution places a duty on the State to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of Rights"; and

• that "the increased availability and abuse of firearms and ammunition have contributed significantly to the high levels of violent crime in our society" .

The core of the Preamble is (1) the high levels of crime (2) the contribution thereto of the increased availability and abuse of firearms and (3) the State’s duty to respect, protect and promote the right to life and personal security. This is indeed the sole motivation advanced for the proposed legislation.

3.14 It is ironic that the proposers of the legislation have decided to pin their colours to the mast of the rights to life and personal security and the State’s constitutional duty to protect and promote it. We all know that the State cannot possibly protect all of us against every violent attack and the Bill is making it extremely difficult for us to do so ourselves. We say this for the following reasons:

3.14.1 In par 3.1 above we dealt with the absurdity of the prohibition on the use for self-defence of firearms licensed for sports-shooting and hunting. It cannot be seriously contended that the proposed legislation is aimed at our protection against violent crime if it contains provisions which preclude us from effectively defending ourselves and indeed criminalize the use for self-defence of firearms licensed for other purposes. It is difficult to resist the impression that the proposers are not prepared to recognise the rudimentary principle of the common law that every person may defend himself against unlawful violent attacks by any means and with any weapon which the circumstances require, and that they have no real respect for the constitutionally protected rights to life and personal security.

3.14.2 Sec 15 treats self-defence licences on a level entirely different from other kinds of licences. Firstly, dedicated hunters and sports-shooters may use semi-automatic shotguns (which are by far the most effective self-protection arms) but people who may have to fight for their very lives, may not! Secondly, a self-defence licence is valid for five years only; hunting and sports-shooting licences are valid for TEN years. Thirdly, persons who only want rifles or shotguns for the occasional hunt or sports-shooting may be issued with up to four licences for that purpose without any actual need for even one; but persons who are not interested in activities like these but who do feel the need of firearms to protect themselves and their families are limited to a maximum of two and must establish an actual need which cannot be satisfied in some other way.

3.14.3 How the requirement of actual need is to be satisfied, is impossible to say. The need must plainly be a personal one - presumably by reason of the applicant’s peculiar circumstances. But how does one establish this? All of us are aware - some more painfully than others - of the murders and other serious crimes committed daily throughout the country. The average citizen relates the high levels of crime to his own situation. He knows that the police cannot protect us all and that criminals very often use firearms to murder or subdue their victims. Therefore, and because he does not know that he will not be next in line, his natural inclination is to arm himself in similar fashion in order to be able to defend himself effectively whenever necessary. The proposers of the legislation do not seem to realize that, from its very nature, the need to defend oneself is not predictable for the simple reason that one does not know when and where it may arise. Yet the need must be established before a licence will be issued. How does one persuade the Registrar of one’s actual need of a firearm for self-protection apart from drawing his attention to the violent crimes committed every day? And how does one establish that the need cannot reasonably be satisfied by means other than the acquisition of a firearm? Does one have to show, eg., that installing an alarm system and security fencing or engaging professional security guards will not help? How can one satisfy the Registrar that these measures will be insufficient until they have failed and one actually had to face an attack? The problem is aggravated by the fact that there is no set standard for complying with the requirement particularly since the Registrar will obviously have to assign the consideration of applications to a number of delegates and that standards may differ. (SAGA has already received reports of applications for licences being refused on the ground that the police are "not convinced of need.")

3.14.4 Even if the application is successful the licensee can never be sure that he will retain the licence. Five years after obtaining it he will have to apply again; and yet again five years later. Each time he will have to satisfy the Registrar all over again. In the meantime he must be particularly careful to do precisely what the Act requires him to do, for, if eg., he happens to lose the licence, the Registrar may cancel it (and impose an administrative fine as well) for the entirely human oversight of failing to notify the authorities of the loss within a prescribed time and in a prescribed manner.

3.14.5 All this does certainly not go towards enhancing the constitutional rights to life and bodily integrity which is what s 2(a) claims the legislation is seeking to achieve. One cannot resist the impression that the exalted language of the preamble is merely a smokescreen behind which there lurks a violation of the most fundamental human rights.

3.15 This is not where the matter ends. According to s 2(b) the purpose of the legislation is

3.15.1 The supporting argument is premised on two propositions. The first is that

This is plainly correct. All reasonable efforts to remove illegally possessed firearms from society deserves and carries SAGA’s wholehearted support.

3.15.2 But SAGA contests the validity of the second proposition which is that

• the removal of illegally possessed firearms can be achieved by stricter control over legally possessed firearms in the form of the measures which are now proposed.

3.15.3. As a general observation it must be said at the outset that control over legally possessed firearms already exists in the form of the 1969 Act and that a change should only be considered if there is a real likelihood that it will have a significant effect on the proliferation of illegally possessed firearms and thereby on the high levels of crime.

3.15.4 Although it is not spelt out in the Bill the underlying argument is that strict control over legally owned firearms is necessary to prevent them from being stolen and thus from becoming capable of illegal possession and criminal use. One gets the impression that the proposers have not followed the debate on the Gastrow proposals because the argument has been publicly refuted time and again. The following must be borne in mind:

2. Conversely, every stolen firearm is not put to criminal use. We know, eg, that, while some sections of the community were precluded in the past from obtaining licences, many of them acquired stolen firearms and kept them illegally for the sole purpose of self-protection. To relate the number of stolen firearms unreservedly to the high levels of crime is to commit a basic statistical blunder.

3.15.5 Furthermore, bearing in mind that the idea is to prevent firearms from being stolen, the success of the scheme must depend primarily on the nature of the measures relating to their storage and transportation. A major problem is that we do not know at this stage what these measures will be because s 86 provides that firearms and ammunition must be stored or transported "in the prescribed manner" (i.e. in the manner prescribed by regulation). But safe storage and transportation depends not only on the nature of the prescribed measures but also (and particularly) on effective enforcement. SAGA maintains that effective enforcement is the key to successful firearms control and that the Department should rather look at improved ways of enforcing the existing legislation.

3.15.6 Viewing the Bill in its entirety, it is quite clear however that the control over legally possessed firearms that is envisaged lies, not so much in mundane matters such as safe storage and transportation, but (in line with the ill-conceived Gastrow proposals) in limiting the number of firearms that may be possessed. Recalling Mr Mufamadi’s insistence on a reduction in the number of legally possessed firearms which has not been repudiated by the present Minister, this comes as no surprise.

3.15.7 The underlying argument is entirely fallacious. As mentioned earlier, it is that the proliferation of illegally possessed firearms can be stemmed by reducing its main source which is believed to be the firearms stolen from or lost by lawful owners.

3.15.7.1 The fact of the matter is simply that, provided he takes care that his arms are at all times safely stored and transported, it makes no difference whether a licensee owns one or ten firearms. The Department is surely well aware of the thousands of licensees who own several arms and have not lost one, and of those who owned a single arm which has been stolen. Experienced policemen know full well that multi-licensed owners generally take much better care of their firearms than those who own only one.

3.15.7.2 The Department is no doubt also aware of the attempts in other countries to reduce the incidence of violent crime through a reduction of the number of lawfully possessed firearms. It should also be aware of the astronomic costs involved in such an exercise, and of the fact that the attempts have generally failed and have only brought about an increase in the number of illegally possessed arms. This was predictable because owners who had hitherto been in lawful possession turned to unlawful possession on account of the very insistence on strict requirements for obtaining licences. We must face the fact that people who perceive the need to own firearms will acquire and keep them illegally if they are discouraged from possessing them legally. This is what experience has taught us. Bearing this in mind, it can safely be said that the limitation on the number of firearms that may be lawfully possessed will indeed achieve the removal from society of hitherto legally possessed firearms but will increase rather than reduce the number of illegally possessed ones. In EFFECT PARLIAMENT ITSELF WILL CREATE THE ILLEGALITY AND THEN PRIDE ITSELF ON HAVING REMOVED "ILLEGALLY" POSSESSED ARMS FROM SOCIETY!

3.15.8 In this connection it is necessary to draw attention to Item 1(2)(a) of Schedule 1 which requires every holder of an existing licence, within the period of five years following on the commencement of the proposed Act, to dispose of any firearms in his or her possession "in excess of the number that he or she may lawfully possess in terms of this Act." The fact of the matter is however, that no-one will know that number beforehand. A dedicated hunter or sports-shooter, eg., cannot know beforehand whether additional licences will be issued to him or her under s 18(3) or 19(3). So what is he supposed to do? If he has not disposed of a particular rifle or shotgun and it is not re-licensed, he will immediately be in unlawful possession thereof. Through no fault of his own he will be committing a contravention of s 3 and incur a possible sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment! And after conviction for unlawful possession he will probably never be granted a licence again!

Although SAGA has not concerned itself with the actual wording of the Bill which may conceivably become problematic when it comes to interpretation, the draftsmen’s attention is drawn to s 15(2) and (3). Sub (2) speaks of a person who needs a firearm for self-defence and cannot reasonably satisfy "that need", i.e. the need of a firearm for self-defence, by means other than the possession of a firearm. The confusion which this may cause can be avoided (it is suggested) by referring in sub (2)(a) to the need of a firearm for self-defence. Sub (3) will also be clearer if it simply reads: