| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
|
|
New firearm amnesty and threats will fire up gun owners
Tuesday, January 12, 2010 | Comments: 5
The new firearm amnesty has kicked off with all the pomp and ceremony that the police can muster for what may well prove to be a pivotal moment in gun ownership in South Africa.
The problem is that there are unresolved issues relating to the Firearms Control Act of 2000 (Act) which still have to be sorted out.
Chief among these is the application before the High Court, brought by the SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association, to declare certain parts of the Act unconstitutional.
In June of last year before the Pretoria High Court Judge Bill Prinsloo granted the SA Hunters & Game Conservation Association an interim interdict that confirmed that all licences of firearms mentioned in schedule 1 of the Act be valid until such time as the main application is ruled upon.
That meant that all licences that were valid before 30 June 2009 remain valid until the main application is decided.
Accordingly until that is sorted out gun owners will remain adamant that they are not going to be compelled by National Police Commissioner Bheki Cele no matter how dire the threats. "As soon as amnesty is over, life is going to be really, really rough." (Cele)
Moreover in August 2009, Acting Judge President Traverso advised the SAPS to compile the compensation guidelines as required by section 137 of the Act.
Their response was considered to be highly unsatisfactory to the Gun Owners of South Africa who felt that the police had intended to fulfill their obligation, but fell far short of what is required.
"Only the title mentions section 137. The body indicates that this document actually addresses section 149.
Section 137 covers firearms that are surrendered to the SAPS by the lawful owner. This is further covered by section 94 of the Regulations. Yet this document states that these guidelines don't apply to firearms handed in in accordance with section 94, i.e., legally. R600 for a pistol and R1200 for a rifle? This is about a tenth of what is required here. This document is an insult to firearm owners and to Acting Judge President Traverso." (Gun Owners of South Africa)
According to Minister of Police Nathi Mthethwa those who made use of the new amnesty opportunity would not be compensated.
This will be considered a case of adding insult to injury.
Accordingly it will be interesting to see how the amnesty fares and the response of gun owners to the threats of the Minister and Commissioner.
You could say gun owners are all fired up.
The problem is that there are unresolved issues relating to the Firearms Control Act of 2000 (Act) which still have to be sorted out.
Chief among these is the application before the High Court, brought by the SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association, to declare certain parts of the Act unconstitutional.
In June of last year before the Pretoria High Court Judge Bill Prinsloo granted the SA Hunters & Game Conservation Association an interim interdict that confirmed that all licences of firearms mentioned in schedule 1 of the Act be valid until such time as the main application is ruled upon.
That meant that all licences that were valid before 30 June 2009 remain valid until the main application is decided.
Accordingly until that is sorted out gun owners will remain adamant that they are not going to be compelled by National Police Commissioner Bheki Cele no matter how dire the threats. "As soon as amnesty is over, life is going to be really, really rough." (Cele)
Moreover in August 2009, Acting Judge President Traverso advised the SAPS to compile the compensation guidelines as required by section 137 of the Act.
Their response was considered to be highly unsatisfactory to the Gun Owners of South Africa who felt that the police had intended to fulfill their obligation, but fell far short of what is required.
"Only the title mentions section 137. The body indicates that this document actually addresses section 149.
Section 137 covers firearms that are surrendered to the SAPS by the lawful owner. This is further covered by section 94 of the Regulations. Yet this document states that these guidelines don't apply to firearms handed in in accordance with section 94, i.e., legally. R600 for a pistol and R1200 for a rifle? This is about a tenth of what is required here. This document is an insult to firearm owners and to Acting Judge President Traverso." (Gun Owners of South Africa)
According to Minister of Police Nathi Mthethwa those who made use of the new amnesty opportunity would not be compensated.
This will be considered a case of adding insult to injury.
Accordingly it will be interesting to see how the amnesty fares and the response of gun owners to the threats of the Minister and Commissioner.
You could say gun owners are all fired up.
753 Wouter de Waal
[ Thursday, January 14, 2010 | 9:53:04 AM ]
"When the representative of government tells you to do nothing when a criminal wants something, government is telling you that the action of the criminal is authorized and supported by the government." -- from elmtreeforge.blogspot.com/2010/01/from-place-where-great-britain-used-to.html
748 Craig Lee
[ Thursday, January 14, 2010 | 2:47:14 AM ]
Hundreds of thousands of law-abiding South African citizens are being harassed by the SAPS with threats of prosecution, fines and imprisonment for not complying with the highly questionable Firearms Control Act, especially considering that two separate High Court cases that have clearly identified the FCA as unacceptable. This is not 'voluntary surrender' of property, it is blatant intimidation and in contravention of the constitution. This so called amnesty is a farce, it requires identification and accountability for all surrendered firearms, a contradiction to the very nature of the word, AMNESTY? Visit www.gunsite.co.za/forums , South Africa's Firearm and Hunting Forums.
731 Gary Hagemann
[ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 | 3:53:58 PM ]
FBI Reports Huge Decrease In Murders
Last week, the FBI issued its preliminary 2009 crime report , showing that the number of murders in the first half of 2009 decreased 10 percent compared to the first half of 2008. If the trend holds for the remainder of 2009, it will be the single greatest one-year decrease in the number of murders since at least 1960, the earliest year for which national data are available through the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Also, the per capita murder rate for 2009 will be 51 percent lower than the all-time high recorded in 1991, and it will be the lowest rate since 1963 - a 46- year low. Final figures for 2009 will be released by the FBI next year.
According to gun control supporter dogma - "more guns means more crime" - the number of privately owned firearms must have decreased 10 percent in 2009. To the contrary, however, the number rose between 1.5 and 2 percent, to an all-time high. For the better part of the last 15 months, firearms, ammunition, and "large" ammunition magazines have been sold in what appear to be record quantities. And, the firearms that were most commonly purchased in 2009 are those that gun control supporters most want to be banned - AR-15s, similar semi-automatic rifles, and handguns designed for defense. The National Shooting Sports Foundation already estimates record ammunition sales in 2009, dominated by .223 Remington, 7.62x39mm, 9mm and other calibers widely favored for defensive purposes.
Also indicative of the upward trend in firearm sales, the number of national instant check transactions rose 24.5 percent in the first six months of 2009 compared to the first six months in 2008, the greatest increase since NICS' inception in 1998. Through the end of October, NICS transactions rose18 percent, compared to the same period in
2008.
More Guns Means More Crime? Hardly. In 2009, more guns meant less crime, in a very, very big way.
Last week, the FBI issued its preliminary 2009 crime report , showing that the number of murders in the first half of 2009 decreased 10 percent compared to the first half of 2008. If the trend holds for the remainder of 2009, it will be the single greatest one-year decrease in the number of murders since at least 1960, the earliest year for which national data are available through the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Also, the per capita murder rate for 2009 will be 51 percent lower than the all-time high recorded in 1991, and it will be the lowest rate since 1963 - a 46- year low. Final figures for 2009 will be released by the FBI next year.
According to gun control supporter dogma - "more guns means more crime" - the number of privately owned firearms must have decreased 10 percent in 2009. To the contrary, however, the number rose between 1.5 and 2 percent, to an all-time high. For the better part of the last 15 months, firearms, ammunition, and "large" ammunition magazines have been sold in what appear to be record quantities. And, the firearms that were most commonly purchased in 2009 are those that gun control supporters most want to be banned - AR-15s, similar semi-automatic rifles, and handguns designed for defense. The National Shooting Sports Foundation already estimates record ammunition sales in 2009, dominated by .223 Remington, 7.62x39mm, 9mm and other calibers widely favored for defensive purposes.
Also indicative of the upward trend in firearm sales, the number of national instant check transactions rose 24.5 percent in the first six months of 2009 compared to the first six months in 2008, the greatest increase since NICS' inception in 1998. Through the end of October, NICS transactions rose18 percent, compared to the same period in
2008.
More Guns Means More Crime? Hardly. In 2009, more guns meant less crime, in a very, very big way.
729 Gary Hagemann
[ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 | 11:34:04 AM ]
Oh my, havnt we heard this all before? All the big fanfare and just to intimdate the legal firearm owners! So what will it achieve? It certainly wont remove illegal weapons from the hands of criminals, no sir. Can you imagine all the criminals handing in their R5's (stolen fron the SAPS) and AK47's (ex ANC), what a thought, wait no, what a joke! It will make little old ladies hand them, turning them into defenceless victims, right for the picking. So I ask, who are the real crominals? One can only imagine the fanfare when a few legal firearms are handed in by those who were intimidated. Look at us, see the dent we have made in criminal activities! NO, let again and total waste of time, money and resources. Its time the SAPS fought real criminals, not it citizens!
728 Peter Moss
[ Tuesday, January 12, 2010 | 10:04:17 AM ]
This amnesty just like the previous amnesty will;
* Decrease public safety
* Not remove firearms from criminals
* Not reduce crime
* Not rehabilitate criminals
* Not decrease violence
* Give criminals defenceless victims
* Not improve the SAPS record of crime fighting.
* Not improve the police image and public confidence.
It is impossible for any government or anyone to remove guns from criminal hands. Even complete bans fail to do this. Illegal drugs are a perfect example. If the minister and SAPS do not know this then they are incompetent. If they do, then they are willing to sacrifice the lives of citizens to achieve ideological agendas.
What is your life and safety worth to government?
* Decrease public safety
* Not remove firearms from criminals
* Not reduce crime
* Not rehabilitate criminals
* Not decrease violence
* Give criminals defenceless victims
* Not improve the SAPS record of crime fighting.
* Not improve the police image and public confidence.
It is impossible for any government or anyone to remove guns from criminal hands. Even complete bans fail to do this. Illegal drugs are a perfect example. If the minister and SAPS do not know this then they are incompetent. If they do, then they are willing to sacrifice the lives of citizens to achieve ideological agendas.
What is your life and safety worth to government?
Check out our Weekly Columnists!
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
