New proposed amendments to the Firearms Control Act of 2000 (FCA) have recently surfaced. Should they pass, they will have grave implications not only for South African gun owners, but also for the safety and security of the general public. Some of the proposals include:
• Severe restrictions on Section 13 (self-defence) firearm licenses, which would effectively prohibit access for the overwhelming majority of citizens.
• A hard limit of six firearms under Section 16 for dedicated sport shooters and hunters.
• Harsh restrictions on legitimate security companies’ access to the firearms they require to protect their clients.
Even though this version of the proposed amendments differs somewhat from the previous version in 2021, the harmful effects are nearly identical. Instead of openly repealing or banning civilian self-defence firearm ownership, the state now seeks to make it so difficult to obtain a Section 13 license that it functions as a de facto ban: you may apply for the license, but you will not receive it. The idea that citizens must prove “extraordinary circumstances” in a country with a murder rate of 45 homicides per 100,000 people (and rising) is absurd. The well-documented criminal capture and infiltration of SAPS and other state security organs, combined with the widely-publicised collapse of policing capacity, means that citizens are effectively on their own. Simply living in South Africa constitutes “extraordinary circumstances.”
Dedicated hunters and sport shooters are also being irrationally targeted with an arbitrary limit on the total number of firearms they may own. Dedicated sport shooters and hunters are among the most responsible and proficient firearm owners in the country. They must justify the need for every firearm they apply for under Section 16; if they cannot do so, the Registrar will refuse the application. Yet some organisations bizarrely claim that Section 16 is a loophole that allows people to obtain “unlimited” firearms, despite a strict and demanding process already being firmly in place. The proposed six-firearm limit will do immense harm to the sport-shooting and hunting sectors, the latter being a R44-billion-per-year industry. Sport shooting is also a foundational institution for promoting safe, responsible, and proficient firearm use—more so than any other. By targeting sport shooters, the message being sent is clear: “we do not care about developing and maintaining a culture of safe and responsible firearm ownership.”
Evidence and logic
One would expect such far-reaching proposals to be rooted in evidence and logic. In 2015, the Civilian Secretariat for Police commissioned the Wits School of Governance to assess the effectiveness of the Firearms Control Act from 2000 to 2014. The resulting 178-page research report was intended to serve as the basis for the 2021 amendments. It contains numerous important findings and recommendations. To highlight a few:
• The study found “little evidence” that the FCA caused any decline in crime rates. Any reductions correlate instead with strong and sustained policing. The FCA is insufficient to reduce firearm-related crime in the absence of effective policing.
• The FCA is relevant to fewer than 5% of all crimes reported to SAPS.
• The age and gender distribution of legal firearm owners is entirely different from that of persons accused of crime; lawful owners are not the ones committing violent offences.
• Policymakers must shift their misplaced reliance on the FCA as a crime-prevention tool and instead focus on policing.
These proposed amendments directly contradict the findings of the government’s own commissioned research. They have no rational foundation.
This is unsurprising, considering that (depending on the estimate) only about 50% of all civilian-owned guns in South Africa are licensed. The FCA binds only those who choose to comply with it. Criminals do not. They obtain firearms from corrupt state officials and through trans-border trafficking networks exploiting our porous and poorly-defended borders. Recent GI-TOC reporting on corrupt Namibian police smuggling NAMPOL pistols, AK-47s, and Uzis to Cape Town gangs illustrates the scale and sophistication of these networks.
It appears the true motive behind these amendments may be state paranoia. The preamble to the bill states its purpose as “to ensure restricted access to firearms by civilians to ensure public order.” In other words, the state seeks to disarm citizens and private security companies because it views them—not violent criminals armed with state-supplied rifles—as a threat to “public order.” Gangs, mafias, and criminal syndicates terrorising communities are not the problem, according to this logic. Ordinary citizens are.
Broadly accepted
Returning to the findings of the Madlanga Commission, it is now broadly accepted that violent criminal groups maintain close ties to powerful political figures. This raises a disturbing question: would certain politicians prefer an unarmed public in order to protect their criminal associates’ operations? Disarming citizens while criminals remain heavily armed with state-issued weapons would certainly produce that outcome. We cannot allow our protection against crime —private security and armed, responsible civilians—to be dismantled by malicious and irrational legislation.
During the 2021 public participation process, approximately 96% of more than 110,000 individual submissions rejected the proposed amendments. By rights, the amendments should have been consigned to the shredder. Instead, they are back. Overwhelming public resistance prevented them from becoming law then, and that is precisely what must happen again now.
Written by The Daily Friend and republished with permission. The original article can be found here.
