Gun politics in South Africa
| This page is part of a series on
| |
| Gun politics | |
|---|---|
|
| |
 |
Australia |
 |
Brazil |
 |
Canada |
 |
Czech Republic |
 |
Finland |
 |
Germany |
 |
Honduras |
 |
Italy |
 |
Jamaica |
 |
Kuwait |
 |
Mexico |
 |
New Zealand |
 |
Norway |
 |
Pakistan |
 |
South Africa |
 |
Switzerland |
 |
United Kingdom |
 |
United States |
In South Africa, owning a gun is conditional on a competency test and several other factors, including background checking of the applicant, inspection of an owners premises, and licensing of the weapon by the police introduced in July 2004.
[edit] The Law
This legislation, The Firearm Control Act 60 of 2000 & Regulations, plus an Amendment Act in 2006, has been the cause of much discontent amongst supporters of legal gun ownership. All current firearms owners, approximately 2.6 to 3 million according to the SA Central Firearm Registry, are required by the Act to re-register their firearms.
The authorities have been indifferent to submissions by pro-gun groups, dismissing their input while maintaining that they have consulted adequately according to the law. Most recently this was shown when pro-gun groups lobbied for an amendment to remove the requirement of relicensing guns which are already licensed, and were instead surprised with an amendment that had little effect other than to require the licensing of muzzle loading firearms.
The South African Police, (Firearm Division - Central Firearm Register *CFR*) have been criticized for being patently unable to process renewals in a timely fashion, for predominantly denying licence renewals and particularly for refusing new licenses on blatantly arbitrary grounds. e.g. During the period 1996 to 2003, approximately 150,000 new license applications were approved by CFR annually, (CFR's own Stats). Renewal of the 2.6 to 3 Million existing licences over the period 2004 to 2009 (Time period allowed under the FCA) would have required the CFR to process 650,000 licences per annum.
Almost no 'new' license applications and only a few thousand 'renewals' have been granted since the introduction of this legislation, leading to the common view among legal firearm owners that the Firearms Control Act is merely a tool to legalise the disarmament of law-abiding citizens. The application process is relatively expensive and also takes a varying but mostly excessive amount of time, commonly anything between twelve and twenty four months.
It should be noted that although South Africa has the second highest violent crime rate in the World, (Revised to No 1 position by Nationmaster.com Crime stats Sept 2007) -98% of gun crime is performed with illegal (unlicensed) weapons according to the SAPS. According to statistics from the BBC 12,000 people died from gunshot wounds in 1998. This accounts for around 25% of deaths by unnatural causes.
A new but unsubstantiated report from UNISA has revealed that in the 3 years leading to 2004, gun-related deaths in South Africa have nearly halved, down to 6000 deaths in 2004. It should be borne in mind that this was claimed by Gun Control activists to be due to the Firearms Control Act. (which -despite its date- was only implemented on 1 July 2004)
However, as gun-rights activists point out, the act does not account for the generally downward trend in firearms-related deaths for the ten-year period prior to 2004 when the Act was enforced. During this period firearm licenses became more available to the black population. CFR and SAADA, (Gun-dealers association) data indicating 95% of the 150-thousand licences per annum issued through the period 1995 to 2003. Nor does it account for the spectacular increase in firearms-related violence since 2005, violent cash-in-transit heists in particular increasing by 74%.
An entirely comprehensive 96-page Political Masters Thesis performed in 2000 by the University of Cape Town (UCT), entitled "A Critical Analysis of Firearm Control in Post-Apartheid South Africa", predicted that the violent crime rate was more likely to increase rather than decrease should the then-existing civilian firearm legislation be markedly changed IRO scope and effect.
[edit] Negative Impact
In January 2006 the Org Gun Owners of South Africa commissioned a one-hour documentary discussing the likely negative social and financial ramifications of the Firearm Control Act (sub-titled Gun Politics) . A senior representative of the ANC took part, (Metro Chief of Police Robert McBride), as did Mr Larry Pratt, CEO of Gunowners Of America.
The South African Ministry of Safety and Security as well as the SA police service (CFR spokesperson, S/Sup't Andrew lesch) publicly admitted in a SASA (SA Security Association) breakfast seminar in 2003 that neither departments had performed any research whatsoever regarding the negative socio-economic implications of the Act.
It is recommended to researchers that the Brazilian Referendum discussion and opinion page is studied for pertinent factors relating to the overall 'pro' v 'anti' argument.
Gun laws in South Africa have also been criticized by well-known South African Journalist, Jani Allan. The 'Gun Owners of South Africa' association recently published the folling statement:
Gun Owners of South Africa (GOSA) calls on Minister for Safety and Security Charles Nqakula (told citizens that if they did'nt like the crime levels in the country, they could leave !!) and Commissioner of the South African Police Service Jackie Selebi ( facing prosecution for involvement in crime syndicates !) to take political and executive responsibility for this alarming increase in the most violent of crimes. They must resign immediately. The Department for Safety and Security has become a never-ending money drain with ever diminishing returns. The increase in the rate at which the most-violent-crimes are committed is the sad but logical outcome of the chaotic state of the wasteful, grossly mismanaged Department for Safety and Security. It is also a clear indictment of the oversight (or rather, lack of proper Parliamentary oversight) by the Legislative Branch of government. It is a consequence of the Firearms Control Act. It is indeed a more grave situation than most realise.
