Proposed Firearms Control Amendment Bill infringes on the right to life, says study

Police inspect illegal firearms ahead of its destruction at a factory south of Johannesburg, Friday, 15 January 2010.A firearms amnesty has been passed by Parliament to allow authorities to destroy as many illegal weapons in the country as possible by April 2010. Picture: Werner Beukes/SAPA

Police inspect illegal firearms ahead of its destruction at a factory south of Johannesburg, Friday, 15 January 2010.A firearms amnesty has been passed by Parliament to allow authorities to destroy as many illegal weapons in the country as possible by April 2010. Picture: Werner Beukes/SAPA

Published Jun 23, 2021

Share

DURBAN - FORMER University of KwaZulu-Natal student Lereshia Naicker on Tuesday said that if the government went ahead and lawfully denied citizens the right to own firearms for self-defence, they would be infringing on their right to life.

This was in reaction to the proposed Firearms Control Amendment Bill, published on May 21, which proposed that self-defence was not a valid reason for citizens to possess firearms.

Naicker completed her Masters thesis on the implications of disallowing people to own guns for self-protection. According to her findings, all rights and their limitations were measured according to the proportion of the benefit and harm they would inflict on citizens. “Not allowing citizens to purchase firearms for self-defence would do more harm than good. The harm caused would not be proportionate to the benefit of not legally possessing a firearm,” said Naicker.

DA spokesperson Helen Zille said that it would be unjustified for the government to want to keep people from buying firearms for self-defence when the police had lost a huge number of guns under their watch.

“About 26 000 police firearms have been unaccounted for over 12 years, and the SAPS should first account for the missing guns before they take away the right to own firearms,” said Zille.

Naicker and Zille were speaking at a DA-hosted gun summit, which Police Minister Bheki Cele declined to attend.

Zille said the state’s inability to keep people safe, while still wanting to prevent them from purchasing guns as a means of self defence, was contradictory to citizens’ constitutional right to life.

“Our position is in opposition to what the bill proposes, which is illegitimacy towards owning a firearm for self-defence. We believe that this is an ill-considered piece of legislation, especially during these times where the violent crime rates have gone up,” said DA MP Andrew Whitfield.

“Suddenly, we are totally defenceless in terms of what is happening, if we can’t defend ourselves. If you look at Girls on Fire, we believe that responsible firearm ownership provides a woman with an empowering mindset. We want to emotionally, mentally and physically train women not to be victims by providing them with the means to legally defend themselves, their children and their families,” said Lynette Oxley, founding member of Gun Owners South Africa’s Girls on Fire organisation.

The chief executive of the Professional Hunter’s Association of South Africa, Dries van Coller, said their association had people who had been waiting for firearms for two years.

“How do you perform your daily functions if you cannot even get the tools to do it? The restrictions are just astronomical and it makes it impossible to perform functions.

“How do we tell our staff that we can’t perform to capacity because of the restrictions? It’s not our hunting rifles that are causing problems. Our farmers’ safety is also at stake. Who looks after them? The police cannot respond fast enough to get to these remote areas, yet they want to implement laws that prevent you from looking after yourself,” said Van Coller.

The DA planned to send Cele a digital copy of the outcome of the summit, so that he could get an idea of how all sectors and stakeholders of South African society, represented by the panellists, felt about the amendment.

Daily News

Related Topics:

dasapshelen zille