So. I want to make this clear from the start: I am not a lawyer. This does not constitute any form of legal advice. I do, however, have a schooled layman’s understanding of the law, the ability to research, a keen appreciation of history and the application of the successful concepts found in those lessons from the past.
As I put in another application for a firearm today, I looked at the list of items and addendums the DFO required me to submit alongside my SAPS 271. It struck me that this litany of elements which they compelled me to add, exemplified the ultra vires nature of their demands made on us.
This list included two photographs, which I could actually understand until one looks at all of your licenses. They only use the first ones you ever submitted. They do not use the additional photographs at all. So why the requirement to make you add it? Is it simply to place an additional cost, and time consuming requirement, in an effort to downstream manage people away from applying?
Secondly the requirement to add, if you purchased a firearm from a dealer, a copy of the dealer’s stock submittal form to SAPS. Yes they are making you, a third party, enter correspondence between themselves and a dealer into your license application. Think about that for a minute; that is like asking your school teacher to send her a letter of employment with your matriculation certificate when you apply to a university. Again why are we not asking why?
Then they ask for copies of your training certificates, now if you were applying for a competency certificate then I could see the validity in this. The process which verifies the training requirements is the competency certificate application. It also profiles the nature of the person and their criminal propensity. So why, if the SAPS themselves have already verified and certified this, should anyone be compelled to resubmit the source documentation upon which that certification was made? That makes as much logical sense, to dip into our school analogy, to ask a person for a matriculation certificate after they present a bachelor’s degree. Something, I hasten to add, SAPS has done on numerous occasions.
None of these requirements are mentioned anywhere in the act, and they seem to change according to the whims of the DFO, the Provincial FLASH or the CFR. It drives the logical conclusion that the officials within these structures are completely captured by bureaucratic inertia, and too poorly managed to make changes or utilize a strategy of obfuscation by onerous administration to implement their personal agendas.
Administrative officials, which all of these officers are, only derive their power from the law. It is really that simple. They may only demand from you that which is written in the law itself. Their use and responsibilities of those powers, and the compulsion on them to adhere to the dictums of that root law, is further regulated by the Constitution. The latter dictates that all exercises of public power be rational, justifiable and reasonable.
These concepts of rationality, justification and reason, the interpretations thereof and the exercise or compliance therewith, are governed by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). So now we have the Constitution, which uses the PAJA to govern the implementation and administration of the FCA. Alphabet soup right? Yes, a little, but from the way I see it this also provides firearms owners with a great deal of standing in law. If we use it.
Instead of blindly accepting what the DFO, FLASH or the CFR tell us, ask for it in writing. Specifically, ask them to reference the law. Demand from them continuously that they adhere to the laws, and not think, feel or do as they please.
Here comes my reference to the lessons of history. In the “old days” another piece of onerous and odious legislation was foisted upon us. They were called the Dompas laws. One of the most successful mechanisms of countering this law, was to simply invite arrest and overwhelm the system with the paperwork that went along with it. The strategy worked. Now, I am not saying anyone should disregard the law and invite arrest. What I am saying is that the concept of overwhelming the unjust machinations of administration by obfuscation is to leverage every single element of the system to rectify it.
Literally, we as freedom-loving gun owners need to build a wall of paper and process which the administrators themselves will provide. At every opportunity where a DFO, FLASH or CFR member fails to adhere to the PAJA and the concepts of rationality, justification and reason a complaint should be made. This complaint must be sent to the cluster commander, the provincial commissioner, the national commissioner, the SAPS service complaints line, the police civilian secretariat, the Police Portfolio Committee and, if you are in the Western Cape, to the police ombudsman as well. If you can afford it, engage in legal action. But do not meekly comply just to hedge against incompetence or avoid malfeasance. We can change the system. We can demand our justice back. But we have to raise our voices and stand steadfast for our constitution, our rights and our freedoms.
#bulliesmustfall, #endapartheid against #gunowners #PAJA #justice4gunowners
Written by Bryan Mennnie
Bryan Mennie is a professional risk and crisis manager. He has taught kidnap avoidance and hostage survival to various international organizations and has managed protective and security operations in over twenty countries in Africa, the Middle East and Eastern Europe.
palerider
•7 years ago
Death by a thousand paper cuts ~ destroy the will of the applicant by demanding ever more ridiculous “substantiation” as so aptly demonstrated by the author.
One potentially effective counter strategy may be for civil rights organisations such as GOSA to instigate “accountability audits” for applicants to identify, name and shame these abusers. Strip them of their anonymity. Hold them up to the light. An internet “rogue’s gallery” for all to see perhaps?
Simultaneously, provide some applicants with the legal muscle to demand compliance and enforce adherence to PAJA and any other relevant legislation. Pursue the abusers through the courts from the DFO up the chain of command to the very top. Make examples out of them. The only language bullies understand is their own and this is institutionalized bullying and intimidation.
The courts and public opinion are just about the only mechanism left to effectively counter the systemic and systematic abuse of civil rights, as GOSA has themselves demonstrated. How much more pain will we take before we act?
Peter Moss
•7 years ago
To answer your question, it takes firearm organisations leading by example and encouraging firearmowners to object. This cannot work when only one small organisation does this and the mainstream organisations are claiming the FCA is no problem just comply and you can still shoot. We will do our best to make the process easier for you. Anyone can see that is collaborator speak for we will do nothing for you because we are to afraid.
Ask what happened to the Firearms Forum and SALGO both of which were dedicated to winning in the public forum. They got torn down by frightened firearm owners and organisations. Radicals, lunatics, unrealistic, destructive of success from the experts…… Go read the comments on Gunsite and its many bans of objectors if they still exist. People who wanted to collaborate rather than object. Rewrite the FCA make it acceptable, fix it, value that licence, the FCA is ok it’s just the implementation….. organisations that threw 182,000 firearm owners under the bus and lifted not one finger to help them. Organisations that would not even challenge the SAPS when they supposedly destroyed 700,000 firearms without an audit in order to cover up the losses while in police custody.
Rick Afonso
•7 years ago
Nicely written Bryan – and anyone’s who has been through the process knows this to be 100% true.
It seems every time I apply for another license there’s has been yet another bit of arbitrary crap added to the requirements.
Considering some DFO’s want the equivalent of a 1000page thesis with every application while others apply and get their license based on just a few pages – this is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.
Martin Hood
•7 years ago
Bryan Here is my slightly different perspective but it builds upon what you have said.
When the FCA became law I advocated overwhelming the system by simply using the act to create it’s own downfall. I suggested lodging hundreds of thousands of SAP521c forms based upon any minor change of circumstances , very much like the Canadian firearm owners did with their registry where they mailed thousands of forms with firearm details for registration for firearms belonging to fake persona’s such as Mickey and Minnie mouse. They forced the Canadian government to allocate more and more resources to it until the cost became a political nightmare and their registry was abandoned.
Unfortunately the firearm organisations that existed in 2004 lacked the balls to actively resist the FCA and a golden opportunity was lost.
Bryan Mennie
•7 years ago
Hi Martin,
firstly it is really cool that you replied. That means a great deal. I hear what you are saying and I agree we may well have lost that opportunity but there are still opportunities available.
Not least of which is using the PAJA as a whip and other opportunities such as the ombudsman here in the Western Cape as a post whip SAPS with every single transgression or element of every legal overreach they use.
We must not let one opportunity to go by where we cannot make a fight about it using the procedures available to us.
In fact those who can should be partnering with you to sue them at every opportunity and considering the likes of Visser, Van Lille and Bothma make this personal and issue out threats we should be suing them in their personal capacity. All three of them have forgotten what it is to be good servants of the law, rather they see the law as creating little fiefdoms forthemselves.
Bryan
Peter Moss
•7 years ago
The correct reaction to any bad law is to OBJECT and keep on objecting. One cannot accept bad laws under any circumstances and while it may be required that one comply, that is not acceptance. While Martin Hood refers to firearm organisations not having the balls he is far to kind, it is nothing but cowardice. All firearm organisations now have exhibited a desire to collaborate with the SAPS, indoctrinate owners and members into acceptance and refuse to even consider any reaction against the Act or SAPS.
It is a sad day indeed that today it would not be possible to get ten firearm owners to stand in any street protesting the utterly useless Firearms Control Act. A situation born of the cowardice exhibited by the major firearm organisations when opposition and objection was vitally needed in fighting this oppressive legislation. Firearm organisations simply gave up before the fight had even started. Many also believe it is possible to win in the courts. A belief of the firearm organisation cowards as it is fighting by proxy. You send in the lawyers to do the dirty work and keep your own hands clean. It cannot win, it is impossible to win. Nobody can out spend government who can delay, challenge, appeal and change everything including the law if you do win so much as one case.
There is only one place a win can be obtained and that is in the court of public opinion that will outvote gun control politicians or political parties because that will impact negatively on their own safety. Is it beyond the mind of firearm owners that the only thing that will halt a politician in his tracks is the loss of power and position. Thus the same applies to political parties. To win one must have the power to influence elections via public support. Nothing less will do.
Brittius
•7 years ago
Reblogged this on .
Peter
•7 years ago
It really is not a problem as every firearm organisations only desire is to improve the process and make the FCA which they acept and promote work. I can hardly see why anyone has any room to complain. All South African firearm owners had a choice to object to the FCA or lie down and accept it. Those who chose to lie down and accept doing nothing but to fix the FCA are now in control. Firearm owners spoke, belittled and ridiculed every person wh wanted to object. Gunsite banning them left right and centre form speaking out and rocking the boat. So successful were they that today it would not be possible to gain any support for opposing gun control or the FCA. These organisations have been GFSA’s greatest helpers in persuading firearm owners to ACCEPT the FCA as they claim there is nothing else that can be done. What they actually mean is that every one of them is to afraid to lead and oppose the FCA.
It’s a very sad fact that nobody on this earth fights what they accept. So those who have promoted acceptance are the ones we have to thank for the sad state we are in. Nobody will object. You cannot make the object. I actually feel sorry for anyone who thinks it is possible to now fight gun control in South Africa. It cannot be done while sycophantic organisations exist.
Go well Bryan but this is a dead horse unless a way can be found to undo the damage organisations have caused.