Below is Martin Hood’s response to the Daily Maverick article regarding Ian Cameron’s private defence shooting.
In 1997 I was invited to a meeting with the South African Police Services at the South African Police Service College in Pretoria to discuss the nascent drafts of the Firearms Control Act. From there all the way and through in 2000 when the Act was promulgated, I was involved in commenting on and critiquing the drafts of the Firearms Control Act, inside and outside of Parliament.
In 2003 I wrote the legal section for the most prolifically used and distributed training manual for competency testing in order to obtain a firearm licence. I have litigated the Firearms Control Act as high as the Constitutional Court.
I have made numerous presentations to the Police Portfolio Committee on the Firearms Control Act and am consulted on on an ongoing basis across a broad spectrum of interests on the Firearms Control Act. Therefore, I have the locus standi to comment on Cruywagen ’s article.
The Firearms Control Act deals with the possession of firearms. Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act deals with the use of force in making arrests. The heading to the section clearly states this. Our common law (uncodified law) deals with the law of private defence which is more commonly known as self-defence. The article conflates these completely different legal requirements.
My experience is that when an expert chooses to remain unnamed, it is because either the expert doesn’t exist or that the expert is not an expert.
The article concerning Ian Cameron is misleading, misrepresentative and speculative.
Some examples suffice. Besides your so-called expert or experts not knowing the law, I would have responded exactly the same way that Cameron did in this situation and I know that utilizing a firearm in self-defence where someone is assaulted with a brick and has injuries resulting from that assault, is fully legally justifiable and that no court will convict a person for utilizing a firearm for protection in those circumstances. Furthermore, you most definitely do not need to be confronted with an armed assailant in order to use a firearm for self-defence.
There are no legal requirements to discharge a warning shot, nor is there a legal requirement to act in a manner to “prevent injury.” Such statements are legally untenable, unsustainable and misleading.
The Firearms Control Act sets out the rules for possession of a firearm. These rules apply to everybody, irrespective of race, class, employment and so on, therefore member of Parliament is fully entitled to carry a private firearm for self-protection. Many members of Parliament do have firearms licenced for self-protection. If Daily Maverick seeks to maintain its rep utation for responsible and accurate reporting, I suggest Daily Maverick consult experts who are prepared to put their name to their opinions and who actually know what they are commenting about.
You can read Martin’s letter to Daily Maverick in PDF format here.
Written by Martin Hood.
Martin Hood is an experienced legal practitioner and firearm rights expert.
