South Africa proposes "draconian" private security regulation amendments

mylesillidge

mylesillidge

Journalist
Joined
Jul 29, 2021
Messages
3,912
Reaction score
4,143
Alarm over private security changes proposed in South Africa

Proposed amendments under the Private Security Industry Regulation Act would impose stricter limitations on using firearms by private security companies, effectively giving the state a monopoly over South Africans' safety, according to portfolio committee on police chair Ian Cameron.

Police minister Senzo Mchunu published the proposed amendments in the Government Gazette on Friday, 28 March 2025. Speaking to Rapport, Cameron described the proposed amendments as "draconian".
 
The monopoly on violence is literally the defining characteristic of the nation state. If a state loses that it effectively has lost its sovereignty. That's not to say I agree with these amendments, but it's a sad state of affairs that private security is even needed in the first place because it just shows you how pathetic the state has become that it can't protect its citizens.
 
Swa said:
It's funny that during the July riots the only ones seen keeping the peace were private security and individuals.
Click to expand...

That's exactly why it's a bad sign when a state loses its monopoly on violence and effectively cedes it to third-parties. Everything we take for granted - the rule of law, the power of the judiciary, court orders, by-laws, etc all become completely meaningless when the state effectively loses to ability to enforce these things with the threat of violence.
 
I have been watching this. It is never a good sign when the state moves to have sole rights over security. They don't want ordinary people being able to practice policing (and monitoring) themselves. Essentially, the government believes that the powers belong to the state. Anyone against it is a resistance.

We have seen this in history. Though our situation is a bit more unique given our exemplary crime statistics.
 
They must be quite mad/stupid/raving lunatics deceitful low life politicians aka ANC bottom feeders to come up with this. The people are getting very gatvol. This could just be the spark that ignites the unlawful possesion of firearms by normal people where you could buy them at any street corner without consequences and the indiscriminate use of them as a total fu to the authorities.
 
We needed some security during food parcel distribution during Covid, many private security companies volunteered as it was good marketing for them.

Bless them, they were also very willing, but when SAPS arrived, in their little bakkie, faded uniform and pistols, they looked like the security guards and the private security looked like special forces.

But government created this "problem", they must either shape up, or ship out, no compromise.
 
Draconian? Dip **** Dumb Arse Retarded more like.

Enzo Matrix said:
My glock needs a bit of a workout anyway
Click to expand...
Next set of amendments: _You_ won't be allowed to use a firearm in any way that could harm civilians either.

(Yea, that's what the amendments say. Basically, security guards are not allowed to do anything that might harm civilians. And for "civilians" read "criminals").
 
Koos Custodiet said:
Draconian? Dip **** Dumb Arse Retarded more like.


Next set of amendments: _You_ won't be allowed to use a firearm in any way that could harm civilians either.

(Yea, that's what the amendments say. Basically, security guards are not allowed to do anything that might harm civilians. And for "civilians" read "criminals").
Click to expand...

Not really all that concerned. Self defense will always trump an intruder attack. Beeeeeeeeeeeppppppp
 
I wonder how many people will actually send out a response email :unsure: .
The least one could do, bitching and moaning on a forum won't do anything.
Here's a brief overview from Martin Hood explaining this ridiculous proposed regulations.


FYI, you can send your objection email directly to [email protected]
It will take you less than 30 minutes.
 
Enzo Matrix said:
Not really all that concerned. Self defense will always trump an intruder attack. Beeeeeeeeeeeppppppp
Click to expand...

You should be concerned, these regulations clearly show that banning civilian firearms in public spaces is going to be one of their next goals.

Remember the draft of the 2021 FCA amendment got rid of S13 and S16 - which means when you give your Glock a "workout" it goes to the state for ballistics for atleast a year leaving you defenseless in public as you cannot license a second handgun.

But who cares, as long as the new regulations don't affect you right now right?
 
NR7 said:
Remember the draft of the 2021 FCA amendment got rid of S13 and S16 - which means when you give your Glock a "workout" it goes to the state for ballistics for atleast a year leaving you defenseless in public as you cannot license a second handgun.
Click to expand...
Just a correction, you are currently allowed to have two (2) handguns without dedicated status, an S13 and an S15.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X