Sign up with Googlecaptainwifi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 834
Billy Downer the deputy director of prosecutions prosecuted Jacob Zuma. Selebi the head of the SAPS is a staunch supporter of Zuma. What the SAPS is asking of Billy Downer is for him to sign the FCA form on p.6 but on p.10 Selebi can recommend under the section: "Describe the mental condition of the candidate ...." that Billy Downer confided in him that he is a cross between Donald Duck and Kublai Khan on an undercover mission to reinstate the ancient kingdom of King Tut.
Based this information the Central Firearms Registrar must decide wether to relicense Bill Downer's personal firearms.
There is no love lost between the NPA and the SAPS. Would Vusi Pikoli sign a form giving the SAPS the right to confiscate his personal firearms that he obtained under the old gun law? What about the wifes, brother, sisters and friends of the NPA - could they attract the special attention of a relicensing official in the SAPS dealing with their application forms? What about the prosecutors in general? What would be the effect if the criminals knew that all the prosecutors have had their firearms confiscated but also that of their wifes who are now defencless at an address organised crime can easily obtain ?
With the Firearms control act the view of the NPA was that an existing right given under the previous Firearms act that was replaced can't be arbitrarily revoked. Under the previous law a gun license was valid for life. Under existing law your house remains your property for life and after death you can decide who inherits it. Should there be a prosecution and conviction of a person who did not relicense it would establish a general precedent that the government can confiscate property without any form of compensation.
It was reported in the Citizen that John Welch views it as unconstitutional to force a person to relicense who had received a firearm license under the old law. Five days before the Dec.31 2005 deadline Minister Nqakula had a meeting with John Welch the deputy director of Prosecutions. John Welch himself has 12 guns and won't relicense his firearms, in other words the government expects Welch to prosecute himself. In the meeting Welch indicated that he won't prosecute anybody who failed to relicense and thus the government postponed the whole thing till June 2009. Furthermore the FCA is open ended. Meaning any terms and conditiions can be arbitrarily amended. So for example if the act is amended after enough people has relicensed then it would be a simple matter to gazette that all guns that have been relicensed and licensed under the FCA must be immediatly handed in at the nearest police station. And this would be an entirely constitutional and legally valid step because the person that relicensed signed a form giving the government such a right. In contrast the old Firearms law did not allow for such an open ended arbitrary amendments. And thus a test case or precedent where a single individual gets prosecuted for failing to relicense and convicted would be the only way to test the validity of the FCA in court. But only the NPA can decide to proceed with such a test case.
But the NPA can neither be forced nor prevented from attempting to establish a precedent. In terms of our constitution a person is innocent until proven guilty. Some would argue that somebody not relicensing is guilty of an offence. This is a factual and legal inaccuracy. Only the court can determine this in the first test case. But since there are no test cases and the NPA has indicated that they won't prosecute for failing to relicense, all such old license holders remain innocent until proven guilty. And the constitutional principle of innocense until proven guilty applies to all the other compliance laws. Lawyers that specifically deal with firearm relicensing also deal with cases where appeals are made in terms of the FCA. They must ofcourse be paid for this. The Gunshops know that a person who doesn't relicense will never be able to purchase another firearm from them. The Posetta training institutes makes their money from people getting a competency certificate in terms of the ECA. Under the old Gun law one did not need a competency certificate. And thus one should carefully evaluate what your are told by the various stake holders. What is the monetary gain to be extracted from a person relicensing and what implications are there for them from a financial perspective should such a person not relicense?
Based this information the Central Firearms Registrar must decide wether to relicense Bill Downer's personal firearms.
There is no love lost between the NPA and the SAPS. Would Vusi Pikoli sign a form giving the SAPS the right to confiscate his personal firearms that he obtained under the old gun law? What about the wifes, brother, sisters and friends of the NPA - could they attract the special attention of a relicensing official in the SAPS dealing with their application forms? What about the prosecutors in general? What would be the effect if the criminals knew that all the prosecutors have had their firearms confiscated but also that of their wifes who are now defencless at an address organised crime can easily obtain ?
With the Firearms control act the view of the NPA was that an existing right given under the previous Firearms act that was replaced can't be arbitrarily revoked. Under the previous law a gun license was valid for life. Under existing law your house remains your property for life and after death you can decide who inherits it. Should there be a prosecution and conviction of a person who did not relicense it would establish a general precedent that the government can confiscate property without any form of compensation.
It was reported in the Citizen that John Welch views it as unconstitutional to force a person to relicense who had received a firearm license under the old law. Five days before the Dec.31 2005 deadline Minister Nqakula had a meeting with John Welch the deputy director of Prosecutions. John Welch himself has 12 guns and won't relicense his firearms, in other words the government expects Welch to prosecute himself. In the meeting Welch indicated that he won't prosecute anybody who failed to relicense and thus the government postponed the whole thing till June 2009. Furthermore the FCA is open ended. Meaning any terms and conditiions can be arbitrarily amended. So for example if the act is amended after enough people has relicensed then it would be a simple matter to gazette that all guns that have been relicensed and licensed under the FCA must be immediatly handed in at the nearest police station. And this would be an entirely constitutional and legally valid step because the person that relicensed signed a form giving the government such a right. In contrast the old Firearms law did not allow for such an open ended arbitrary amendments. And thus a test case or precedent where a single individual gets prosecuted for failing to relicense and convicted would be the only way to test the validity of the FCA in court. But only the NPA can decide to proceed with such a test case.
But the NPA can neither be forced nor prevented from attempting to establish a precedent. In terms of our constitution a person is innocent until proven guilty. Some would argue that somebody not relicensing is guilty of an offence. This is a factual and legal inaccuracy. Only the court can determine this in the first test case. But since there are no test cases and the NPA has indicated that they won't prosecute for failing to relicense, all such old license holders remain innocent until proven guilty. And the constitutional principle of innocense until proven guilty applies to all the other compliance laws. Lawyers that specifically deal with firearm relicensing also deal with cases where appeals are made in terms of the FCA. They must ofcourse be paid for this. The Gunshops know that a person who doesn't relicense will never be able to purchase another firearm from them. The Posetta training institutes makes their money from people getting a competency certificate in terms of the ECA. Under the old Gun law one did not need a competency certificate. And thus one should carefully evaluate what your are told by the various stake holders. What is the monetary gain to be extracted from a person relicensing and what implications are there for them from a financial perspective should such a person not relicense?
