Hi All
Many of you may be aware of the situation concerning firearm training: the qualification expired on 30 June 2024 because the minister of education did not place it on a list of qualifications for extension.
The PFTC was appointed the quality assurer when the mandate was removed from SASSETA in 2013 due to the incompetence of SASSETA. This was tested and upheld in the Supreme Court Of Appeal and the PFTC mandate was upheld.
The QCTO and SASETA tried unsuccessfully to remove the mandate from PFTC in 2021 and ended up with a court order against them taken, it is to be emphasized by agreement.
Fast forward to 2024 and the PFTC had tried to have a new qualification accepted and to move forward with firearm training quality assurance. The qualification expired and the PFTC made an application to the minister before expiry to extend the qualification which was not answered.
As at 1 July no new enrolments for firearm training could take place which meant if you had not previously completed the training you could no longer do so and therefore no new applications could be made for competency certificates by anyone who had not completed the training before 30 June 2024.
The PFTC brought an urgent application to bridge the gap created by the failure to extend the qualification. This was vigorously opposed by the state respondents [ The QCTO, SASSETA and SAQA] on purely technical grounds such as a lack of urgency in the application. Be aware of this: none of these entities was forthcoming with what they had done to carry out their legal mandate and maintain a coherent educational system .
Put simply , this was suspicious and spoke to an undisclosed other agenda .
This afternoon, after argument, the presiding judge indicated he was going to grant in interim court order and invited the parties to present him with one.
The legal representatives could not agree because we asked for a simple extension of the status quo [ which is the purpose of an interim order] whilst the state representatives proposed an order that we believed was not in good faith and would allow the state parties to effectively disavow training after 30 June as valid.
After further argument , the judge accepted our proposal and extended the status quo until the minister makes a formal decision to extend or replace the qualification.
What happened afterwards was , in my opinion , shocking.
The state legal teams were , to put matters lightly , unimpressed and demanded that we all remain in court whilst they obtained instructions about an immediate urgent application for leave to appeal the interim order . Generally interim orders are not appealable. The whole demeanor of the state respondents changed when they effectively lost their challenge .
My interpretation of this conduct is that it was no mistake or oversight by any state functionary to not renew or extend the qualification , and such organs of state deliberately do not want any new training because this will effectively strangle firearm ownership: no new competencies , no new firearm owners.
It would seem another onslaught is about to commence against us.
Martin Hood
Sign up with Google
