-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Which is the most hair-raising South African mountain pass you've driven?
New weapons act in effect
- Thread starter LazyLion
- Start date
He was misquoting the bill rather badly.
If you carry an airgun, or imitation of a firearm, you can and might just get arrested. This is already covered in the FCA though. Carrying a firearm on you is legal, subject to the FCA and firearm-free-zones, etc, as long as there is no reasonable suspicion that you may commit an offence.
The same goes for carrying a knife for a lawful use (such as a Leatherman because you use it in your job, etc).
However, you cannot carry zip on you during a public gathering or a protest.
porchrat
Honorary Master
Though sadly there is a reason to take a panga with you if others are striking and you are not.
friedpiggy
Expert Member
Part I have a problem with is the "suspicion of intent". So I go to the shops and buy a new chefs knife. Go through a roadblock on my way home and refuse to pay the cops bribe and boom I'm in jail for the weekend because he " suspects that I intend committing a crime" bollocks to that.
he is focusing on a perceived problem which the Act kind of sort of pretends to address
Under current law - in particular the RGA's proposition in s8(4) - in my view (and while IANAL this is the area of law where I am very well researched) more than adequately covers the fact that you cannot carry around dangerous weapons at a gathering. The problem is that the way gatherings under the RGA occur creates a potential loop hole, in Kouga the municipality wants people to sign an agreement with them and that agreement actually deals with a list of people to carry firearms; so if there is political rally you have body guards carrying guns and the response is the bringing of other implements to use as weapons if things go violent. It is a vicious cycle really. Now one of the problems that arises is that the contravening of the RGA doesn't carry heavy penalties and RGA charges tend to be lobbed out in court - in part because the act doesn't contain a purposive approach in criminal sanction and one sanction fits all approach arises.
Every gathering I've convened has been a strictly gun free affair with nobody who isn't on duty as a sworn constable or commissioned officer having any weapon being permissible. I've had marshals remove sharpened sticks and given instructions for vuvuzelas to be more evenly distributed within a crowd (a concern arises that they can be used as projectiles keeping them among a group of people and you have music or noise and mitigate any risk of being used for violence) but out of all the gatherings I've ever been involved in I've only once had to request a constable disarm somebody of a firearm and it was a municipal by-law enforcement person. Unfortunately though municipalities don't make this sort of approach the norm at all and that is why there is violence.
Now **** is not a dangerous weapon and can be used far more "violently" that other things that would become an absolute no no. The real problem remains which is that out of 50 municipalities I've had a look at on their implementation of the Act NONE of them do the s(3) process and s(4) meetings properly.
The default position on public gatherings should be - and the structure of the RGA makes it so because of the police powers clause - that they are weapon free zones, but marshals tend not to perform their job particularly well and often convenors are hot heads rather than facilitators and often organizers really can't control the crowd. And while it isn't easy to control even 1000 peaceful but angry people you really do need to have the ability to do so before you assemble that sort of crowd - or find somebody to help you, but that isn't the way politicians operate.
Under current law - in particular the RGA's proposition in s8(4) - in my view (and while IANAL this is the area of law where I am very well researched) more than adequately covers the fact that you cannot carry around dangerous weapons at a gathering. The problem is that the way gatherings under the RGA occur creates a potential loop hole, in Kouga the municipality wants people to sign an agreement with them and that agreement actually deals with a list of people to carry firearms; so if there is political rally you have body guards carrying guns and the response is the bringing of other implements to use as weapons if things go violent. It is a vicious cycle really. Now one of the problems that arises is that the contravening of the RGA doesn't carry heavy penalties and RGA charges tend to be lobbed out in court - in part because the act doesn't contain a purposive approach in criminal sanction and one sanction fits all approach arises.
Every gathering I've convened has been a strictly gun free affair with nobody who isn't on duty as a sworn constable or commissioned officer having any weapon being permissible. I've had marshals remove sharpened sticks and given instructions for vuvuzelas to be more evenly distributed within a crowd (a concern arises that they can be used as projectiles keeping them among a group of people and you have music or noise and mitigate any risk of being used for violence) but out of all the gatherings I've ever been involved in I've only once had to request a constable disarm somebody of a firearm and it was a municipal by-law enforcement person. Unfortunately though municipalities don't make this sort of approach the norm at all and that is why there is violence.
Now **** is not a dangerous weapon and can be used far more "violently" that other things that would become an absolute no no. The real problem remains which is that out of 50 municipalities I've had a look at on their implementation of the Act NONE of them do the s(3) process and s(4) meetings properly.
The default position on public gatherings should be - and the structure of the RGA makes it so because of the police powers clause - that they are weapon free zones, but marshals tend not to perform their job particularly well and often convenors are hot heads rather than facilitators and often organizers really can't control the crowd. And while it isn't easy to control even 1000 peaceful but angry people you really do need to have the ability to do so before you assemble that sort of crowd - or find somebody to help you, but that isn't the way politicians operate.
Indeed. That happens when society has lost all faith in the Police force.
Necuno
Court Jester
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2005
- Messages
- 58,566
- Reaction score
- 3,437
hmmm... what to do with my left over armory from martial arts.
For those of you interested:
http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu....3volume16no4/2013(16)4PDUTOIT&FERREIRAdoc.pdf
gives a really decent analysis of the Act and while it is in an academic vain it is not completely pointless (10 points to whoever spots the reference) and for the lazy among you be pleased to note that it is only a 16 page note (so about as long as some of my verbose posts)
I respectfully disagree with some of the conclusions of the learned authors and submit that had they more exhaustively consulted the literature on the circumstances under which violence arises at gatherings would be dissuaded from associating '"protesting" nature' as a factor of consideration ...
http://www.nwu.ac.za/sites/www.nwu....3volume16no4/2013(16)4PDUTOIT&FERREIRAdoc.pdf
gives a really decent analysis of the Act and while it is in an academic vain it is not completely pointless (10 points to whoever spots the reference) and for the lazy among you be pleased to note that it is only a 16 page note (so about as long as some of my verbose posts)
I respectfully disagree with some of the conclusions of the learned authors and submit that had they more exhaustively consulted the literature on the circumstances under which violence arises at gatherings would be dissuaded from associating '"protesting" nature' as a factor of consideration ...