South Africa proposes "draconian" private security regulation amendments

RaptorSA said:
I thought about it, but sending objections is a waste of time and just leaves you playing their own rigged game.

Honest question:
Do we have a single example of a superbly k@k idea that's been reversed because of public commentary?

The only thing to do is mass disobedience and supporting those who do so in any way possible, punish those who play along.
Teaching and showing people that they have the power is the only thing worth spending time and energy on right now.

The onslaught has becomes relentless, and screaming into the void does nothing but waste energy that could be better spent preparing for what's coming.

Personally, I'll be using the outcome of this as a litmus test. If the ANC does in fact succeed to kill the private security industry by merely pushing a piece of paper through, then the country is officially lost anyway and we can all start planning accordingly.
Click to expand...
Well yes, in 2018 with the Amendments to Firearms Act.

Honest question, would 30 minutes of your time and one email "kill" you ?

Whether it's rigged or not that's besides the point, you have to "lay the foundation" first before you can "fight" anything.

Mass disobedience is an illusion in South Africa unfortunately, vast majority are to happy to give away their "rights" etc "because most are indoctrinated, or brainwashed" by some ideology, pseudoscience or so called research.

Haven't you seen the comments on here, those are your fellow South Africans.
 
NoStepOnSnek88 said:
Well yes, in 2018 with the Amendments to Firearms Act.

Honest question, would 30 minutes of your time and one email "kill" you ?

Whether it's rigged or not that's besides the point, you have to "lay the foundation" first before you can "fight" anything.

Mass disobedience is an illusion in South Africa unfortunately, vast majority are to happy to give away their "rights" etc "because most are indoctrinated, or brainwashed" by some ideology, pseudoscience or so called research.

Haven't you seen the comments on here, those are your fellow South Africans.
Click to expand...

Touché.

Like this one who thinks the same government who wants to disarm people and allow for stealing property legally is going to hold security companies "accountable"... instead of people just, you know, cancelling payment and going somewhere else when a certain security company oversteps their boundaries:

Nerfherder said:
I think we are too far down this path already to turn back so we (the government etc) needs to hold these guys accountable in terms of the law.
Click to expand...
 
RaptorSA said:
Touché.

Like this one who thinks the same government who wants to disarm people and allow for stealing property legally is going to hold security companies "accountable"... instead of people just, you know, cancelling payment and going somewhere else when a certain security company oversteps their boundaries:
Click to expand...
You have to be able to look at laws without the foggy lenses of the current one.

Just because the current dispensation is useless - it doesn't mean we just hand over control to private enterprise.

Its a good reason to not do that.

The laws need to fix the problem, no accommodate the current regime.
The same applies to gun control.
 
Nerfherder said:
You have to be able to look at laws without the foggy lenses of the current one.

Just because the current dispensation is useless - it doesn't mean we just hand over control to private enterprise.

Its a good reason to not do that.

The laws need to fix the problem, no accommodate the current regime.
The same applies to gun control.
Click to expand...
Your reply tells me you haven't thoroughly read through the proposed regulations amendments, or listened to any other opinions, that can look at the broader picture.

There's already waaaaay "enough" gun control in place, it should be way "less".
 
Last edited:
NoStepOnSnek88 said:
Your reply tells me you haven't thoroughly read through the proposed regulations amendments, or listened to any other opinions, that can look at the broader picture.

There's already waaaaay "enough" gun control in place, it should be way "less".
Click to expand...
If there was enough gun control we wouldn't have so much gun crime.

*anyway*

This is about regulating private security - not gun control. Its so typical of gun nuts to make something completely unrelated, about gun control.
 
Nerfherder said:
If there was enough gun control we wouldn't have so much gun crime.

*anyway*

This is about regulating private security - not gun control. Its so typical of gun nuts to make something completely unrelated, about gun control.
Click to expand...

Can you see that I answered in two separate sentences, the first sentence was referring to the proposed regulations for the Private Security Industry Regulation (PSIRA) Act.

I did not mention anything about gun control, you replied to me with your silly remark about gun control.

So, again then you haven't read the Proposed amendments under the Private Security Industry Regulation (PSIRA) Act thoroughly, or listened to any other opinions about it.

FYI, no amount of laws, restrictions, amendments, regulations, controls etc will reduce crime, (FYI, no such thing as gun crime, crime is crime, as violence is violence), as has been researched, it comes down to "boots on the ground" (visible policing) the SAPS doing their duty, social economical issues, erradating corruption and a judicial system that actually functions as it should, to name a few.

Here's some common sense for you, do you believe that a criminal would follow any laws, restrictions, regulations, amendments, controls, etc pertaining to firearms ?

All that the proposed regulations for the Private Security Industry Regulation (PSIRA) Act does is compromise public safety, businesses, vulnerable communities etc, and that is exactly what stricter gun control does; it compromises safety for communities, individuals, businesses etc.
 
deweyzeph said:
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.
Click to expand...
The cANCer has been pathetic for 3 decades. So whats new?
 
I suppose they can collapse the economy faster and then sell off the mineral rights to China and then retire in a nice offshore country?
 
NoStepOnSnek88 said:
Can you see that I answered in two separate sentences, the first sentence was referring to the proposed regulations for the Private Security Industry Regulation (PSIRA) Act.

I did not mention anything about gun control, you replied to me with your silly remark about gun control.

So, again then you haven't read the Proposed amendments under the Private Security Industry Regulation (PSIRA) Act thoroughly, or listened to any other opinions about it.

FYI, no amount of laws, restrictions, amendments, regulations, controls etc will reduce crime, (FYI, no such thing as gun crime, crime is crime, as violence is violence), as has been researched, it comes down to "boots on the ground" (visible policing) the SAPS doing their duty, social economical issues, erradating corruption and a judicial system that actually functions as it should, to name a few.

Here's some common sense for you, do you believe that a criminal would follow any laws, restrictions, regulations, amendments, controls, etc pertaining to firearms ?

All that the proposed regulations for the Private Security Industry Regulation (PSIRA) Act does is compromise public safety, businesses, vulnerable communities etc, and that is exactly what stricter gun control does; it compromises safety for communities, individuals, businesses etc.
Click to expand...
Like I said... its a special kind of person who makes some thing about gun control, which has nothing to do with gun control.

and if you look carefully - you replied to me, not I to you.
 
mylesillidge said:
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".
Click to expand...
Cadres waiting in the wind...
 
Nerfherder said:
Like I said... its a special kind of person who makes some thing about gun control, which has nothing to do with gun control.

and if you look carefully - you replied to me, not I to you.
Click to expand...
I never said you replied to me, I said you made your silly comment about gun control when you replied to @RaptorSA
Post #43
So again you mentioned gun control first not me.

Again, clearly you haven't read the document, it does pertain to gun control within the Private Security Industry.

Lastly you are truly naive if you believe that in the near future they won't come out with a proposed amendment bill for the current FCA legislation.
 
NoStepOnSnek88 said:
I never said you replied to me, I said you made your silly comment about gun control when you replied to @RaptorSA
Post #43
So again you mentioned gun control first not me.

Again, clearly you haven't read the document, it does pertain to gun control within the Private Security Industry.

Lastly you are truly naive if you believe that in the near future they won't come out with a proposed amendment bill for the current FCA legislation.
Click to expand...
It worries me how someone who uses such circular logic thinks they are fit to operate a fire arm.
You know which way to point the gun right ?

The government taking guns away from fools is my kink. Even this sh1tty government.

Handing power over to corporate security is just as dangerous as letting the government go unchecked.
Private law over national law is a problem.
All these things need to concern you as a citizen.
 
Nerfherder said:
It worries me how someone who uses such circular logic thinks they are fit to operate a fire arm.
You know which way to point the gun right ?

The government taking guns away from fools is my kink. Even this sh1tty government.

Handing power over to corporate security is just as dangerous as letting the government go unchecked.
Private law over national law is a problem.
All these things need to concern you as a citizen.
Click to expand...

So this is the logic you're going with ?

Less public safety is good ?
Less safety for vulnerable communities is good ?
Less safety for businesses is good ?
More unemployment is good ?
Putting Reaction Officer's lives at risk is good ?

Do you recall the July 2021 riots, if it weren't for Private Security Companies doing the job of your beloved SAPS what do you think would have happened?
 
NoStepOnSnek88 said:
So this is the logic you're going with ?

Less public safety is good ?
Less safety for vulnerable communities is good ?
Less safety for businesses is good ?
More unemployment is good ?
Putting Reaction Officer's lives at risk is good ?

Do you recall the July 2021 riots, if it weren't for Private Security Companies doing the job of your beloved SAPS what do you think would have happened?
Click to expand...
No I'm saying is a conundrum.
Its a problem that we have less police and more private security.

I'm covered by 3 different security companies at my home. Some less official than others. I'm not about to stop that.
  • I have ADT armed response
  • another security company covers the neighborhood as well and will respond if I ask (looking to take over)
  • We pay for a foot patrol, which does most of the spotting
  • There are CID's in every neighborhood around us and they also patrol our area.
  • There is a police presence as well, not great but the station is in our hood so they come through often.
Its safe where we live because we have private security. I pay more than R1000PM and its going to go up when we move to the new company and (probably) join a CID as well.

We have already had another security try an move into our area and arrest our patrol.
If we stopped any of these things it would have a direct impact on crime, so basically held to ransom.

Oh and in the 14 years I have been in the area none of the security services have had to use their guns, not all of the guards are armed.

Its the wild west here
 
Nerfherder said:
No I'm saying is a conundrum.
Its a problem that we have less police and more private security.

I'm covered by 3 different security companies at my home. Some less official than others. I'm not about to stop that.
  • I have ADT armed response
  • another security company covers the neighborhood as well and will respond if I ask (looking to take over)
  • We pay for a foot patrol, which does most of the spotting
  • There are CID's in every neighborhood around us and they also patrol our area.
  • There is a police presence as well, not great but the station is in our hood so they come through often.
Its safe where we live because we have private security. I pay more than R1000PM and its going to go up when we move to the new company and (probably) join a CID as well.

We have already had another security try an move into our area and arrest our patrol.
If we stopped any of these things it would have a direct impact on crime, so basically held to ransom.

Oh and in the 14 years I have been in the area none of the security services have had to use their guns, not all of the guards are armed.

Its the wild west here
Click to expand...
What is a CID?
 
Nerfherder said:
If there was enough gun control we wouldn't have so much gun crime.

*anyway*

This is about regulating private security - not gun control. Its so typical of gun nuts to make something completely unrelated, about gun control.
Click to expand...
face-palm-1803744272.gif

Looks at last 100 rules that failed. ..."It will work this time for sure."

How does this "enough gun control we wouldn't have so much gun crime" work exactly in this imagination of yours? Like is the average criminal pulling out his hand book.

Rule 1 murder = illegal. I'm gonna ignore that
Rule 2 robbery = illegal. Pass
Rule 3 assault = illegal. Lol whatever
Rule 4 carrying a gun into Shoprite = illegal. Damn, okay bro, I'll follow that one. Guess those shoprite people are safe from robbery, murder and assault.
 
Jam Sandwich said:
What is a CID?
Click to expand...
City Improvement District.

Its the reason why Cape Town is less shitty than the rest of the country.
Basically you pay even more rates and then your neighborhood has their own extra budget to pay for things like private security, street cleaning, cameras etc.
It works pretty well and you get to decide where the money is spent but essentially its just extra taxes.
When the neighborhoods around us started doing it, someone in our area fought it and so we don't have it. We benefit from the CID's being close to us but at the same time a lot of the crime and grime gets pushed our way because we don't have a CID to manage the area 100% of the time.

This was explained to us when the CID was being set up in our old neighborhood. Basically as the CID is set up, all the "problems" from that area to another area with no CID.
In nihilistic way its basically a protection racquet, but its better than not having one... so yes I'm trying to get one established.

Due to us not having a CID a group of residents have organized security on our own, but the cost of it per person is obviously quite high because not everyone is paying. With a CID the cost is just added to your municipal account and its very low (R150).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter