Pierre has a lot invested in being part of the gun prohibitionist camp. To an extent we as gun owners have drawn the battle lines and made it difficult for people like him to cross them.

We might play hard but that is because we are gatvol, having been pushed around for ten years. No Stockholm Syndrome here!

For ten years though, gun owners have occupied the moral high ground – telling all comers this fight is about constitutionalism not guns.

My money is on Pierre De Vos doing the right thing when push comes to shove. In every other fight, so far, he has been on the side of the people fighting for the preservation of the Constitution – why should this fight be different? Just because the people fighting for the Constitution own guns with which they never victimise anyone?

“However, there is no right in the Constitution for a private individual to possess a firearm and to use that to kill people.”

The Constitution is similarly silent on the right of private individuals to possess hairdryers, or knives, or cars.

Glaring omissions?

“My interpretation of the Constitution that while it is Constitutionally permissable for the state to allow private individuals to hold guns, it is not constitutionally required as the state has a right and duty to decide how best to deal with crime and as long as it acts in a way that is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, it will be constitutionally legitimate.”

Are you not here in contradiction to your first point? So the Constitution (more exactly the Bill of Rights) permits the State to allow ownership of goods. How noble of them! Here I always thought we, the citizens, allowed the State certain latitude to govern us.

Proffie I think you are mistaking a Constitutional Democracy for an Autocracy where a supremem power rules by fiat and makes concessions to a servile people.

” As most criminals acquire guns by stealing them from private owners (a fact not disputed by anyone)”

Really?!

Please provide your sources for this. Not even the SA Government dares to make this statement! They couch their similar pronouncements in qualifiers and cop outs such as: “All illegal firearms [whatever on earth and illegal firearm might be] were once legal”

The facts of the matter are that many/most fireams in unlicensed (and sometimes) illegal ownership, probably came from legal owners – by far the largest proportional percentage from the State (about 20 times) more than from ‘individuals’. Does the proffie suggest we disarm the State?

“I am in favour of reducing gun-related crime so support the removal of guns out of the hands opf the source of all the illegal guns: private gun owners.”

Or, more correctly from the hands of the State! Makes sense to me, proffie! You have my support.

“A person found with a gun will be easily found guilty of a crime and locked up for several years. A relatively uncomplicated case to prove in court and a way of taking criminals off the streets and reduce guns at the same time.”

At our current conviction rate of 6% it may take a while longer that you might wish to think…

“The Constitutional invalidity of provisions in any law can only take effect if confirmed by the Constitutional Court. Whenever any provision of an act is declared unconstitutional it AUTOMATICALLY goes to the CC for confirmation.”

And this takes a while. It is in process, don’t crow too soon.

“No such case has been brought to CC so I respectfully do not believe Hood that any High Court has found any provisions in the gun law unconstitutional.”

Are you confusing CC rulings with High Court rulings here? It certainly seems so. Please explain?

“I suspect the High Court found that the police had acted in problematic ways in implementing the law.”

Indeed. Not just the police though, also the Minister of Public Safety.

“(7) If there are problems with the implementation of the law, these must be corrected. It has NO bearing, hwoever, on the Constitutionality of the Act itself. To confuse the two is to make a fundamental error of constitutional law.”

On your own evidence (above) it would seem you are making exactly this error.

“Personally I would prefer to live in a country in which private gun ownership is outlawed.”

Might I suggest you then hurry to do so. I believe North Korea is quite nice this time of year.

“My argument is in essence that this position is completely in line with the normatice [sic] commitments of the Constitution and that if the state were to go that rout nothing in the Constitution prevents it from doing so. I have yet to hear a rational and cogent constitutional law argument to demonstrate that I am wrong on this score.”

It seems there are none so blind as those who will not see. That’s OK, we understand how difficult it is to glimpse the truth through a heavy fog of emotion. We are used to having to share the world with the ideologically obsessed.

The assailants were armed with Star Mod B’s. We all know who has Star Mod B’s in any number.

Tell us about ‘transformation’ and ‘reintegration’ of the SANDF, Snee?

Was a database kept of everyone trained by Umkhonto?

No, the problem I have (and the disappointment) is how you suddenly hurl all that reasoned, logical argument out the window and stray from the debate on constitutional law to write wildly irrational things like: “As most criminals acquire guns by stealing them from private owners (a fact not disputed by anyone)” ……….. when there are a whole bunch of us out here disputing that and asking you for evidence to support the claim? or evidence that disarming citizens has EVER reduced crime, anywhere or anytime?

If you are going to stray from arguing the law and start arguing gun-control then, using reasoned, logical arguments, you need to answer some of the question being raised?

Like what about all those cash-in-transit/mall robbery AK47s and R5s? Stolen from private owners? You really think so?

Sorry Prof, regurgitating unproven ‘Gun Free South Africa’ propaganda clap-trap should be beneath you, Sir.

Police
Date of Meeting:
13 Oct 2009
Chairperson:
Ms S Chikunga (ANC)
Documents handed out:

Programme: Detective Services

Portfolio Committee workshop on Department of Police’s 2008/09 Annual Report

Independent Complaints Directorate Presentation [Part 2]
Independent Complaints Directorate Presentation [Part 1]
SAPS Annual Report Presentation
SAPS 2009 Annual Report [available at http://www.saps.gov.za

Audio recording of the meeting:
Preparatory Workshop on Department of Police Annual Report
Summary:
The Police Portfolio Committee research team gave a workshop on the Annual Report due to be presented by the South African Police Service (SAPS). The workshop focused on each SAPS programme and the work done in the 2008/09 financial year. The main programmes singled out were Administration, Visible Policing, Detective Services and the expenditure analysis and findings of the Auditor-General. It was reported, that the Administration programme had done well in achieving some of its set targets. A total of 182 754 posts were filled out of a total 183 180 created posts. Even though a huge number of personnel had terminated their service (3 310), over 14 611 police officers, a bulk of them being entry level appointments, had been recruited. A lot of resources was reported to being channelled towards the visible policing programme. It was through this programme that over 13 675 firearms had been recovered, most of those being R5 and R4 rifles which are mainly in the custody of the SAPS and the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). Detective services showed significant improvements, which worryingly for the Committee was not matched by high conviction rates…..

Minutes:

The purpose of the meeting was to allow an opportunity for Portfolio Committee members to interact with the parliamentary research unit, to be able to share information and raise issues about the South African Police Service (SAPS) Annual Report 2008/09. Mr Mpumelelo Mpisi, from the research unit led the presentation, focussing mainly on Administration, Visible Policing, Detective Services and the findings of the Auditor-General. He reminded the members that the two pieces of legislation governing the work of the SAPS categorically state that the mission of the department was to prevent, combat and investigate crime. To maintain public order, to protect and secure inhabitants of the Republic and their property and to ensure everyone upheld the rule of law…..

Programme: Visible Policing
The programme had recorded a total of 1 223 505 arrests compared to 1 274 602 in the previous financial year. It also saw the recovery of 13 675 firearms, up from 12 765 firearms recovered in the 2007/08 financial year. Mr Mpisi said that most of the firearms recovered were R4 and R5 rifles and it was common knowledge that in the majority of robbery cases, R5 rifles were mostly used. It raised a critical question which was how criminals were getting hold of those weapons since the SAPS was the main custodian of R5 rifles. He said it would be interesting to know how many of the recovered firearms belonged to SAPS and how many were linked to crime scenes.

Since when it it accepted fact that most firearms are stolen from private citizens ? Where do you have the proof of that? Did the state not admit that they recovered 116% of lost civilian firearms in the last year, while not being able to recover almost any of the guns lost by the police and military? Do you think those R5 rifles used in those mall robberies etc come form civilians? Stating ‘facts’ without proof is the job of Gun Free SA, have they started some kind of legacy?

Also, how can you be so insensitive to history? I am not talking about the history of gun control, which only a complete idiot would claim has been of any success anywhere in the world.. (your dreams aside). I am talking about the history of genocide on this planet, which still goes on today. Do you think it coincidence that almost each and every time that this has happened on earth that it was preceded by gun bans? Does it not make sense that a population is at the complete mercy of the state when they are defenseless?

How can you ignore the cases of Turkey, Germany, China, Soviet Union, Guatemala, Uganda, Cambodia etc? ALL had their guns banned before being completely decimated by their own governments. Should we not learn a thing or two there? Is it not part of a civilians duty to keep his own government in check?

Its a pity people would rather live in fantasy world that will never happen. People will always want to hurt each other. Taking away a persons ability to defend himself is effectively taking away his right to self preservation.

We are not the UK, no.. but the fact that their crime rate has gone through the roof since gun bans, and the fact that those guns are certainly not coming from civilians, doesn’t raise an eyebrow with you? Are you really that willing to fool yourself?

The message from the rest of the world is clear. If you ban guns you only remove them from the hands of the average law abiding man, not from the criminal watching you arrive at home.