The SAPS Seeks To Deprive Gun Owners of Property Without Compensation

It has come to my attention that the SAPS has lodged an appeal against the judgement handed down by Judge Tolmay last week. The appeal document contains a paragraph that has made my blood turn to ice.

“The learned judge ought to have found that a forfeiture of a firearm as a result of a failure to comply with the act is not a deprivation; and that any deprivation that does arise is in accordance with a law of general application, and is a legitimate exercise of power because it’s purpose is to protect health, welfare, safety and security for everyone’s benefit.”

What this means in plain English, is that the SAPS is seeking an amendment to the law that allows them to deprive you of your lawfully-held private property, without due process or the presumption of innocence, and that you shall be treated in a discriminatory fashion purely because you are a firearm owner. (Many thanks to Martin Hood for this clarification).

The SAPS want you to be deprived of your constitutional rights as a citizen of the Republic because you forgot to renew a firearm licence. By their own admission this is an offence for which the suitable penalty should be to only pay a fine, and which is purely administrative in nature.

Imagine if we lived in a country where you would have your home seized if you are late in paying your property rates, or have your car seized if you forgot to renew your driver’s licence?

This, my friends, is genuinely Orwellian. It is disturbing that it is a term I have used often lately when describing the machinations of the state, its organs, and the ruling party, but there frankly is no better word suited for the purpose.

This is no longer merely disgraceful, but an alarming declaration of hostility by the South African Police Service on citizens.

It is time to remind the police that they do not write the laws, nor are they tasked with the interpretation of the constitution in order to decide which parts they believe apply to us. They are there to enforce the laws as written, and nothing more.

We, as the firearm owning community, must stand together unified against what amounts to tyrannical overreach by the SAPS. If we do not stand up for our rights, we shall see them trampled underfoot by what amounts to be our version of the Gestapo.


13 thoughts on “The SAPS Seeks To Deprive Gun Owners of Property Without Compensation

  1. You might forfeit your license when it expires but not your asset. If your registration is late you pay a fine and get a new disc. You don’t forfeit your car. BTW does this impact on the judgment or are the expired licenses still valid?


    • This is the appeal document, and only when leave to appeal is granted would the judgement be suspended. It does not appear as if the SAPS are respecting the judgment at this point, either.


  2. Where is the surprise in any of this? Anyone who continues to believe that the SAPS are merely “administering and applying the law” has been drinking way too much Koolaid for way too long. Let’s stop being naive and recognise what we are dealing with shall we?


  3. The SAPS are there to oppress the citizens and enforce the will of the masters in Luthuli house.
    Not the rank and file perhaps but top structures for sure. Be afraid be very afraid.


  4. I am of the unchanged view that South Africans are in fact currently living in a dictatorship – question is what are thinking South Africans doing about it – be warned – history has a habit of repeating itself. Dictatorships don’t approve of an armed citizenry. Fasten your seatbelts.


  5. The appeal doc states categorically that gun control and specifically re-licensing and confiscation aer vital to public safety etc.

    Was this argued on the papers? is this not a finding of fact which requires evidence? The judge made comments but was this actually argued? And if not, then surely its time to have that argument?


  6. What is the administrative procedure and penalties involved for forgetting to renew a liquor licence? Pretty much the same division of SAPS running this. I assume one can merely pay a fine and continue dolling out liquor to all and sundry.
    Same question for a Taxi operator licence, permit to transport school children the list goes on.

    The appeal, although it seems legally it does not have any legs, reminds me of the PP’s comments on the SARB. Incompetent or directed by a puppet master!????


  7. I have a similar threat looming in about a week, when I must attend a Section 102 hearing at the local SAPS station. This arose out of a spat between me and the wife at our home one evening a short while ago.

    She threw a cup at me (no worries, been married to her for over 40 years, so I know to duck!), I grabbed her upper arms and sat her down in a chair. She then called the cops. I might add that she is diabetic and there is a thing called ‘Diabetic Rage’ where diabetics are stressed by the condition (which is permanent and not curable) and can be emotionally volatile when blood sugar levels are out of whack!

    Two cops arrived, she let them in and they proceeded to ask questions. Finally they departed and she accompanied them, I thought to maybe try to lay a charge. Not so, she asked the cops to take here to a hospital as she claimed injury, which turned out to be a not-serious bruise on her ribs where she hit the arm of the chair as I pushed her into the chair.

    Next day three different cops, all constables, arrived and claimed they were going to confiscate my guns, a shotgun and a 9mm. I told them they could not do this as they had no warrant and while the FCA allows for warrantless searches it does not allow for warrantless confiscation except in specific circumstances of imminent danger from availability of firearms. As I told them there was no threat of firearms during the matrimonial argument and the guns were at all times locked in the safe. They insisted, I said , “so show me the law then which authorises this?” I accompanied them in their car to the cop shop and they showed me an extract from the Criminal Procedures Act. I retorted that this was not relevant and applicable in this case and referred them to the FCA.

    I then accompanied them back to my home in their car, believing that they had now seen the error of their ways and were not intent on stealing my property. Not so, they still insisted. I then had to decide whether to further resist or submit. I handed over the firearms, ammo and both old green licences. I had to demand a receipt believe it or not – and even had to furnish the paper on which to write it! Unbelievable!

    The cop said there would have to be an enquiry, which I did not understand fully. Turns out a Section 102 is an enquiry into my fitness to own firearms. This is carried out by the police, not in a court of law!

    I have owned firearms since 1975, 42 years without incident and the very idea is utter bullshit. There is no formal written complaint or criminal charge laid by my wife against me, she made no sworn statement nor affirmation and nothing was ever put in front of her to sign. She says she mentioned nothing about guns, since they were in any event, totally irrelevant in this case, in her dealings with the cops.

    On the Section 102 notice it is claimed that I “expressed the intention to kill or injure himself or herself or any other person by means of a firearm or or any other dangerous weapon” – this is entirely untrue and my wife says she made no such claim!

    Guys, the SAPS clearly has moved into a new phase of their campaign to disarm all civilians. As we see here, it is now to be accomplished by the SAPS breaking the law and fabricating evidence through bare-faced lying.

    I will have to attend this travesty of an enquiry, but what advice can others give? No I am afraid I cannot afford a lawyer at over R2000 per hour!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s