Firearms Legislation General News

20th February 2018 – SAGA statement on firearm amnesty 2018

Parliament, via the Portfolio Committee on Police, endorsed the 2018 Firearm Amnesty on the 14 th February 2018. The Amnesty, except for some unforeseen critical issue, will soon be Gazetted and is expected to be in effect from 1 June until 30 November 2018.  READ MORE…..


16th February 2018 : Proposed Firearm Amnesty : Latest Developments – CHASA report

The SAPS have made various ill-conceived attempts during last year to “spring” an amnesty on the public. At least three appearances and presentations were done to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee for Police (PPCP) and even one attempt to “sneak” it through the National Council of Provinces, rather than as legislated, through the National Assembly. CHASA CEO Stephen Palos was invited to present at the first appearance and pointed out some serious concerns as well as the total lack of consultation with firearm ownership stakeholders. READ MORE…..



SAGA News – 8th February 2018


Eight justices of the Constitutional Court, our country’s highest court, will henceforth have to carefully consider the arguments made on behalf of the Minister of Police (as appellant), SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association (as defendant), Gun Free SA and Fidelity Security (both as amici curiae) and then adjudicate the case on the facts as contained in pleadings and the law. Since Judge Tolmay on 4 July 2017 ruled, amongst others, that sections 24 and 28 of the Firearms Control Act, No. 60 of 2000 were unconstitutional, our law requires that any finding of unconstitutionality by a High Court, needs to be confirmed by the Constitutional Court.

On behalf of the minister it was argued that the Gauteng North High Court went beyond what was proven by the applicant (SA Hunters) and that, accordingly, the ruling could not be confirmed. Counsel for SA Hunters, however, argued convincingly that there are clear gaps in the legislation, especially in the sense that no provision is made for firearm owners who had failed to timeously apply for the renewal for their licenses, to do so either during the so-called 90-days period or even after the license has expired.  Great emphasis was placed on the fact that the failure to timeously apply for the renewal of licenses criminalise such gun owners and deprive them of their ownership of their firearms. This is an argument based on constitutional principles that protect citizens against vague and irrational legislation and equal protection for all. It also guards against arbitrary deprivation of property. We are satisfied that the court understands that there are gaps in the law and that these gaps cause confusion and uncertainty among firearm owners.

The argument of GFSA was based on emotion and (again) irrelevant statistics and we are of the view that it will not contribute significantly to any finding or decision.

Fidelity’s argument coincided largely with what SAGA argued in the Gauteng High Court, namely that sections 24 and 28 were not unconstitutional, but rather that clear guidelines should be given regarding the interpretation of the provisions. These guidelines could then be utilised by parliament in redrafting the Firearms Control Act.

As expected, at the conclusion of the arguments, the court postponed the matter for consideration and to deliver judgment. Although we have no indication how long this might take, the justices are extremely hard-working and they have very high productivity rate.

Is it possible to predict the ruling of the court? It will be unethical and very irresponsible to do so.  The court will declare unconstitutional provisions of an Act only if there are no other remedies. Accordingly, even if the court does not confirm the declaration of unconstitutionality of sections 24 and 28 by the Gauteng High Court, it may nevertheless provide interpretation and guidelines for its application.

Firearm owners are reminded that it remains their responsibility to timeously apply for the renewal of their licenses or to lawfully dispose of such firearms should they no longer wish to possess them. Although the CFR sends out sms notices  to remind licensees of the imminent expiry of their licenses, it still does not happen consistently. Rather diarise the expiry dates and apply for renewal in time.

The SAGA Trust
P O Box 35203
Northway 4065
South Africa




Minister of Safety and Security v South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association

CCT 177/17

Date of hearing: 7 February 2018


The following explanatory note is provided to assist the media in reporting this case and is not binding on the Constitutional Court or any member of the Court.

On7 February 2018 at 10h00, the Constitutional Court will hear an application for confirmation of a declaration of constitutional invalidity and an application for leave to appeal in a matter concerning the expiration and renewal of firearm licences in terms of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 (the Act).

The South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association (SA Hunters) seeks to confirm the order issued by the High Court, Pretoria (High Court) on 4 July2017 which declared sections 24 and 28 of the Act unconstitutional. The Minister of Safety and Security seeks leave to appeal the order.

The purpose of the Act is broad and includes enhancing the constitutional rights to life and bodily integrity as well as the establishment of a comprehensive and effective system of firearm control. Section 3 seeks to achieve this by forbidding individuals from possessing firearms without an appropriate licence. Each licence has a limited lifespan of two to ten years. If an individual, in possession of a firearm, does not possess a valid licence, such a person commits a criminal offence and may be fined or imprisoned for a period of up to15 years.

If a person wishes to renew a license, section 24(1) of the Act requires an application to the Registrar at least 90 days before the expiry date. Section28 sets out four different situations in which a licence will terminate: expiration; voluntary surrender; declaration by the Registrar or a Court that the holder is unfit to possess a firearm; and cancellation  in terms of the Act. Certain procedures are in place, under sections 102 and 103, to

Ensure due process in situations where a person is declared unfit to possess a firearm. However no similar provisions exist when a licence expires.

In the High Court, SA Hunters argued that this legislative framework is indefensible on grounds of rationality, clarity or non-arbitrariness and that it operates in a manner inconsistent with the equality clause in terms of section 9(1) of the Constitution and the right to property under section 25 of the Constitution. SA Hunters submitted that it is nearly impossible to meet the requirements of legality after failing to comply with the  90 day limit set out in section 24 of the Act. It argues that there is no provision that  allows people who have failed to apply for a renewal at least 90 days before the expiry date to bring themselves back within the parameters of the law. The result is that  they  will be in unlawful possession of their firearms.

The High Court identified four problems with the challenged provisions: (i) the lack of clarity as to how a licence-holder who failed to comply with the time-limit established by section 24 might rectify the situation; (ii) the lack of due process in circumstances in which a licence expires; (iii) uncertainty as to how a licence-holder is to dispose of a firearm upon expiration; and (iv)the fact that no provision is made for the surrender of a firearm for value. The High Court also held that section 9 of the Constitution is violated insofar as licence-holders are treated differently in the four situations set out in section 28 of the Act. Further, the High Court concluded that the Act is inconsistent with section 25 of the Constitution in that there is no provision allowing licence-holders whose licences have expired to sell their firearms, surrender them for value or deposit them for safe- keeping with the police or a firearms dealer.

In the Constitutional Court, the Minister submits that the High Court’s declaration that  the challenged provisions are constitutionally invalid in their entirety is overbroad and that whatever defect these provisions have can be cured more effectively by a remedy other than striking down both sections. The Minister also submits that any differential treatment attributable to the Act or its implementation does not amount to unfair discrimination in terms of section 9 of the Constitution.

With respect to the High Court’s finding on section 25 of the Constitution, the Minister submits that forfeiture of a firearm upon failure to comply with the Act does not amount to unlawful deprivation of property. Such forfeiture is in accordance with a law of  general application, arises from a legitimate exercise of power, the purpose of which is to promote public health, welfare, safety and security, and it is proportionate. The Minister also contends that the High Court erred in finding that no procedure exists whereby a firearm can be surrendered and in finding that the failure to provide value for such surrender violates section 25 of the Constitution. Moreover, the Minister submits that the High Court erred in its interpretation of section 28 of the Act and also by not applying section 36 of the Constitution.

The SAGA Trust

P O Box 35203

Northway 4065

South Africa




Update : 12th July 2017

A summary of the judgement in the SA Hunters’ court case as handed down by the Gauteng North High Court Judge is as follows:

  • Sections 24 and 28 of the Firearms Control Act are declared unconstitutional
  • Parliament is given 18 months within which to effect the amendment of the Act in order to ensure constitutional compliance
  • All firearm licenses that already lapsed or are due to be renewed shall be deemed to remain valid until the Constitutional Court has made its determination on the constitutionality of these sections
  • The Respondent (SAPS) is ordered to pay the costs of the Applicant. This means the Police will have to pay the bulk of the legal cost when the case is finalised

You can read the full judgement HERE.

However, the SAPS has taken the judgement on appeal.  The implications of this appeal are still being analysed.  In the meantime, our advice is to follow the information/advice in the notice dated 27th June 2017 (see below).


As at 27th June 2017

In brief:

  • North Gauteng High Court Judge reserves judgement regarding constitutionality of Section 24 (Renewal of Firearm Licence)
  • North Gauteng High Court Judge reserves judgement regarding constitutionality of Section 28 (Termination of Firearm Licence)
  • North Gauteng High Court Judge orders no firearms handed in may be destroyed, pending the outcome of the various matters
  • SAPS issues confirmation of validity of Arms and Ammunition act 1969 licences (“green” licences)
  • Expired “white” licences with no previous “green” licence remain in “unknown territory”
  • Holders of expired licences are advised to wait pending the conclusion of the SA Hunters court case and/or the impending amnesty
  • The SAPS has implemented a policy of not allowing the transfer or sale of firearms with expired licences to a registered dealer, even though the FCA is silent on this issue.
  • See last paragraph for advice on how to surrender a firearm should you wish to do so (and you do not have to unless you feel you want to)

In detail:

The three court cases relating to the chaos precipitated by the requirement to renew firearm licences on a rotational basis as prescribed by the Firearm Control Act (60 OF 2000) as amended are of critical concern to all firearm owners. These cases were heard on 25th & 26th April. CHASA and CTSASA Spokesperson and advisor for firearm legal issues, Martin Hood, is attorney of record for two of the three cases, being those of the SA Arms and Ammunition Dealers Association and a private security company.

The current situation in a nutshell is that the judge has reserved judgement regarding the constitutionality of Sec 24 and 28 of the Act, and also ordered that no firearms handed in may be destroyed, pending the outcome of the various matters.

Should Judge Ronel Tolmay, who presides over this case, rule in favour of the SA Hunters’ application, an amnesty period for re-application of expired licences will, in all likelihood, be provided for.  We are optimistic that the Judge will rule in SA Hunters favour, but there are a number of technical issues, as well as a plethora of issues that the Judge would have to deal with before she could come to a decision. Judgement in this case is expected in a few months.

Also, the Acting National Commissioner: SAPS: Lt-Gen JK Phahlane has issued a document to various stakeholders (see attached) that recognizes the applications brought to the court and acknowledges the validity of firearm licenses issued in terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act, 1969.

Firearm owners with expired “white” licences, who never had a “green” licence remain in “unknown territory” at this stage. CHASA firmly believes that those who had an original “green” licence remain covered by the interim order of 2009, as borne out by the previous paragraph. Advice to those who only have expired “white” licences is to do nothing pending the conclusion of the SA Hunters Court case, and/or the amnesty.

Unfortunately the SAPS is not allowing you to transfer, sell or even hand in firearms with expired licences to a registered dealer, even though the Firearms Control Act is silent this.   However, should you wish to surrender the firearm to the police (and you do not have to do so unless you feel you want to), please advise the police that the firearm has been earmarked for reapplication and that you do not want to hand the firearm in for destruction. Special forms are available at police stations for this very purpose.


CHASA Update 12th May 2017 – includes statement by the SAPS – click HERE

An extract from the above document:

“Firstly, cognisance must be taken of the interim court order made in the SA Hunters application which has the effect that the persons who held licenses in terms of the repealed Arms and Ammunition Act, 1969 and failed to apply for the renewal of their licenses in terms of the Firearms Control Act, 2000 in accordance with the transitional provisions set out in Schedule 1 of the Firearms Control Act, 2000 remain in lawful possession thereof pending finalisation of the court application. The court application has to date not been finalised and accordingly the interim order remains valid with the result that persons who are in possession of firearms which were lawfully licensed in terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act, 1969, are in lawful possession thereof.”


Firearms Amnesty 2017 delayed –  read more HERE


Martin J Hood & Associates Facebook – check for updates here

8th May 2017 – Update on Court Cases (Martin J Hood) – expired licences – here (Facebook)

8th May 2017 – Update on Court Cases (Martin J Hood) – expired licences (PDF)