|
Gun owners
pleased
iafrica.com - Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:59
 The
SA Gunowners Association said it was pleased with Friday's Pretoria
court ruling that gave more than one million gun owners who have
not yet applied for their licences a temporary reprieve. Judge Bill
Prinsloo of the city's High Court granted an interim interdict to
the SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association, declaring that
firearm licences obtained under the old Arms and Ammunition Act
would be deemed valid for the time being.
The order would
remain in effect pending the final outcome of the association's
application to have certain sections of the new Firearms Control
Act declared unconstitutional.
"We, and all
South African firearm owners, must congratulate the SA Hunters &
Game Conservation Association and their legal team for their courage
in taking the bull by the horns, exposing the desperate situation
at the Central Firearms Registry to the court, and obtaining a stunning
victory," the association said in a statement.
The Freedom
Front Plus also welcomed the ruling, with spokesman Pieter Groenewald
saying: "However, the police on the ground will have to be informed
of the ruling because otherwise unlawful arrests might be made that
could cost the tax payer money."
The association
had contended that Schedule 1 of the new Act, which dealt with transitional
arrangements, was unreasonable, infringed on the rights of firearm
owners and was unconstitutional. It also maintained that the SA
Police Service was unable to cope with the flood of licence applications
and firearms being handed in for destruction.
The deadline
for either re-applying for licences or handing in firearms was June
30 (Editor's note this is incorrect - the deadline for application
was March 31st 2009 and the deadline for surrender of firearms by
those who had not applied for relicencing is Jun 30 2009) and
those who had not received licences by then could have been be criminally
charged or had their firearms taken away.
According to
affidavits handed in to the court, the police had argued that the
application was not urgent and that the urgency submitted was self-induced
because the relevant laws had been on the statute book for years.
Sapa
|
