[cuchulainn]

from Business Day (Johannesburg)

http://allafrica.com/stories/200308180759.htmlUncertainty About Screening Process Hampers Gun Control

August 18, 2003
Posted to the web August 18, 2003

Chantelle Benjamin
Johannesburg

EFFORTS to control the number of illegal firearms on the streets by tightening up the screening of applicants for firearm licences has proved more difficult than expected, and could obstruct the smooth execution of the long-awaited Firearms Control Act if not addressed.

Research by the Institute for Human Rights and Criminal Justice found that while police had set up the infrastructure required by the new act, and were more vigilant about declaring people unfit to own firearms, there was a lack of knowledge about the process, and a tendency among police and prosecutors to blame each other for problems.

The Firearms Control Act was passed in October 2000, but some regulations still have to be finalised.

Until this is done, the police have to apply section 11 of the old Arms and Ammunition Act, which allows them to declare the holder of an existing firearm licence unfit to possess a firearm, without taking the matter to criminal court.

The new act is expected to require a person applying for a firearm licence to have a competency certificate and some training in the use of firearms.

From January to October last year, the central firearms register received 117864 firearm applications and approved 103056, while 5453 new applications were refused. As of October last year, the total number of firearms registered to individuals in SA was more than 3,6-million, yet only 541 licensed owners were declared unfit to own a firearm in terms of section11 in the same period.

Copyright © 2003 Business Day

[geekWithA.45]

Whenever the burden of proof for "fitness" is shifted to the person who seeks to excercise a right or freedom, you sow the seeds of administrative obstructionism.

In the few, narrow cases where unfitness is reasonable, by rights it should be the states burden to prove, and not the other way around.


The numbers seem to bear this out time and again: The vast majority of folks are honest and qualified, and carry a large burden to prove their worthyness, with the net gain to society of withholding permission from a small number of people, who would shortly select themselves out of the planet anyway.


This sort of thing just never freaking works. Ever. It's flawed, flawed, flawed.

[Standing Wolf]

In the few, narrow cases where unfitness is reasonable, by rights it should be the states burden to prove, and not the other way around.

You obviously have no future as a leftist extremist.

[geekWithA.45]

You obviously have no future as a leftist extremist.


Damn.

And I try so hard. ;)

The thing is, everytime I observe facts, apply logic, and bring first principles into play, the whole house of cards crumbles, and nothing's left except the card that identifies me as a charter member of the "Leave me the hell alone party." :neener: