FB Post -New Firearm law could disarm all anti poaching units.

[RogerFraser]

FB: Stop Rhino Poaching.com

Deadly consequences for rhinos and rangers in private game reserves. South Africa's Minister of Police, Bheki Cele, had put forward an amendment to prohibit the use of semi-automatic weapons in all private security services except cash-in-transit and asset-in-transit operations. Private Anti-poaching Units safeguard a significant number of whats left of SA's rhino population. This proposed amendment is a serious threat to ranger safety. What happened to rhino poaching being a national priority crime? Department of Environmental Affairs

[Lisbeth]

They will have to add an appendix to that law! Somebody was not informed on the poaching situation
Or use "unless recommended by the authority and approved by Central Firearms Register

New Firearm law could disarm all anti poaching units.

This is painting the devil on the wall

[Alf]

Clowns

[Richprins]

I don't think it should be a problem regarding parastatals like Kruger, but definitely a problem for private reserves, as said...

[Lisbeth]

Kruger is not parastatal it is all statal

As per my post, I am sure that permits will be granted to Reserves that have poaching problems.

[Lisbeth]

Cele gets flak over changed gun laws ‘disempowering’ private security

15.6.2019 06:33 am |Sipho Mabena


Anti-poaching rangers will have to face heavily armed poachers witgh only rifles and handguns if the proposed new firearm regulations become law. Picture: Gallo Images

If adopted, anti-poaching units would be outgunned by poachers brandishing high-calibre assault rifles such as AK47s.

Rangers may soon have to face poachers, who have serious firepower, armed only with hunting rifles or handguns, if proposed amendments to Private Security Industry Regulations go ahead.

Minister of Police Bheki Cele has gazetted amendments for public input including that only cash-intransit guards can carry semi-automatic weapons.

If adopted, anti-poaching units would be outgunned by poachers brandishing high-calibre assault rifles such as AK47s.

The proposed amendments state that possession of a semi-automatic weapon would be allowed “only for security services aimed at protecting valuables which are being transported” or assets-in-transit.

Exceptions would only be permitted if recommended by the relevant authority and approved by the Central Firearms Registrar.

Armed response unit guards would also be limited to handguns or shotguns. These could also be used by private investigators, environmental protection or anti-poaching services, close protection services and guards at national key points.

Possession and use of any firearm on public or private school premises by security service providers would be outlawed.

The only exception to this would be in cases where contracts stated that the guards required the use of firearms.

Security guard uniforms would have to bear at least two badges or insignia with the name of the employer and the name and registration number of the security officer.

These would have to be displayed on the front top part of the uniform. The words “Private Security” must be clearly visible and the uniform may not be made from fabric or other materials in any shade of blue or which has a camouflage design or pattern.

The Capitalist Party of SA slammed these amendments, saying they would effectively disempower the entire private security industry.

“Armed response and reaction unit officers will be prohibited from carrying semi-automatic pistols (which is by far the most common armament in this line of work) during the execution of their duties.

“Tactical intervention, anti-hijacking, close-protection and anti-poaching units will similarly be deprived of use of semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and carbines.”

The party’s Gideon Joubert said the proposed legislation perversely inferred that it was appropriate for cash and other assets to be protected by security guards armed with semi-automatic weapons while in transit, but that the lives of innocent citizens could not be protected in the same manner.

“By proposing these amendments, Minister Cele has elevated the value of insured cash and assets above human life,” he charged.

[Lisbeth]

An article like that would not be sensational if it would be taken into consideration that most likely the Minister has a very limited knowledge of what is happening in wildlife reserves and that these will certainly get a special permission. If not where would all these weapons go? and the poachers would have a much easier life and I am sure that this was not the intention of the law.

Does the new amendments not have to pass by Parliament to have value?

[RogerFraser]

Its totally .The security companies and anti poaching form the last line of defense for most citizens of SA both in rural and urban areas .The most stolen firearms belong to the police and arm themselves and the vast majority of crime is committed by unlicensed illegal firearms not legal licence firearm owners .These proposed changes to the laws are totally ridiculous in the current context of the state of SA .If there was an actual functioning police and army and we did not have the highest murder rate in the world then it might make sense.

[Richprins]

One theory is that Government wants to remove as many effective private firearms as possible to facilitate land grabs later...

[Lisbeth]

Sounds a bit far fetched Couldn't it be a way to try to stop a part of the most violent crimes