A professional clay target shooter’s application, which sought continued and uninterrupted temporary authorisation for the possession of a firearm, has failed in the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria. 

Aggrieved by the refusal, the firearm owner appealed against a decision made by the chairperson of the Firearms Appeal Board and the Registrar of Firearms.

The man, a professional clay target sport shooter, is a United Kingdom citizen who carries a UK passport with a critical skill visa, also sought that the court grant him a temporary permit under Section 21 of the Firearms Control Act for the possession of a Beretta SL3.

His temporary permit, which he tried to renew in 2020, had been renewed on an annual basis since 2017. 

He argued that the refusal harms his rights and has a direct external legal effect as it impacts directly and immediately on his right to possess a firearm.

The firearm owner attempted to extend his temporary permit and stated in his justification for a temporary application: “I solely wish to be able to protect my wife from harm in the form of unlawful criminal attacks directed against me at our home or in public.”

According to court documents, he is married to a South African citizen and has been residing in the country since July 20, 2011, but has never applied for South African citizenship.

Further in his justification arguments, the man stated that due to his non-citizenship, he cannot apply for a self-defence firearms licence under S15 of the Firearms Control Act and needed the temporary permit “as I have a right under the Act to request a firearms licence, in this case for self-defence”.  

In refusing his application, the registrar said the man’s application for the temporary permit had lacked motivation and did not convince the registrar of his stated need.  

The registrar ruled: “It is clear from your motivation that you need this firearm for permanent use with a temporary authorisation. You failed to provide a temporary nature for which this firearm is required.”

He then applied to the Firearms Appeal Board, which also refused his application. 

The appeal board ruled: “The mere fact that you were issued a temporary authorisation more than once indicates that the authorisation was no longer for a temporary purpose. You seem to be issued with a firearm licence, or rather own a firearm under the disguise of a temporary authorisation of which was not the purpose intended by the legislature through this section. The provisions of the (Firearms) Act cannot be circumvented by issuing temporary authorisations.

“You have in any way not indicated to the board whether you have a pending permanent residence application upon acquisition, you would then apply for a licence in terms of the provisions of this Act,” the court documents read.

Arguing against the rulings of the two authorities, the man said that neither the appeal board nor the registrar properly brought their mind to bear on the consideration of what they were asked to consider.

He also regarded it “striking” that the decision of the appeal board was “significantly and materially discrepant”. 

Judge Nosipho Khumalo, however, agreed with the rulings by the two authorities and said that the procedure followed was lawful and fair.

“The applicant has failed to show that the respondents were irrational in refusing his application for a temporary authorisation cum S13 licence to possess a firearm or that the decisions were indeed materially influenced by an error of fact or law as he alleged.

“In my view, the registrar exercised his powers within the realm of the applicable law and functions entrusted to him by the Act, having taken the relevant factors and law into consideration.”

 chevon.booysen@inl.co.za

Source link