The Government is Trying to Get You Killed

Government is preparing to advance amendments to the Firearms Control Act that would materially tighten civilian access to firearms, particularly for purposes of self-defence. The proposal raises important policy questions about crime prevention, state capacity, public safety, and individual protection in a high-crime environment.

The amendments were first proposed in May 2021. Among their most consequential provisions was a proposal to remove self-defence as an ordinary ground for firearm ownership and to significantly narrow eligibility criteria.

Public participation followed, with approximately 97 400 submissions received. Roughly 96% of those submissions opposed the proposed amendments.

Despite this level of opposition, reports indicate that Cabinet may consider the amendments next month. This suggests government looks set to ignore popular opposition.

The central change lies in limiting the right to own a firearm for self-defence. Under the current Act, a self-defence licence may be issued to a “natural person who needs a firearm for self-defence and cannot reasonably satisfy that need by other means”.

The threshold is necessity combined with a lack of reasonable alternatives.

The amendment would replace this with a requirement that applicants demonstrate “exceptional circumstances” by providing sworn statements detailing threat levels, prior incidents, distance to the nearest police station, availability of alternative safety measures, likelihood of continued threat, and “any other factors determined by the minister”.

Another section, which currently allows certain restricted firearms to be licensed for self-defence where standard firearms are insufficient, would be repealed entirely.

The practical effect is to raise the evidentiary threshold significantly. Self-defence would no longer be grounded in ordinary need, but in a heightened, discretionary standard administered by the state.

In addition, the amendment intends to repeal a provision permitting private ammunition reloading and prohibit civilian possession of reloading equipment; reduce the standard ammunition possession limit from 200 cartridges per firearm to 100 cartridges per firearm; introduce caps for the number of guns that both occasional and dedicated hunting and sport-shooting licence holders may have; require mandatory ballistic sampling for specified licensed firearms at the cost of the licence holder; and reduced the validity period of competency certificates from 10 to five years.

This shift is occurring against the backdrop of longstanding debate over the drivers of violent crime.

A 2015 report by the Wits School of Governance, commissioned by the Civilian Secretariat for Police, found that “the distributions of age and gender of private firearm owners are very different from those of persons accused of crime”.

The report further concluded that “in the absence of strong policing, the usage of firearms in perpetrating murder tends to return to the higher levels that existed before […] the period of strong policing”.

Its broader finding was that the Firearms Control Act alone is unable to reduce firearm-related crime without effective policing.

According to a legal expert familiar with the matter who spoke to The Common Sense, these findings were received by the state but not meaningfully acted upon. The expert noted that the structural policing weaknesses identified in the Wits report remain largely unaddressed.

Critics of the amendment argue that the emphasis on tightening civilian compliance overlooks the primary source of illegal firearms. Multiple firearms experts who spoke to The Common Sense maintain that a significant proportion of illegal weapons originate from leakage, theft, or diversion from state armouries and police stockpiles. The Wits report itself records thousands of firearms reported lost or stolen from police over time, with recovery rates remaining limited.

The policy debate is further complicated by public admissions from senior officials regarding enforcement capacity. Acting Police Minister Firoz Cachalia recently stated, in reference to organised gangs, “I do not believe that we are currently in a position to defeat these gangs.” That acknowledgement highlights constraints within law enforcement at a time when the state seeks to narrow private defensive options.

The broader question is therefore one of sequencing and emphasis. If violent crime is primarily driven by organised networks and policing deficits, then the effectiveness of stricter civilian licensing criteria will achieve nothing at all.

The debate now moves to Cabinet and, potentially, Parliament. At stake is not only the scope of civilian firearm ownership, but the underlying policy assumption about what most effectively improves public safety in South Africa’s current crime environment.