----- Original Message -----
From: McCarthy, Gert (GJJ)
To: SAFirearmForum@.....no_spam_here.....yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:53 PM
Subject: [SAFirearmForum] Support for Each & All

This battle as won, has some important learning points;

- We all now benefit, via one Organization's efforts

- We must learn to stand together on that we agree on,

& not criticize & bicker etc about that which we differ about

Gert

----------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE: Please note that this eMail, and the contents thereof,
is subject to the standard Sasol eMail legal notice which may be found at:
http://www.sasol.com/legalnotices

If you cannot access the legal notice through the URL attached and you wish
to receive a copy thereof please send an eMail to
legalnotice@.....no_spam_here.....sasol.com
----------------------------------------------------------

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: Support for Each & All
    Posted by: "Richard Boothroyd"
boothroyd@.....no_spam_here.....polka.co.za
    Date: Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:51 pm ((PDT))

I beg to disagree, Stewart.   Although the 1969 Act was a lot better than
the FCA it was repressive enough in its own ways.   The difference between
then and now is not entirely in the written law, it is in police attitude
and orders from above.   It would have been easy for them to have refused en
masse under the 69 Act as they are now doing.   What we need is something
completely new, that establishes certain basic rights as point of departure.
There will never be a better time to demand it.

I will have more to say about that later, but right now I am concerned that
SAH shows no understanding that the ket issue is to get rid of the FCA not
band aid it.

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: editor@.....no_spam_here.....flysouth.co.za
To: SAFirearmForum@.....no_spam_here.....yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: [SAFirearmForum] Support for Each & All

The last known satisfactory condition for licencing and ownership of
firearms was the 1969 Arms and Ammunition Act.

That and that alone is the point of agreement which should be adopted.

Any differences are irrelevant in light of this fact - and reversion to that
Act must be the aim of all.

Stewart

Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: Support for Each & All
    Posted by: "concerned_shooter"
concerned_shooter@.....no_spam_here.....yahoo.com concerned_shooter
    Date: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:15 am ((PDT))

I couldn't agree with you more Dick, the FCA needs to be scrapped in its
entirety. Somehow I cannot see government or the cops giving up on it
totally neither I do see the training part of the act being scrapped, I
think we are stuck with training whatever happens. However, in my opinion if
an applicant passes all the training, their licence should be "shall issue,"
and an end to the cops "Not convinced of need" or "Insufficient motivation."

I personally know of at least 3 people who were either denied a licence or
waited in excess of two years were murdered.

The cops have no right to play with people's lives.

Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: Support for Each & All
    Posted by: "Wouter" yahoo@.....no_spam_here.....dW.co.za johnretro
    Date: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:21 am ((PDT))

>  neither I do see the training part of the act being scrapped, I think we
> are stuck with training whatever happens.

Pragmatically, I agree. If it's farmed out to the public sector (as it is)
with multiple trainers (as it is) it's live-with-able (new word).

>  However, in my opinion if an applicant passes all the training, their
> licence should be "shall issue,"

Once you are deemed competent, the only reason the cops should be allowed
to not give you a licence would be if you have a violent criminal record
(if you cheated on the books that should disqualify you).

But that's just my opinion :-)

W

Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: Support for Each & All
    Posted by: "concerned_shooter"
concerned_shooter@.....no_spam_here.....yahoo.com concerned_shooter
    Date: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:22 am ((PDT))

I agree with that point.

> Once you are deemed competent, the only reason the cops should be allowed
> to not give you a licence would be if you have a violent criminal record
> (if you cheated on the books that should disqualify you).

> But that's just my opinion :-)

> W

Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: Support for Each & All
    Posted by: "Wouter" yahoo@.....no_spam_here.....dW.co.za johnretro
    Date: Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:06 am ((PDT))

>I agree with that point.

:-)

Except I meant to say "if you cheated on the books that should NOT
disqualify you"

> > Once you are deemed competent, the only reason the cops should be allowed
> > to not give you a licence would be if you have a violent criminal record
> > (if you cheated on the books that should disqualify you).

> > But that's just my opinion :-)

Messages in this topic (7)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Year planner
    Posted by: "ndlovu8" ndlovu8@.....no_spam_here.....gmail.com ndlovu8
    Date: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:21 am ((PDT))

--- In SAFirearmForum@.....no_spam_here.....yahoogroups.com,
"concerned_shooter" <concerned_shooter@.....no_spam_here........> wrote:

> --- In SAFirearmForum@.....no_spam_here.....yahoogroups.com, "Brett Nortje" <brenor@.....no_spam_here.....> wrote:

> > Er....destroying other people's guns - sounds to me like 'malicious
> > damage to property'? A crime?

> > There is no pressure that is wasted. Even the smallest amount adds up.
> > Death by a thousand cuts?

> I REALLY want to see bothma bleed like he's never bled before

So does that mean you'll take the first step by joining me in sending SAHGCA
a donation today ;-)

Bank = ABSA
Branch = Pretoria-North
Acc. No. = 0144 399 00 77
Account Type = Cheque
Branch code = 632 005
ref: REGSFONDS

Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Year planner
    Posted by: "Barry" barryd@.....no_spam_here.....unibase.co.za
gabarry2003
    Date: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:35 am ((PDT))

There is no directive regarding firearms surrendered for compensation.
When my wife handed in her revolver, I wrote the word INVOLUNTARY on the
document and said the firearm was not to be destroyed until compensation was
received. I also wrote that she reserves the right to reclaim it if there
are any changes to the law.
 I bet the compensation document has gone missing.
I thonk the copshop needs another visit.
I wonder if she will get her 194 rounds of ammo back? Should she even ask?
B

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
2c. Re: Year planner
    Posted by: "editor@.....no_spam_here.....flysouth.co.za"
editor@.....no_spam_here.....flysouth.co.za flysouth1
    Date: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:55 am ((PDT))

The SAPS directive makes clear that the SAPS (you can bet they have taken
legal advice!) know that they are bound to hand back surrendered property.

The matter of compensation previously demanded is irrelevant to the current
situation - they took the firearms and ammo - they have the firearms and
ammo - the court and their own directive says, give them back on demand! END
OF STORY

She should and must ask - and demand back anything and everything that was
involuntarily surrendered.

At this point it matters little whether she will get the ammo back -
possibly not - but all difficulties/demands/obstacles that can be placed in
the lap of the SAPS which can be made to arise out of the judgement must be
exploited to the full.

No crap deposited on the cops heads is too small or unimportant - from tiny
acorns grow enormous oak trees!

You must know that if enough people vociferously demand what is rightfully
their property they are acting as the Constitution demands, as the judgement
has stipulated - and as the SAPS directive instructs. With sufficient
numbers doing this, more nails are hammered into the coffin of the FCA - and
hopefully the Poison Dwarf's personal sarcophagus is, as we speak, being
constructed by those in the ANC who wish us ill and used the useful idiot
Bothma to carry out their evil work.

They will deduce from this judgement that he has screwed up - someone always
has to take the blame - and what follows seems clear. But we must reinforce
their disappointment in his failure by doing whatever we can and not falling
prey to inactivity, believing the fight is over in any way.

Help hammer those nails!

Vindictiveness is perhaps not an admirable human trait - but it s an
excellent part of our strategy at this time!

Stewart

----- Original Message -----
From: Barry
To: SAFirearmForum@.....no_spam_here.....yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:36 PM
Subject: Re: [SAFirearmForum] Re: Year planner

There is no directive regarding firearms surrendered for compensation.
When my wife handed in her revolver, I wrote the word INVOLUNTARY on the
document and said the firearm was not to be destroyed until compensation was
received. I also wrote that she reserves the right to reclaim it if there
are any changes to the law.
I bet the compensation document has gone missing.
I thonk the copshop needs another visit.
I wonder if she will get her 194 rounds of ammo back? Should she even ask?
B

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
2d. Re: Year planner
    Posted by: "concerned_shooter"
concerned_shooter@.....no_spam_here.....yahoo.com concerned_shooter
    Date: Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:34 am ((PDT))

--- In SAFirearmForum@.....no_spam_here.....yahoogroups.com,
<editor@.....no_spam_here........> wrote:

> Vindictiveness is perhaps not an admirable human trait - but it s an excellent part of our strategy at this time!

> Stewart

I for one would like to see the jackbooted little arsehole put up against
the nearest wall and shot.

If I ever despised anyone, its him.

Before anyone jumps to his defence saying he was only obeying orders (it
didnt work in Nuremburg after WW2) it IS an offence to carry out unlawful
orders.

Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
2e. Re: Year planner
    Posted by: "Barry" barryd@.....no_spam_here.....unibase.co.za
gabarry2003
    Date: Mon Jun 29, 2009 10:56 pm ((PDT))

>A lot of people handed in their firearms and now want them back.<

And my heart bleeds for them... NOT.

They gave up, they capitulated, now someone else did something and won,
they want to get on the bandwagon?

Let them storm parliament if they feel strongly enough.<<

Not everyone feels the same about their rights, and this is THEIR right,
crazy as it may appear to us,

I am trying to persuade the wife to claim her toy back, but she is not
interested in standing at the copshop watching the paint dry. The only
reason to get it back would be to test the system. She would need to hand it
in again at a later stage as she is not interested in keeping it.

Messages in this topic (14)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: SAH Court Victory
    Posted by: "ndlovu8" ndlovu8@.....no_spam_here.....gmail.com ndlovu8
    Date: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:28 am ((PDT))

--- In SAFirearmForum@.....no_spam_here.....yahoogroups.com, "Richard
Boothroyd" <boothroyd@.....no_spam_here........> wrote:

> "Court-cases are the game we have."

> Agreed, Brett.   I also agree that people power is the best way to go, if it
> were available.  I am therefore bitterly disappointed at the failure of the
> public/firearm owners to come to the party and grasp a victory that could so
> easily be won.   But they have not done so and will not do so, thus court
> action is the only game we have.

> "We cannot chance messing up JASA."

> That's why it is vital to get SAH to cooperate with JASA partly because SAH
> has the resources but also because standing together beats standing
> separately.

> Dick

Dick,
Don't you think part of the problem for most firearms owners is that there
appears to be just too many 'gun associations' who seem to be saying
diferent things?

Those of us with a bigger interest in firearms and a better understanding of
the issues know that the various groups are all saying the same thing but in
different ways, That's not how a lot of people see it?

I think it's vital that we simplify matters for the masses and FOCUS just on
one purpose (fund-raising) for one cause (the Concourt case) for one entity
= SAHGCA

Join me in sending SAHGCA a legal fund donation today ;-)

Bank = ABSA
Branch = Pretoria-North
Acc. No. = 0144 399 00 77
Account Type = Cheque
Branch code = 632 005
ref: REGSFONDS

That way we all win?

Messages in this topic (8)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4a. Re: Support for SA Hunters and Game Conservation Association
    Posted by: "ndlovu8" ndlovu8@.....no_spam_here.....gmail.com ndlovu8
    Date: Mon Jun 29, 2009 6:46 am ((PDT))

--- In SAFirearmForum@.....no_spam_here.....yahoogroups.com, Monty Guest
<monty.guest@.....no_spam_here........> wrote:

>If I may add my R0.02 worth.Just because they say they want to work >with Bothma does not mean thatthey *really* intend to. Sometimes it is >beneficial to an organisation to be seen as willing to co-operate.
>But one would be fairly short sighted to put out a press release with
>your final position on a matter because it leaves no room for >negotiation. It makes them *appear* to be willing to co-operate, and >appearances can be important. Especially in the mass media ....

>rgds, monty

Monty you are absolutely right. Not only does it look good in the media but
to the Court also. Why wouldn't reasonable, responsible, law-abiding
gunowners do everything possible to co-operate with the SAPS and attempt to
reach an amicable understanding that benefits all interested parties? The
more reasonable we are, the more unreasonable the demands made on us will
seem? The rabble-rousing talk is fun but it makes politicians, police and
non-gunowners nervous. We must be careful to always represent ourselves as
the sober, responsible law-abiding citizens we are?

SAHGCA legal fund donation ......

Bank = ABSA
Branch = Pretoria-North
Acc. No. = 0144 399 00 77
Account Type = Cheque
Branch code = 632 005
ref: REGSFONDS

Messages in this topic (7)

Any and all opinions expressed on this group are purely those of the author,
not those of any organisation.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SAFirearmForum/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Triad Productions-Fantalla~EZine~ParaNovel
National Association of Assault Research
(http://*remove*boblacasse.150m.com/htmlconc.html)