Gunsite e pos

[Beretta]

Manne
Het n epos van die site af gekry hulle praat iets van jou vereeniging gaan jou aansoek om lisensie goed keur of so iets.Verstaan nie so lekker nie weet julle dalk iets
Groete
Beretta

[blaser]

dan het ons ouens wat weier om aan n vereeniging te behoort moelikheid

[Beretta]

Reminton
Ek weet nie wat die kap agter die byl is nie maar ek sal nie toe laat dat n vereeniging vir my sal besluit wat om te doen of nie.Dit wys jou net waar mee is hulle besig
Beretta

[blaser]

ek stem

[Beretta]

Het jy iets gehoor
Beretta

[Christo]

Ek het die e-pos gelees en hulle vertel dat nie vereniging ouens steeds soos nou aansoek gaan doen. MAAR, ek dink dit is net 'n manier om die verantwoordelikheid te systap deur die staat. DIT IS HULLE PLIG. Die verantwoordelikheid van 'n vereniging om rekenpligtig te wees vir siviele eise sal eenvoudig onbekostigbaar duur raak. Ek weet nie of hulle sulke versekering sal kan bekom nie.

Laas toe Ceres 'n skiet gehou het en dit alleen wou doen was die versekering vir een dag so iets soos R 15 000 gewees. Skietverenigings het nie daardie soort fondse om sulke eise te hanteer nie.

Ek stem daarteen, ter wille van die rede waarvoor sulke verenigings behoort te bestaan, en vir my is dit bevordering van skietsport en jag, nie besigheid nie, anders sou dit PTY (LTD) gewees het en nie vereniging nie. Staan ons eerder by om die staat te dwing om hulle huis in orde te kry, daaroor is ons verenig in die verenigings.

[blaser]

ja dit sal n siek spul wees n vereniging sal mos moeilik sy betaalende lede nie motiveer nie dit gaan dus net rubber stempel wees

[Beretta]

Remington
Ja n man moet maar posop die dag as jy nie betaal nie want dan vergeet jy mos van al die dinge wat jy mos betaal het om te leer al jag jy nog steeds met dieselfde ywer beteken dit mos niks.BETAAL
Beretta

[243Songdaug]

Beretta.

Plaas asseblief die e-pos vir ons op die site sodat ons dit almal kan lees?  Ek weet dat die aangeleenthied reeds teen Augustus 2010 op SA Jagters se Nasionale Takvoorsitters en Streeksko?rdineerders Vergadering bespreek is, maar volgens my kennis was daar nie sprake dat vereigings sal bepaal of jy jou lisensie sal kry aldan nie.  Ten tye van die gesprek is ons meegedeel dat verenigings hul eie lede se aansoeke moet/kan deurgaan om te verseker dat die aansoeke volledig is - dit sal die proses bespoedig.  Daar is op geen stadium ges? dat slegs persone wat aan 'n vereniging behoort voortaan lisensies sal kry nie.

Dit bly mos maar steeds elkeen se keuse of hy aan 'n vereniging wil behoort aldan nie. 

Ek weet byvoorbeeld dat SA Jagters se beleid tans is om lede wat dit finasi?l moeilik het te help - sou die lid laat weet dat hy nie op sy normale hernuwingsdatum kan betaal nie kry hy/sy grasie, sou die lid egter nie reel nie en hy betaal eenvoudig nie sy ledegelde nie, laat die vereniging 12 maande toe waarin die lid sy ledegelde kan betaal alvorens die persoon se lidmaatskap getermineer word en hy van die ledelys gehaal word. 

Gooi dus die e-pos laat ons bietjie lees wat die manne s??

Dankie.
Songdaug

[Christo]

Beretta.

Plaas asseblief die e-pos vir ons op die site sodat ons dit almal kan lees?  Ek weet dat die aangeleenthied reeds teen Augustus 2010 op SA Jagters se Nasionale Takvoorsitters en Streeksko?rdineerders Vergadering bespreek is, maar volgens my kennis was daar nie sprake dat vereigings sal bepaal of jy jou lisensie sal kry aldan nie.  Ten tye van die gesprek is ons meegedeel dat verenigings hul eie lede se aansoeke moet/kan deurgaan om te verseker dat die aansoeke volledig is - dit sal die proses bespoedig.  Daar is op geen stadium ges? dat slegs persone wat aan 'n vereniging behoort voortaan lisensies sal kry nie.

Dit bly mos maar steeds elkeen se keuse of hy aan 'n vereniging wil behoort aldan nie. 

Ek weet byvoorbeeld dat SA Jagters se beleid tans is om lede wat dit finasi?l moeilik het te help - sou die lid laat weet dat hy nie op sy normale hernuwingsdatum kan betaal nie kry hy/sy grasie, sou die lid egter nie reel nie en hy betaal eenvoudig nie sy ledegelde nie, laat die vereniging 12 maande toe waarin die lid sy ledegelde kan betaal alvorens die persoon se lidmaatskap getermineer word en hy van die ledelys gehaal word. 

Gooi dus die e-pos laat ons bietjie lees wat die manne s??

Dankie.
Songdaug

Hier is hy direk van die e-pos af. Met erkening aan Gunsite, voor ek in die moeilikheid is.

Where does your association stand ?

As you all know, GunSite welcomes all gun owners and we play party neither to politics nor to the various firearm associations.
While we generally refrain from passing comment on any of the doings of these associations, the issues at hand have suddenly become so important to all firearm owners that we feel it our duty to do so.
It is with much disappointment that we have once again become aware of fundamental differences in approach and direction. By now I?m sure you all know the clich? of the circular firing squad.

We appeal to the associations to do what is best for all firearm owners in the country.

We as gun owners once again stand at a crossroad, we have through necessity and in my view against the freedom of association clause in our constitution, to a large degree, given our rights to the various firearm associations to represent.

As in politics or religion, we choose the association which represents most closely, but not necessarily all, our various ideals, interests or believes. The problem comes in, when you have for whatever reason thrown your lot in with a particular representative association and this group?s top structure then makes decisions, which could potentially affect every firearm owner in the country.

Such is the case now. There is a piece of proposed legislation which gives the various associations more direct involvement in the licencing process.

Would you not at least like some time to consider the implications of the proposal, or are you be happy to accept whatever the ?management? decides?

This proposal, inter alia consists of the following:

The object of Act 60 of 2000 and associated Competency Certificates is to authorise an individual to possess a firearm - or a number of firearms - providing that individual has a competency certificate.
By definition therefore, the issuing of firearm licenses is more frequent than that of competency certificates. Firearm license applications contain the details of the firearms and the intended use thereof.
The high volume of firearm license applications [with all the details required therein] places the heaviest administrative burden on the approval process not only in numbers but also because of the content and the knowledge required assessing it effectively.
Allocating a role to the accredited associations to assist the SAPS in the approval of firearm licenses would, both in quantitative and qualitative terms, significantly ease the burden of SAPS and result in a more effective approval process.
With accredited associations authenticating firearm license applications of their specific members - before such applications are submitted to SAPS for approval - applications could be verified as true and correct in terms of:
? The applicant;
? The firearm applied for;
? The calibre being suitable for the purpose ? The motivation; and, ? Any other relevant part of the application.
Accredited associations already possess all the information, on firearms used by their members, on their databases. They are able to speedily authenticate the applications of those who apply for firearm licenses.
A firearm license application, carrying the authentication stamp of an accredited association, should therefore only require SAPS to verify the criminal status of the applicant.
Firearm applications authenticated by an accredited association would still be submitted by the applicant at the SAPS station closest to where he or she resides.
The liability of an accredited association in correctly performing the above tasks is significant, non-compliance could be addressed through the direct and strong legal relationship [Section 8] already provided for in the Act.
By engaging the accredited associations to authenticate firearm license applications, would significantly alleviate the burden on SAPS and consequently reducing the time required for the approval. This would allow SAPS to focus more on the higher risk applications.
SAPS may wish to continue to verify firearm license applications for self defence purposes after these had been authenticated by the accredited associations due to policy considerations on self defence firearms.
This arrangement, should it be implemented, poses the question on how firearm owners - hunters, sport shooters and the like who are not members of accredited associations will be dealt with. Based on general knowledge it would be realistic to assume that this group can be described as relatively inactive in the use of their firearms and the acquisition of new firearms. Therefore it is again fair to assume that for this group to continue to apply for firearm licenses without the authentication of an accredited association would not be burdensome on SAPS because of the relatively lower frequency of such applications.
Similarly, the engagement of accredited associations to authenticate would not be a compulsory legal stipulation but a regulated legal facility to be followed or adopted by accredited associations as needed.
This proposal therefore does not imply or suggest disadvantaging firearm owners who are not members of accredited associations or forcing accredited associations to be engaged in this process but instead offers to:
? Assist SAPS with the bulk of firearm license applications; ? Thereby reduce the burden placed on SAPS; and, ? Result in a much faster overall approval of firearm licenses.
Whilst the accredited associations will authenticate the application in terms of the personal details and the firearm or firearms applied for, verification of the illegibility of the applicant in terms of criminal activity will remain the responsibility of SAPS This proposal is presented as a concept. Full details of the required protocol between the parties would have to be negotiated, reduced to writing and approved by he relevant authorities.
Consultation amongst the accredited associations and between these associations and SAPS can be facilitated with relative ease through the well organized structures representing the accredited associations.
Implementation could then be considered

The proposal above refers to the very same licencing process that is crumbling before our eyes and to which the police, have all but admitted defeat.

Let us not forget either, that the SAPS assured the Minister and the public that they had the manpower, expertise and capability to implement the FCA. As we have recently heard, they have now recruited railway security guards in an attempt to process the backlog.

My question is, why would any association now even consider attempting to prop up legislation and a system that has proven to be an absolute disaster and something which could quite possibly disadvantage many firearm owners at a later stage?

Unfortunately it appears that the current dire licencing fiasco is seen, not only as a huge business opportunity, but of course as a way to ensure more relevance and credibility for some associations.
More disturbing is the fact that some of these people clearly fail to understand or care about gun owner rights in general.

There may be a belief that the sacrifice of a large portion of the flock will appease the wolves. If so, they have certainly seriously underestimated the size of the wolves, who would very shortly be back for the rest of the flock!

Additionally the above proposal begs the question of legal liabilities for the associations.

The associations maybe exposed to liability ? firstly by the Police for too easily approving the relevant documentation, and secondly the associations themselves would have to answer to members who may be dissatisfied if the association concludes that they do not qualify in terms of the legislation.

We as GunSite will not dictate what should be done, but until this proposed legislation is adequately explained and understood, we certainly cannot condone the rushed proposal and will use all means at our disposal to inform gun owners of the facts and present our considered opinions, especially insofar as current ?behind doors discussions with the SAPS? are concerned.


What concerns us is the following:
?The short time period left for consultive discussion and input. Why is everything once again left to the last minute? Are they hoping to hide something?
?The SAPS and one or two of the associations seem quite happy to bulldoze this through and expect that gun owners in general should be happy to accept it.
?Where does this proposed legislation leave the other accredited associations?
?Will the long term outcome be beneficial or detrimental?
This last point is extremely important and we take strong objection to once again having our backs against the wall.


We certainly need to know of and understand any potential long term negative impact, which a hastily considered amendment may have.

So what do you do?

Time is of essence. We strongly suggest that, within the few days, each one of you establishes where your relevant association stands in respect of this proposal. (Deadline is the 20th of June) It is in this light that we ask that if they are supportive of it, you to convince them otherwise, at least until we have more clarity on the issue - as some of the branches of the organisations in question already have.

A second and equally troubling situation.

It is really is with much disappointment that I was made aware that SA Hunters intend to put in counter affidavits in the SAGA case.

For those of you who are not aware, the intention is to take the SA Hunters case, where the judgement was that the ?Green licences? were temporarily still valid, to a permanent judgement.

But as with all things, there is always something positive.
Well done to that branch of SA Hunters whose immediate reply to the first issue was, ?julle het nou klaar met die SADP gepraat.. Gaan hof toe of gaan huis toe.
Gentlemen, we salute you.

Hopefully SA Hunters will be prepared to disclose reasons for this, as I was told the there were no negotiations underway that would put gun owners in a worse of situation.

As a last point, we ask once again that all associations attempt to reconcile with each other and work to the benefit of all South African gun owners.

To view or make comments please follow this link. http://www.gunsite.co.za/forums/showthr ... tion-stand

[243Songdaug]

Dankie ou Christo.

Gaan so bietjie tyd aan hom spandeer

[243Songdaug]

Die e-pos 'n keer of wat deurgelees en dit kom basies neer op wat Oom Hennie ons meegedeel het in Augustus 2010.

So hier en daar is daar 'n puntjie waarmee ek nie saamstem nie soos byvoorbeeld die volgende uittreksel:  "Based on general knowledge it would be realistic to assume that this group can be described as relatively inactive in the use of their firearms and the acquisition of new firearms."

N?rens in die wetgewing staan dat 'n lid verplig gaan word om sy aansoek deur die vereniging waaraan hy behoort te laat verifieer nie - en mense wat nie lede is van 'n vereniging nie se lisensie aanskoeke sal steeds hanteer word soos hulle tans gedoen word.

Ek sien hierdie as waardetoevoeging vanaf jou vereniging.  Ouens wat aktief deelneem aan hul vereniging se aktiwiteite kry so 'n bietjie meer ondersteuning vanaf hul verkose verening.  SCORE!  Ek kan mos kies of ek van die opsie gebruik wil maak aldan nie.  Manne, die SAP het deur en deur bewys dat hulle nie die kapasiteit het om hul werk te doen nie - die verenigings poog om ons te help, sonder om enigiemand anders te benadeel.

Ek doen hordes motiferings en ek kan julle verseker dat enige persoon wat rekord hou en so bietjie foto's neem van sy aktiwiteite rondom sy vuurwapens se motiferings is normaalweg 'n walk in the park.  Dis die manne wat nie skiet nie wat ?n problem is.  Ek verpes dit om 'n motifering te skryf vir 'n persoon wat gladnie skiet nie en dan van my verwag om sy motifering net so oortuigend te maak soos die van 'n persoon wat aktief is met sy wapens.  Dis oneerlik en oneties. 

Ons kan almal soos die genoemde tak van SA Jagters s?:  ?F.. you all ? see you in court?, maar wat gaan ons wen?  Gaan die wetgewer sy absurte wette skrap ?  Gaan die SAP hul dinges in rat kry en die nodige aandag aan ons lisensie aansoeke spandeer wat ons as belastingbetalers verdien? 

Ek staan ten gunste van enige proses wat ons instaat gaan stel om ons lisensies vinniger te kry ? en hier praat ek nie van die huidige ?Eni-meni-mini-mo-stelsel? wat tans toegepas word nie.  Nogsl interesant om te sien dat so amper 50% van alle lisensies afgekeur word, n?? 

 

[FrankH]

SAGA's response of 17th May is copied below:-

Dear ??..
A copy of the document entitled ?Role of Accredited Associations with the Application of Firearm Licences? has been forwarded to me and other trustees of SAGA.
SAGA was of the view that we had all agreed (i.e all those organizations at the Consultative Forum) to communicate openly with each other and work towards common goals. Please ensure that SAGA is kept in the loop, so to speak, and is on your distribution list for public documents such as this in the future.
Based on the assumption that the failure to forward the document to SAGA was a mere oversight, we follow with our brief comments.
In principle SAGA cannot support associations taking the responsibility for assessing licence applications and the suitability of individuals to be granted a firearm licence. Not only does this create a situation where potentially the legal responsibility for the consequences of the misuse of a firearm vests in the accredited association, but this could result in massive damages claims against associations and harsh consequences, including the liquidation of such associations and personal liability for its members.
The Firearms Control Act would require substantial amendment to give this concept the force of law and most importantly it would create space for the SAPS to blame associations for delays in the preparation and processing of licences.
In summary, SAGA?s view is that the SAPS have an obligation to receive process and make decisions on firearm licences and there are certain acts of Parliament that set out the parameters of how the SAPS must act. The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act is one such example, which may not apply to actions as between an association and its member. To agree to allow associations to fulfill functions that are totally the domain of the SAPS may work to the prejudice of members if such members are dissatisfied with the process or result of a firearm licence application.
It follows that we cannot support this proposal.

Yours faithfully

SOUTH AFRICAN GUN OWNERS ASSOCIATION
17th May 2011

and

A number (not only one) of lawyers have advised us that the consequence of the draft legislation is that:-
? An association which clears a member?s firearm application to the extent proposed has a civil liability if that weapon is used in a crime (don?t say that because this has not happened so far that it can never happen) and can be sued. Further, the association?s accreditation may be cancelled.
? What happens if the association clears the member?s safe and it transpires that the weapon was stolen because the safe was not up to spec. The association may be in trouble, civilly with the victim of the crime in which the stolen weapon was used and also with the SAPS.
? An association which refuses to clears a member?s firearm application to the extent suggested may be sued by the aggrieved member.
Don?t ask me to comment further on these points; I don?t mind quoting what the lawyers have told me but, if I try and expand on what they said, then I will get something wrong and muddy the waters. Perhaps one of the lawyers on the forum can expand more meaningfully on this.
In a nutshell:-
? If the proposal can be fixed so that these legal consequences do not arise and if it can be amended so as to make it quicker and easier to get a licence, then we will happily look at it again.

[FrankH]

... and from CHASA

"I can also assure you all that CHASA and all our affiliate associations voted against being in favour of this plan at our last full Board meeting held in early May (Including those CHASA member associations that are also accredited in their own right such as Bosveld Jagters, KZN Hunters, Noordkaap Jagters etc.)

For a full list of who CHASA Mmeber associations are see http://www.chasa.co.za/memberassoc.htm

You can be sure NONE of the listed groups are for this concept.

What we do feel would help is a beefed up and recognised version of the so called "Endorsement" by association which has had mixed success in the past and some folk have mentioned on this thread. Simply a letter from an association that confirms certain aspects relating to the suitability of the firearm. This would (should) assist the "uninformed" official sitting scratching his head over your well considdered and detailed motivations......  "



My personal feeling is that should the associations agree to this , the average gun owner that 243Songdaug refers to,is an easy target , so to speak. Once they are disposed of , the next group will be the so called "dedicated" members. Gun ownership needs to be viewed holistically, otherwise we will be shooting ourselves in the foot. Are we happy to let those "non dedicated" firearm owners fend for themselves? They make up the majority of firearm ownership and with them gone we really will be a small minority

Another point to ponder. When have the SAPS ever been honest or kept to their word when dealing with gun owners? Those that have trusted them over the last couple of years , seem to have come off second best.

[bobby]

could not agree with frank h more .

we should find out how our assosiations who we belong to feel about this and should they agree with it we should resign from it immediatly .

without the shooters and members there can be no assosiation . if we don't it's a bit like these  savages we have always voting for the anc dispite being shafted all the time.

we must not think of just ourselves the dedicated hunters and sports shooters but also about the old toppie or tannie who just wants a gun to defend themselves or hunt once a year .

the saps is trying to devide and conquer . first they'll take out the 1or 2 gun owner then the handgunners then the hunters before you know it we all just shooting pellet guns . just like a bundle of sticks difficult to break but remove and break one at a time and the job is easy .

how i long for the old days of a R2 revenue stamp , a 1 line motitvation and a 2 week wait .

cheers
bobby   

[Christo]

Frank H, dankie vir jou kommentaar.

Bobby, ek voel dieselfde.

Sou die  DIENS  se o? wel oopgaan en sien dat daar verenigings is wat werklik erns het met die motiverings van hulle lede en aanvaar dat 'n aansoek wat vergesel is van 'n "sertifikaat" deeglik deurgegaan is kan hulle baie van die rompslomp bypass en die wetlike aspekte nagaan soos kluise, veroordelings en wat nog en die proses verhaas.

Dit is die diens wat 'n vereniging kan lewer aan sy lede en die SAPD sonder om homself te verbind tot regsaanspreeklikheid

[243Songdaug]

"Dit is die diens wat 'n vereniging kan lewer aan sy lede en die SAPD sonder om homself te verbind tot regsaanspreeklikheid "

Dis presies soos ek dit verstaan het.  Ek is nie 'n advokaat nie, maar het wel maatskappy reg geswot.  Vir my lyk dit asof die verenigings steeds gedek is - vat byvoorbeeld die volgende frase:
"SAPS may wish to continue to verify firearm license applications for self defence purposes after these had been authenticated by the accredited associations due to policy considerations on self defence firearms."  (Die finale verantwoordelikheid bly dus by die SAPS)

Die ou oom en tannie wat eintlik maar net 'n geweer in die kluis wil h? "just for the sake of it" is ook gedek: 
"This proposal therefore does not imply or suggest disadvantaging firearm owners who are not members of accredited associations"

En niemand gaan die verenigings dwing om deel te wees van die proses nie:  " or forcing accredited associations to be engaged in this process"  Die SAPS sal ?n duidelike riglyn daarstel waarvolgens verenigings hul lede se aansoeke moet/sal onderskryf ? as die verenigings daarby hou en eerlikheid verseker(en glo my hulle sal) kan hulle nie verantwoordelik gehou word nie.

Ek is net 'n eenvoudige afrikaanse boerseun - "wat nie te sleg vaar met lees van wetlike dokumente(hetsy afr of engels) nie - miskien lees ek maar soos my dinges.  Ek wantrou die SAPS net soos die volgende persoon en bejeen enige optrede van hul kant met die grootste wantroue.

Ek het my besluit geneem rondom die aangeleentheid en berus daarby, dit is elke vuurwapen eienaar se voorreg om ?n besluit te neem in die verband.

Kom ons kyk maar wat die werklike storie agter hierdie voorstel is.  Tot dusver lyk dit vir my net na ?n goeie ding. 
 

[Beretta]

243Songdaug
Dankie vir die terug voering.Ek wil net graag weet indien iemand weet wie is die organisasies wat wat die gesprek ondersteun en begin het met die SAPS.Is ek dalk verkeerd deur klaar tesien dat die een sa jgters tak reeds nie met die ander takke saam stem deur te se hulle gaan hof toe.Ek sien jy meld dat jy motiverings skryf wat kos dit.Soos die een man in blou gekryf het " non dedicated members are the majority" was daar deur enige van de vereenigings wat soos jy se reeds
in 2010 bewus was van die voorgestelde veranderings probeer het om met die" majority "gesprek te voer.Ek vra jou want dit lyk nogal of jy baie betrokke is.Dit is niks persoonlik nie
Groete
Beretta

[FrankH]

243songtaug, you may be correct that its ?not a bad thing?. What should however be a concern is, why was this all concluded secretly behind closed doors, with the exclusion of the other associations?

If it really was so beneficial wouldn?t the other associations have seen the benefit and welcomed it with open arms?

Why is it now been forced through at the last minute, with no time for broad consultation?

The CFR is finally admitting the  futility of the current legislation. Its impossible to effectively implement and vastly expensive. What they are now trying to do , is move the expense and donkey work to the associations, under the false pretext of some autonomy. I don?t see any tangible benefit to us as gun owners. Why should we now help prop it up?

I think that some associations may have been blinded by the ?money carrot? the CFR is dangling before them.

What I see ,is the classic divide and conquer tactic. If we  ever forget who we are dealing with, it will certainly lead to our demise.

What we as dedicated shooters should be demanding , is the licencing of the person .Once we have jumped through all the relevant hoops , why should we be forced to repeat the whole process again and again.? This would certainly benefit us and reduce the load on the CFR.

Should I have to then comply with a yearly or bi-yearly background check by the saps , I would be more than happy to do so.

[Beretta]

Frank H
You are hitting the nail on the head with the money and the secrecy.That is exactly my point. I would like to know who started the conversation with the SAPS.I do not think it came from the SAPS.
Greetings
Beretta

[FrankH]

I'm not 100% sure, but my guess is the police initiated it.

The brown stuff is about to hit the fan as the promised 9 month deadline ends in just over a month. They are desperate, even employing railway guards to process our applications.

Its a last ditch attempt to save face IMO.

[Beretta]

FrankH
How did gunsite got to know of this do you perhaps know.
Beretta

[FrankH]

FrankH
How did gunsite got to know of this do you perhaps know.
Beretta

 

[Beretta]

Frank H

Beretta

[ablm468]

My contention is that if by being a member of a association can help to speed up my and other member's licence application then I would be all for it. I agree that the criminal checkup's should still be done by SAPS but the licencing of the person should be done by the association. The association must decide if this member is competent to poses a firearm. In my younger days I did basics in the army as I am sure a lot of members did, which laid the groundwork in respect of firearm safety and the handling of firearms. There is no more army today, members are given a superficial  overview of firearms safety and handling of firearms.

If one belongs to a club or association one of the first subjects taught is safety. I am not saying that if you do not belong to a club you are an unsafe gun handler, I say that clubs ensure members are properly trained, that is the purpose after all of belonging to a club.Surely if this causes the number of new members to increase, clubs can afford to decrease their fees to accommodate more members.  If clubs can certify an individual  as a competent firearm owner and "licence" the person instead of the firearm and SAPS only get involved in the fingerprint and criminal background checks, surely that would speed up the process wouldn't it?