SA Gunowners’ Association (SAGA)
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
Dear Member,
Justice Alliance ‘Compensation’ Case : SAGA’s Commitment
On 31 August 2009, the Western Cape High Court gave the Minister for Safety & Security 90 days to establish guidelines for the payment of compensation [for firearms forfeited or surrendered to the State in certain circumstances] as contemplated in section 137(5) of the Firearms Control Act (FCA) as his failure to do so is unlawful and inconsistent with the Constitution.
This successful application, promoted by GOSA (Gun Owners of SA), was brought to the Court by JASA (Justice Alliance of SA) and the False Bay Gun Club.
Although it is too soon to say when, or how the Minister/SAPS will respond, or whether or not GOSA/JASA will accept or oppose any guidelines provided, it is not too soon to congratulate the partnership for conceptualizing this action, doing the hard work and research needed to get the case to court, and, last but certainly not least, winning.
Our congratulations on a job well done.
While we usually strive to avoid public ‘disagreement’ with other pro-gun people or organizations, SAGA has been so criticized for not participating in this ‘compensation’ case that some concerned members (and non-members) have requested us to respond by defending our position and/or refuting the allegations. This we now do, as briefly as possible in the circumstances.
The concert of allegations/criticism peaked after the ‘victory’ newsletter e-posted by GOSA executive member, Mr Dick Boothroyd on 4 September 2009 in which he stated, inter alia – “GOSA was started in 2004 by a small group in Cape Town that was disillusioned by the lack of resistance to the FCA and in particular by SAGA’s attitude that the FCA would never be scrapped and that we must make the best of it. ... While all firearm groups agree on the unjust nature of the FCA, that fundamental policy difference made it untenable to remain in SAGA.”
Four paragraphs later Mr Boothroyd reports: – “Throughout this two year effort, all firearm organisations were approached for financial support. All declined, so it [the JASA/GOSA court case] was funded by a handful of individuals. SAGA declined to associate with us. It is therefore fair to say that SAGA and all the associations accept the FCA while GOSA is on the road to getting it scrapped.”
That “fundamental policy differences” were at the root of the “disillusionment” cannot be disputed. Such differences are at the core of a robust democracy – total uniformity in approach is probable only if you are lemmings. If the differences are such that they cannot be accommodated within one organization, a split is inevitable and desirable. From our perspective, this particular split, which began well before 2004, came about as follows:
About ten or so years ago, some SAGA council members impatient with SAGA’s ‘soft’ (acceptance of the reality) approach and whose ‘hard’ policy alternatives had not been adopted by SAGA, eventually parted company with the association. (Note that SAGA’s 1985 Trust Deed and the pledge signed by members both stress the ‘responsible’ and ‘law-abiding’ nature of the association – which precludes it adopting radical ‘over my dead body’ or civil disobedience-type policies – such as contained in some proposals.)
A number of the disillusioned parties sniped away at SAGA and tried to tar-brush us as ‘sell-outs’ and ‘the opposition’. Somewhere along the line, there then emerged an organization claiming the title “Gun Owners of South Africa”. There is much that we still don’t know about it, for example: Which of the vociferously anti-SAGA, GOSA supporters are official spokesmen and which are unaffiliated, loose cannon? Apart from the ambitious objective “forcing the scrapping of the FCA”, what are GOSA’s official policies? It appears to us that, in the main, GOSA was founded on a negative attitude towards SAGA, or SAGA-like policies, and has used these “fundamental differences” to white-ant SAGA and to assert that SAGA’s “acceptance of the FCA” is tantamount to “surrendering to the FCA”. This we deny – nothing could be further from the truth. What is true is that we have not set our sights on the total scrapping of the Act – which, like unscrambling your breakfast eggs, we regard as unlikely and impractical.
SAGA does work within the system – to fight for your rights on every possible front. This we have done in parliamentary committees, statutory councils, parastatal bodies, in communications with the Minister, the Commissioner, the CFR, the Appeal Board, in informative press advertising and our website... and in our involvement in various court cases (some successful, some not).
SAGA also tries to represent the interests of all (legal) firearms owners in various open forums – pro- anti- and uncommitted – as well as in press interviews, during radio and television shows and wherever else we find opportunities. All these activities are ongoing and we will continue to collect evidence, build up cases, and take the authorities to court when deemed advantageous. And SAGA will continue to fight these fights with or without the support of other parties.
While we try to guard against any (unfavourable) ‘unintended consequences’ of our actions, and are not reckless with members’ money, SAGA’s conservative approach does not immobilize us.
Given the above, it is beyond understanding that, fresh from a court victory, GOSA (and some ‘loose cannon’) find it appropriate to castigate the associations in general and SAGA in particular – and for what? For not swearing an oath of allegiance to GOSA? And not supplying the funding it may need to further its action in court? It is ludicrous for critics (with conveniently short memories) to contend that SAGA, by accepting reality, has somehow sold out its constituents and has left GOSA as the sole guardian “on the road to getting [the FCA] scrapped”.
SAGA is by no means perfect and all-seeing, but our members can be proud of its record of fighting for firearm owners’ rights – ALL law-abiding firearms owners’ rights.
No one should be surprised that SAGA did not rush in to feed the hand that tries to bite it. Indeed our members may be surprised to learn that SAGA did not flatly refuse to fund or support GOSA’s efforts. Nor have we actively opposed or hindered them in any way. Our representatives have always kept the door open and SAGA would – even now – give careful consideration to a proper formal proposal for support. This has been made easier since, by basing its court case on the provisions of the FCA, GOSA has tacitly joined the rest of the ‘sell-outs’ who are working “within the system”.
This effort to convey SAGA’s position should be taken as intended – to settle our members’ concerns, not to detract from GOSA’s efforts or victory celebrations. We trust that we have succeeded as we have no desire to enter into protracted (and unprofitable) argument and counter-argument or to offer lengthier explanatory replies to individual letter writers.
It is to be hoped that GOSA and its supporters will exercise a little more restraint when exercising their right to criticize.
The Trustees – The SAGA Trust
2 October 2009
Issued on Friday 2 October 2009 at 14:15
Issued by: The SAGA Office tel +27 31 5629951 fax: +27 31 5620530 For Legal requirements our physical address is given - NOT for mail Tandjo Centre, 4 Joseph Ave, Glen Anil, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.
