Mevrou die Voorsitter, hierdie wetsontwerp is 'n moedige poging van die departement om werklikwaar iets te bereik, maar dit bereik egter nie die doel nie. Wat was die doel? Die doel is seer sekerlik om onwettige wapens wat in sirkulasie is, te beperk. Maar wie word nou geteiken? Dit is die wettige wapeneienaar en die gelisensieerde persoon wat nou geteiken word. Volgens die oorspronklike voorstelle sou alle vuurwapenlisensies geldig bly. Dit is nou verander. Dit beteken nou dat bestaande lisensies teen Junie 2009 totaal en al hernieu word. Die teiken is nou die wetsgehoorsame, gelisensieerde wapeneienaar en dit terwyl die misdadiger steeds vrykom.
Die doel om die onwettige wapens te beperk kan mos nie bereik word deur die wettige wapeneienaar sy eiendomsreg by wyse van onteiening te ontneem nie. Artikel 25 van die Grondwet, wat eiendomsreg beskerm, kom nou heeltemal in gedrang. Die vergoeding wat aan 'n eienaar betaal sal word, is nie goed genoeg nie. As ek 'n bepaalde sentimentele waarde het aan 'n vuurwapen of bepaalde besitting, wat die rede ookal mag wees, moet ek dit nou ter wille van die wetgewing tot niet maak? Of moet ek nou daarvan ontslae raak? Of moet ek dit onaktief maak? Steeds kom ons nie uit by die doel nie, naamlik om die misdadige element wat onwettige wapens het, te beperk.
Dit kom weer daarop neer: waarom moet ek my eiendomsreg opgee om onwettige en misdadige elemente te probeer beperk, en wel deur die wettige eienaar se eiendomsreg wat gewaarborg word deur die Grondwet, te beperk? Die VF-Plus sal nie die wetgewing ondersteun nie. Ek dank u. (Translation of Afrikaans speech follows.)
[Dr F J VAN HEERDEN: Madam Chairperson, this Bill is a bold attempt by the department to really achieve something, but it fails to achieve its objective. What was the objective? The objective is surely to curb the number of illegal firearms that are currently in circulation. But who is now being targeted? It is the legal owner of firearms and the person with a licence who are now being targeted. In the original representations, all firearm licences were to remain valid. That has now changed. That means that existing licences will now have to be renewed completely by June 2009. The target now is the law-abiding, licensed firearm owner and that whilst the criminal still gets off the hook.
The objective to curb illegal firearms can surely not be achieved by stripping the legal gun owner of his right of ownership by dispossessing him of it. Section 25 of the Constitution, which protects right of ownership, is now being pushed aside. The compensation that will be paid to the owner is not good enough. If a firearm or specific item is of special sentimental value to me, for whatever reason, do I now have to destroy it for the sake of the law? Or should I now get rid of it? Or should I disable it? Still we have not achieved the objective, namely to curb the criminal element that possesses illegal weapons.
Once again it amounts to the following: Why should I surrender my right of ownership, in an effect to control illegal and criminal elements, and in fact by curtailing the legal owner's right to ownership, which is guaranteed by the Constitution? The FF Plus will not support this legislation. I thank you.]