The interviews were not structured in a scientifically defensible way, but sought, rather, to get a feel for the issues of enforcement with which police officers and gun-dealers are concerned, and which might impact on the efficacy of the new law.

Policing the loss of firearms

Of the 1124 cases in which the docket had been finalised, the vast majority were closed undetected (683), with the next largest category of docket closure being withdrawal in court (246).

The fact that nearly 90% of robberies of firearms were closed undetected, and that only 2.4% resulted in convictions (Table 1), is unsurprising. Robbery, by its nature, is an extremely difficult case to solve since the complainant seldom knows his or her attacker, making the identification of suspects next to impossible. Theft, by contrast, had a higher proportion of arrests. Many of these were subsequently withdrawn in court, and the typical reason for this was the finding that the facts did not warrant prosecution, for example when a complainant laid a charge against a person in his household, but the gun was subsequently returned.

Negligent loss cases are likely to result in high arrest, prosecution and conviction rates, since every case, by its nature, will have an already identified ‘suspect’. Even in these cases, however, only about 25% led to conviction, with over 60% withdrawn by prosecutors or magistrates. In this regard, it should be noted that 45 of the 150 negligence cases withdrawn in court involved a police officer or soldier, against whom negligent loss cases are automatically opened irrespective of the facts of the matter and the level of negligence involved. The subsequent withdrawal of these cases simply reflects that the opening of the case was itself not warranted by the facts.

Of the 1155 cases reviewed, there was evidence that in 146 the firearm was subsequently identified and recovered. This number may, of course, have risen since the dockets were reviewed.

Policing gun control: What are the issues?

The interviews with police officers and gun-dealers covered a variety of issues, including:

The extent to which firearms are a useful form of self-defence.



The circumstances under which they believed gun-owners were relieved of their weapons in robberies, or had them stolen during storage.



Trends in levels of demand for firearms.



The ease with which criminals are able to access unlicensed weapons.



The efficacy of the licensing process.



Strategies and tactics which the police adopt to reduce the availability of firearms to criminals.

Predictably, given the groups of people interviewed, respondents were generally confident that under certain circumstances guns are useful to their owners. They did note, however, that this required the owner to be vigilant and well trained, and they were concerned that many owners are not. Some owners were thought to be somewhat complacent, while others were simply negligent in the way they handled or stored their weapons. The police were also concerned that many owners used their weapons inappropriately, or allowed others to do so.

This, they felt, suggested that competency certification, as required by the new legislation, was desirable. However, ensuring that the certification process actually reflected that a certificate-holder had acquired the skills, knowledge and attitudes required to safely own a gun, would be a challenge. Police officers in particular were concerned about fly-by-night and otherwise unethical dealers and trainers.

In any event, many interviewees suggested that the old licensing process was lax or lenient. The appeals process, in particular, was seen as a weakness through which people who should not have been licensed at all, were licensed. As one officer pointed out, the fact that ill-equipped people were and are licensed is of little surprise since the main obstacle for them is a criminal record check. Given that many crimes never result in a conviction, this is hardly a fail-safe mechanism.

This also suggested another issue. The fact that competency certification applied only to new applicants, with existing licensees having five years to renew their licenses, means that the average level of competence across the population of firearm-owners will not rise as steeply as the proponents of the Act hope. This may mean that it is worth reconsidering the five year transition period.

Of concern was the fact that little seemed to be known by interviewees about the nature of the market for illegal firearms. An example of this was the fact that some police officers in Durban, for instance, suggested that an illegal 9mm would sell for R300—R500 while others suggested a price of R2000.

At the same time, interviewees did speak of a fairly long list of police strategies and tactics used to recover illegal weapons, including cordon-and-search operations, road blocks, and the use of informers. In general, there was some acknowledgement that more needs to be done to disrupt the illegal firearms market and reduce both the supply and the distribution of these weapons. The perceived lack of success in reducing the pool of illegal weapons indicates that it may be necessary to consider an amnesty for those who willingly hand in unlicensed weapons.

Almost all interviewees regarded the policing of illegal weapons as more important than the policing of the regulations governing the ownership of duly licensed weapons. In some instances officers seemed to have a rather unenthusiastic attitude regarding the new legislation, suggesting that to their minds licensed owners were not the problem — this despite the acknowledged problems with the licensing process, and with the behaviour of some owners.

This relative lack of enthusiasm, together with the tightened but untested regulatory requirements, supports the views of some interviewees that the new legislation might be undermined by corrupt and unethical practices by gun-dealers, certification authorities, designated firearm officers and officials throughout the licensing process. If this is to be the case, there is little doubt that the legislation, which is already quite ambitious, will not reduce firearm crime significantly. It is important, therefore, that, in drafting the soon to be released regulations, government adopts a pragmatic approach to these issues.

Antony Altbeker
Graduate School of Public and Development Management