# summary

- Link: https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/private-security-industry-regulations-act/summary/
- Published: 2019-06-09T13:36:37+02:00
- Author: dearSA

## DOWNLOAD DOCUMENTS

 * [Full Government Gazette 42496](http://www.gpwonline.co.za/Gazettes/Gazettes/42496_31-5_NationalGovernment.pdf)
 * [Firearm amendment notice](https://cdn.dearsouthafrica.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/20191330/42496gen295.pdf)
 * [Uniform amendment notice](https://cdn.dearsouthafrica.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/20191330/42496gen292.pdf)

[ < HAVE YOUR SAY ON THE PRIVATE SECURITY BILL](https://dearsouthafrica.co.za/private-security-industry-regulations-act/)

## SUMMARY

Close

**Error:** Contact form not found.

## prefer to watch a video?

[https://youtu.be/Q4jjSkH_7t8](https://youtu.be/Q4jjSkH_7t8)

Note there were two separate draft amendment regulations published on the same day
attempting to amend the same regulations, not to get confused between the two, the
one is notice 295 of 2019 dealing primarily with firearms and the other is notice
292 of 2019 dealing primarily with uniforms

The proposed amendments include the following:

2 (f) “semi-automatic means a semi-automatic as defined in Section 1 of the Firearms
Control Act”

The Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 Section 1, defines “semi-automatic” as follows,
means self-loading, but not capable of discharging more than one shot with a single
dispersion of a trigger.

Draft Regulations 2 (f) reads “by the insertion after the definition of “restricted
firearm” the following definition” – semi automatic means a semi-automatic as defined
in Section 1 of the Firearms Control Act”

However, there is no definition of a restricted firearm in Regulation 1 of the regulations
that is being amended.  So where is this intended to be inserted

There is however a definition of a restricted firearm in the firearms control act
and possibly the drafter got confused.

 2(g) of the regulations read: By the insertion after the definition of “semi-automatic”
with the following definition – “shotgun means a shotgun as defined in Section 1
of the Firearms Control Act”

_Note: Section 1 of the Firearms Control Act has no definition for a shotgun._

Regulation 13 A (16) Security business that renders security service requiring the
possession or use of a handgun or shotgun must issue such firearm to a security 
officer as contemplated in sub regulation (2) only for the rendering of one or more
of the following security services:

a) Reaction services or armed response;

b) Protection of valuables that are being transported (cash in transit);

c) Private investigators services;

d) Environmental protection or anti-poaching services;

e) Close protection services; and

f) Protection and security services at national key points

Therefore, a security company may not issue a handgun or a shotgun to any security
officer for any security service outside of those definitions, for example vehicle
tracking (unless you try and massage vehicle tracking into one of the above service
category’s ( which is not defined) as well as armed guarding of any site.  

So now you have the ridiculous situation where you could have a vault containing
one billion rand cash. You are no longer permitted to have armed guards to protect
the site ( but don’t worry you can still use a paintball gun, but there are now 
a whole lot of regulations about that to) as the assets are not being transported
and it doesn’t fit into the categories above. If a security company comes and fetches
R100 from the vault to take to the bank they can use firearms including semi automatics
as the assets are now being transported but the site itself ( the vault) can not.

Regulation 13 A (7) Security business may only issue a bolt action rifle, that is
defined as a hunting rifle, to people involved in environmental protection services
or anti-poaching services (and no other security service).

Regulation 13 A (8) Security business that renders security service which requires
the possession or use of a semi-automatic, must issue such firearm to a security
officer only for security services aimed at protecting valuables which are being
transported.

Regulation 13 A (9) The possession and use of a firearm contemplated in sub regulation(
8) (i.e. semi-automatic) is prohibited in respect of all security services rendered
and can only be used by cash in transit or asset in transit operatives (unless recommended
by the authority and approved by the central firearm controls registrar)

Note:  The definition of a semi-automatic firearm used in the amendment regulations
would include pistols, therefore according to this clause no security company, other
than cash in transit, may carry a pistol, even if they are involved in anti-poaching,
armed response, etc.  Meaning armed response companies will now be limited to using
revolvers or shotguns. (While it is debatable whether they had original intended
that or it was just caused by careless drafting in any event that is the effect)

Regulation 13 A (10) The possession and use of a firearm on a public or private 
school premises by a security service provider when rendering security services 
is prohibited, unless stated in a contract that security service provided will require
the use of a firearm.

Regulation 13 C (1) (m) dealing with offences reads as follows:  Any security provider
who possesses and uses a firearm on the public or secondary or private school premises
for the rendering of security services …………….is guilty of improper conduct (and 
would be liable to penalties).  Now this is in contrast to Regulations 13 A where
they state that the use of a firearm while providing security services on a public
or private school premises is permitted if it is stated in the contract that the
security services providers will require a firearm.  However, they then make it 
an offence to be carrying a firearm on a school premises irrespective of the fact
that their was contract specifically stated that it would be required.  

This would mean for example any armed response vehicle responding to the school 
would not be able to enter the school, even after hours, as the armed response officer
would naturally be carrying a firearm, the cash in transit companies would not be
able to enter the school premises and the school staff would presumably have to 
carry the cash out to the road.  Should any teachers or learners be attacked, the
armed response officers cannot enter the school premises as he is armed and also
cannot leave his firearm in the vehicle so that he could try and assist unarmed 
as this is also contrary to the law.

Security companies already have to comply with the Firearms Control Act as well 
as the Private Security Industry Regulator Authority Act and Regulations and related
legislation, that they are regularly inspected by the designated firearms officer
at the local stations, as well as inspectors from the Private Security Industry 
Regulatory Authority.

When they apply for firearms, particularly rifles, they have to go through extensive
application process which is vetted and dealt with in terms of the firearms control
act and there is an appeal mechanism where the matter can be decided before the 
appeal board.  

The security companies effected would have made applications to the central firearm
registrar and after the CFR or appeal committee has applied their mind they have
proved that the possession of those particular type of firearms are necessary for
their work and that they have sufficient safeguarding facilities and trained staff
and they have been issued licenses, which licenses have to be continuously re-applied
for.  During which process the security service provider has to prove it is registered,
has sufficient qualified staff and it is necessary and still needs the firearms 
in question.

Now these new regulations is trying through the back door to effectively retract
all those licenses (at lest you would not be permitted to use them). If the government
wants to change the law and disarmed the law abiding citizens of this country then
they should attempt to pass a bill through parliament in the normal legislative 
process so that all the issues can be ventilated. 

If they feel that a security company should not have their license, with justifiable
legal reasons, they can refuse to grant them a license to possess one. Should they
believe that they should not have a firearm license currently because they are breaking
the law, they can seize the firearms and prosecute them. There are procedures in
terms of the firearms control act to hold an enquiry and to remove firearms from
a security service provider.

To decide that any security service that does not involve transporting assets may
no longer use a semi-automatic despite the fact that their particular service may
be a higher risk and despite the fact that they have satisfied the central firearm
registrar that such weapon is necessary is completely arbitrary.

The idea that security officers are expected to take on gangs of poachers armed 
with AK47’s with a revolver or a bolt action rifle or a vehicle tracking team is
meant to track and arrest high-jackers armed with assault rifles without a firearm
or at best (if you massage the definitions of services) with a revolver is laughable.
As is the fact that it would now be unlawful to have an armed-guard guard any premises
other than a national key point

Our company, as do hundreds of other, regulars come under fire from gangs of suspects
armed with AK47 and other assault rifles.

To say well they can apply for a recommendation from PSIRA to be allowed to use 
a firearm does help. Firstly on the day this regulation is implemented it takes 
effect and the use of firearms will ceases except for a set out above. Their is 
no procedure Put in place for applying or what guidelines they would use to make
a decision. No time limited to make a decision and not independent appeal committee
to appeal the decision and only applies to semi automatics. All of these process
exist in the firearms control act already.

**Crime is out of control**

The SAPS cannot cope with the level of crime given the amount of resources they 
have. That is not in dispute by anyone including the SAPS themselves.  Security 
officers are very often the first to come into contact with armed gangs armed with
assault rifles and need to protect themselves and to the public.

These regulations are open for comment until the 30 of June. We encourage you to
get involved in opposing these regulations. Submit your comment and contact your
member of parliament. These regulations affect the safety of everyone in South Africa.