comments3

2025-06-10 08:39:37 +02:00

Jan JM

No I do not

Other

The firearm amendment is to disarm South African's who want to protect themselves.

2025-06-10 06:08:02 +02:00

Sandra

No I do not

Insertion of 13B – Issuing and possession of weapons

2025-06-09 18:14:36 +02:00

zelda

No I do not

Other

2025-06-09 18:13:51 +02:00

Paul

No I do not

Other

2025-06-08 19:03:07 +02:00

Elizabeth

No I do not

Prohibited Weapons

2025-06-07 08:28:02 +02:00

Richard

No I do not

Insertion of 13A – regulation of firearms and ammunition

We pay for the security that the government has failed dismally to provide.

2025-06-06 14:25:48 +02:00

michael

No I do not

Insertion of 13A – regulation of firearms and ammunition

2025-06-05 18:59:15 +02:00

vivian

No I do not

Power of inspectors

2025-06-04 14:18:32 +02:00

Wapega

No I do not

Insertion of 13A – regulation of firearms and ammunition

When the government of a region or nation is unable/unprepared or even unwilling to protect its residents or citizens from rampant crime and lawlessness, then it's up to the individual(s) themselves, who reside in the area(s) under threat, to find a solution that matches/exceeds the level of threat to their safety and security.

It is quite obviously clear that 'vigilantism' is not to be encouraged, but an organised response to the clear and present danger, that is evident in our region must, of necessity, be created to 'fill-the-gap' that normal policing seems unable to fill.

A well armed and highly disciplined private security force is thus a much better solution than a mob of well-meaning local residents, which could actually just end up operating like a 'lynch mob'. However, over-regulation of the weapons needed, by the private security teams, to deter the criminal(s), will eventually lead to normal citizens again feeling the need to take up arms themselves to 'get-the-job-done'.

Security companies do need to be policed, and 'bad-actors.' need to be prevented from operating in the regions, but don't create a situation where the security teams in-the-field are having to operate with one-hand-tied-behind-their-backs, by removing the very weapon needed that both deters criminality as well as protects both the security operator and the resident/citizen that they have been contracted to protect.

2025-06-04 07:40:37 +02:00

Bee

No I do not

Insertion of 13A – regulation of firearms and ammunition

Another win-win for the thugs that govern SA, and the thugs, our taxes pay, who are supposed to protect us as a nation. Since the police sector is incapable and rotten, they should b more than grateful that Private Security has taken over responsibility for the security and safety of the private sector & criminal-targeted businesses . To emasculate both this sector and the private citizen is not in anyone's interest and implies further government incompetence again favouring the criminal element reigning SA. Maybe there should be joint duality of governance & control between the private sector & govt in terms of policing and securing SA's populace and business from criminal threats.

2025-06-04 05:10:29 +02:00

Abby

No I do not

Insertion of 13B – Issuing and possession of weapons

2025-06-04 05:10:26 +02:00

Abby

No I do not

Insertion of 13B – Issuing and possession of weapons

2025-06-02 20:42:23 +02:00

Pieter

No I do not

Prohibited Weapons

Crime is already rampant in South Africa. The police and the Private security is already outgunned.

Do not make their task harder than what it is already.

2025-05-29 14:05:20 +02:00

Rynhard

No I do not

Other

No, we do not agree with this, it has to go. minster of police please focus on stopping corrupt cops that provide criminal with firearms and start fighting real crime, stop focusing on legal gun ownership as they are not the problem, the police and militarily "loses" more firearms daily.. start there.

Then as for Private security companies are the only forces that stands between us and the criminals as your forces is nowhere to be seen even though we pay a lot of taxes for you to keep citizens save.

So kindly back off..

2025-05-29 10:45:58 +02:00

Ninieve

No I do not

Insertion of 13A – regulation of firearms and ammunition

It is a big concern that security companies will be prohibited from carrying firearms in the areas that government has specified seeing as these are the exact areas where high crime is rampant. I do not agree with disarming private security officers in public spaces, requiring unproven and expensive firearm tracking technology, criminalizing standard non-lethal tools like handcuffs and cable ties is absurd.

What is even more troubling is the vague and unconstitutional legal standards that the government wants to impose, it is definitely government overreach.

Instead of supporting security companies that are helping fight crime in South Africa, they are wanting to disarm them and drive small and medium security businesses out of business.

I absolutely do not support the proposed amendments to the Private Security Regulation Act.

2025-05-28 16:55:51 +02:00

Geoff

No I do not

Insertion of 13B – Issuing and possession of weapons

It seems to be giving criminals more and more opportunity to commit violent crimes with less and less chances of being resisted. We need our security forces and self defense ability to protect ourselves and our families and this seems to make it even easier for the criminals to get away with crime.

2025-05-28 13:54:11 +02:00

Aimee

No I do not

Insertion of 13A – regulation of firearms and ammunition

I disagree to the whole thing. If we could have full confidence in the SAPS and private security was merely an assist then fine but I DO NOT FEEL SAFE RELYING ONLY ON SAPS. I have called the police on previous occassions and once they didn't turn up at all, luckily the break-in was not violent and the perpretrators had left my property but private security can be at my home in minutes. They are more available and seen. I live near a police station; they do not patrol the area. SAPS do not show up to accidents timeously. SAPS are understaffed and underpaid. They are sadly unreliable and a product of this government's allowance of lazy government employees and inappropriate spending. We need private security in this country. This act is a way of allowing those that are already taking advantage of certain people to remove those people's rights to protect themselves. in many cases the private security assist the SAPs and are able to bring people to justice quicker than SAPS.

2025-05-28 12:49:14 +02:00

Dianne

No I do not

Other

2025-05-28 07:12:39 +02:00

Danielle

No I do not

Insertion of 13A – regulation of firearms and ammunition

The government has not proven to be protective of its citizens and so I cannot trust them to do so while taking away the rights of citizens to use what should be at their disposal to defend/protect themselves.

2025-05-27 14:02:51 +02:00

Hilda

No I do not

Other

2025-05-27 12:16:46 +02:00

Lynette

No I do not

Other

2025-05-26 18:06:24 +02:00

Dermot

No I do not

Prohibited Weapons

This is the beginning of disarming the population...

Government is doing the usual regulation to try and make the security firms the bad guys and preventing them from doing a better job than the police. Fix the police and not the security companies.

2025-05-26 12:41:16 +02:00

Shayne

No I do not

Other

There is no way that you can remove the ability for anyone, or business, including security to properly arm themselves against armed criminal. Criminals could care less about regulations. All you will be doing is empowering the criminals.

2025-05-26 12:14:59 +02:00

Franco

No I do not

Prohibited Weapons

A solid NO on the proposed amendments.

The proposed amendments are making it impossible for private security to provide a reliable service, or any service at all for that matter.

Even if the SAPS had zero corruption and was fully staffed with fit, competent officers and other personnel, they would still physically be incapable of tending to everyone. The Tactical and armed response teams and other private security firms are there to fill that gap, be an eye in the field and it creates lots of jobs that save lots of lives. Besides the rest, this will deliver an economic blow to the entire country that already has a 40% unemployment rate.

It's a SECURITY service. If someone is being attacked and there is a private security officer a block from you, help should be within immediate reach with an instant response. Not hours from the nearest police station. This 'Prohibited Weapons' is laughable. "...Any other weapon that may harm civilians.". This statement can be construed in such a manner that if the security officer throws a coffee mug at the offender then it's a 'prohibited weapon' because it is also capable of rendering bodily harm to a civilian.

STOP PROTECTING CRIMINALS. You make it harder for civilians and Private Security to protect themselves by adding new useless and vague laws. Criminals (as it is in the term) do not care about laws. They will have a fully automatic machine gun with live rounds, where a civilian or private security officer can't even use a non-lethal option.

Instead of non-life-threatening injuries to a criminal who gets caught to face justice, this leaves you with two bodies and a criminal on the loose. This is a step to dismantle a justice system, making civilians defenseless and handing power to the state. The state is here to listen to-, protect and serve the people while keeping the people's freedom intact, not to turn the country into some communist dictatorship.

2025-05-26 11:35:37 +02:00

Elrika

No I do not

Insertion of 13B – Issuing and possession of weapons

No I do not support the proposed amendments to the Private Security Regulation Act.

My top concern is Insertion of 13B – Issuing and possession of weapons.

NO to all topics. The amendments target legitimate security firms with stricter regulations and expensive requirements while failing to address the problem of criminals using illegal weapons. In addition, they could lead to the collapse of security firms, job losses, and a reduction in overall public safety. The proposed ban on essential non-lethal weapons, such as Tasers and crowd control equipment, will put officers at risk and hinder their ability to effectively perform their duties

2025-05-26 11:28:14 +02:00

Corne

No I do not

Insertion of 13B – Issuing and possession of weapons

NO to all topics.
The amendments target legitimate security firms with stricter regulations and expensive requirements while failing to address the problem of criminals using illegal weapons. In addition, they could lead to the collapse of security firms, job losses, and a reduction in overall public safety.
The proposed ban on essential non-lethal weapons, such as Tasers and crowd control equipment, will put officers at risk and hinder their ability to effectively perform their duties

2025-05-26 11:25:39 +02:00

Ronél

No I do not

Prohibited Weapons

2025-05-26 07:08:59 +02:00

Pieter

No I do not

Insertion of 13B – Issuing and possession of weapons

As South Africans we have the right to safety, SAPS does not have the capacity nor the resources to ensure or enforce safety in our communities. If we disarm our private sector (which is the main safety enforcer for most South Africans) we will sit with a infection of crime that can not be tolerated!

2025-05-25 08:13:37 +02:00

Basil

No I do not

Definitions

2025-05-25 07:40:37 +02:00

Jackie

No I do not

Prohibited Weapons