This is not a petition. This is a constitutional challenge.
CSSA and the Firearms Control Action Body are preparing to take the Firearms Control Amendment Bill to court. We will argue that removing self-defence as a licensing basis violates Sections 11 and 12 of the Constitution. Your registration builds the public interest record behind the case.
Register Your Support For The CaseIt Makes Self-Defence Unexercisable
The Firearms Control Amendment Bill does not openly ban self-defence. It does something more effective. It removes the practical means to exercise it.
Self-defence has been a recognised right under South African common law for generations. It is not a statutory invention. It is embedded in the legal system and has been upheld by our courts repeatedly. A right you are legally entitled to exercise means nothing if the state removes your ability to exercise it.
By removing self-defence as a valid reason to licence a firearm, the Bill leaves the law-abiding citizen with no practical recourse when the state fails to protect them. And the state, on its own crime statistics, fails to protect them every day.
A right the state refuses to let you exercise is no longer a right. It is a suggestion.
What South African Law Already Protects
Under established South African common law, a person is entitled to use reasonable force, including lethal force where strictly necessary, to defend themselves or others against an unlawful attack on life, bodily integrity, or property. This is known as private defence.
- The attack must be unlawful and imminent or in progress
- The defensive force must be necessary and proportionate
- The defender must act with the intention of warding off the attack
- Courts apply the test from the perspective of the defender in the moment, not the observer in retrospect
- The right applies whether the attacker is armed or unarmed, trespasser or intruder
None of these principles is abolished by the Bill. But all of them are rendered meaningless if the law simultaneously removes the means to mount an effective defence against an armed attacker.
This case will be argued on constitutional principle. Your registration builds the public interest record.
Register Your SupportThe Bill Of Rights Is Not Optional
Section 11 of the Constitution guarantees every person the right to life. Section 12(1)(c) guarantees the right to be free from all forms of violence, whether from public or private sources. These are not symbolic provisions. They impose positive obligations on the state.
Where the state cannot meet those obligations through policing — and the crime statistics tell us plainly that it cannot — the removal of the citizen’s practical means to defend their own life and bodily integrity requires substantial constitutional justification.
The current Bill does not offer that justification. It does not demonstrate that lawful, licensed firearm ownership for self-defence materially contributes to the violent crime problem. It does not engage with the fact that violent crime is overwhelmingly perpetrated with unlicensed, untraced firearms. It simply removes a recognised licensing ground and leaves the law-abiding citizen with fewer options while the criminal has the same options as before.
What We Are Asking The Court To Do
Three constitutional arguments anchor the case:
Declare the removal of self-defence inconsistent with sections 11 & 12
The Bill’s effect is to render sections 11 and 12 of the Constitution unexercisable for any citizen who cannot afford private armed protection. That outcome cannot be reconciled with the positive obligations those sections impose. We will ask the court to say so.
Apply the rationality and proportionality tests
Any limitation of a right must be rational and proportionate to the legitimate purpose pursued. The Bill targets the law-abiding, licensed firearm owner while leaving the unlicensed, violent criminal entirely unaffected. That is not a proportionate limitation. It is a misdirected one.
Require the state to demonstrate its case with evidence
The state must put up the evidence that the removal of self-defence licensing will reduce violent crime. It must engage with the counter-evidence that violent crime is driven by illegal firearms. And it must explain, under oath, why this particular measure was chosen against the evidence.
Why A Legal Case Needs A Public Record
Constitutional court cases are not won on lawyers alone. Courts consider the public interest, the breadth of impact, and the record of who is affected. A case brought by two organisations is not the same case as a case brought by two organisations standing behind thousands of named South Africans from every province.
Your registration here does three things. It demonstrates the public interest dimension of the case. It gives the court a record of breadth and demographic reach. It strengthens the argument that the measure under challenge is not a niche concern but a systemic issue affecting ordinary citizens.
This is not a donation drive. This is not a petition to Parliament. This is a legal instrument being assembled. Your name becomes part of it.
Registrations are used only to demonstrate public interest in the case and to keep you informed of progress. No resale. No spam. No third-party sharing. You may withdraw at any time.
The Constitution guarantees the right to life. The court will be asked whether that right can survive the state removing the means to protect it.
What Happens Next
CSSA and the Firearms Control Action Body are currently in the preparation phase. Constitutional cases are built carefully. Evidence is assembled. Pleadings are drafted. Expert witnesses are briefed. Public interest organisations are approached for amicus involvement. The timeline will be long. The groundwork determines the outcome.
Registered supporters receive periodic updates on progress, the filing of pleadings, the setting of hearing dates, and the eventual judgment. You will not be asked for money. You will be asked to stay informed and to stand behind the case as it moves through the courts.
Your registration tells the court:
I am affected by this Bill. The rights under sections 11 and 12 matter to me. I stand behind this case.
Every registered supporter strengthens the public interest record.
Section 11 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to life. Section 12(1)(c) provides the right to be free from all forms of violence, whether from public or private sources. Constitutional jurisprudence has confirmed that these rights impose both negative duties on the state (not to violate) and positive duties (to protect, within reasonable means).
Where the state cannot discharge its positive duties through policing — as is empirically the case on current SAPS performance — any measure that further limits the citizen’s capacity to self-protect engages those rights directly.
Section 36, the limitations clause, permits limitations on constitutional rights only where the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society, taking into account the nature of the right, the purpose of the limitation, the relation between the limitation and its purpose, and whether less restrictive means could achieve the same purpose.
Our argument will be that the removal of self-defence as a licensing basis fails the section 36 test. It is not rationally connected to the objective of reducing violent crime, because violent crime is not being perpetrated with legally licensed, self-defence category firearms. It is not proportionate, because the cost is borne by the law-abiding citizen while the illegal firearm problem remains untouched. And it is not the least restrictive means, because targeted enforcement against the illegal firearm supply would achieve the legitimate objective without removing a recognised licensing ground.
This is a case the Constitution is built to hear. Your registration helps build the record.
The Constitution is not optional. Neither is your stand behind it.
CSSA and the Firearms Control Action Body will litigate this case on constitutional principle. Every registered supporter strengthens the public interest record. Every name carries weight in court.
Add your name. Join the constitutional challenge.
Rights defend themselves only when the people who hold them defend them.
Register Now