Online Reporter
The Herald, 1 July 1981
IT was the duty of the State to provide security for the people, the Minister of Home Affairs, Mr Richard Hove, said during the second reading debate on the controversial Firearms Amendment Bill in the House of Assembly yesterday.
In deciding the necessity for firearms “we are going to be led by the facts and not by assumptions on the state of security within the country”, he said after a number of white MPs had questioned clauses of the new Bill.
The Bill allows the controller of firearms to revoke a firearms certificate If he is satisfied that the holder no longer has a good reason for possessing the firearm.
It also lays down much tougher penalties for the improper use of firearms, including a maximum fine of $1 000 and five years’ imprisonment, for carrying a firearm, while under the influence of drink or drugs, pointing a firearm at another person without lawful cause, negligently or recklessly discharging a firearm, or discharging a firearm in a public place without lawful cause.
Mr Wally Stuttaford (RF, Bulawayo South) said the revocation of certificate would be a deprivation of the owner’s right to possess a firearm.
“Is the Minister not bound to pay some form of compensation for depriving that person of the use of a firearm, of which he is the legal owner?” Mr Alex Moseley (RF, Western) asked for assurances that the Minister, in his application of the Act, would not be too harsh and unyielding.
“This could have a very bad effect on morale if there is sweeping withdrawal of firearms.”
The possibility of weapons being rendered unusable before being returned to the owners was raised by Mr John Landau (RF, Avondale). The Minister said the revocation of a certificate would merely deprive the owner of a weapon of the use of that weapon, where there was no justifiable reason for him to have that weapon. “We are not compulsorily acquiring anybody’s property. What we are saying is that the conditions in which we live do not require the ownership of large numbers of firearms. Where there are justifiable reasons for possessing a firearm, we will agree to that.”
Lessons for today:
The introduction of tougher penalties for the misuse of firearms indicates the importance of having proportional and deterrent punishments to prevent reckless behaviour and ensure public safety.
The Firearms Amendment Bill of 1981 in Zimbabwe introduced several significant changes to the existing firearms regulations. The Bill allowed the controller of firearms to revoke a firearms certificate if it was determined that the holder no longer had a valid reason for possessing the firearm. This measure aimed to ensure that only those with justifiable reasons could retain their firearms.
The Bill introduced tougher penalties for the improper use of firearms. Offenses such as carrying a firearm while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, pointing a firearm at another person without lawful cause, negligently discharging a firearm, or discharging a firearm in a public place without lawful cause could result in a maximum fine of $1 000 and up to five years’ imprisonment.
