The Firearms Control Act and Security Service Providers
Section 20 of the Firearms Control Act authorizes the registrar to issue a firearm licence to a Security Service Provider as defined in the Private Security Industry Regulation Act. The said Act, in turn, defines a security service provider as any person (which includes security businesses) who renders a security service to another for remuneration, reward, fee or benefit and strangely includes a person who is not registered as required by the Private Security Industry Regulation Act.
Proof of registration for fire arms in the security sector
Regulation 13 of the Firearms Control Regulations remedies this phenomenon in that it requires documentary proof of registration with the Private Security Industry Regulation Authority (PSIRA) when the application is made for such a license.
We can safely assume that a security service provider’s registration with PSIRA will antecede any application for a licence to possess any firearm that may be required in the rendering of a security service.
Requisites for fire arm applications in the security sector
Regulation 5 of the Regulations made under the Private Security Industry Regulation Act requires that all applicants for registration as Security Service Providers demonstrate that they will have the required infrastructure and capacity to render a security service at the commencement of its business activities. This includes administrative offices, equipment, including the necessary administrative offices, experienced staff and properly trained security officers and (more disconcerting) that the applicant is in lawful possession of the firearms that are necessary to render its services.
A conundrum with fire arm registration legislation
Introducing the first conundrum. Proper enforcement of the laws drafted by the same government agency requires an applicant to be registered with PSIRA before it can be issued with a firearm licence whilst PSIRA, in turn, requires the lawful possession of a firearm as a prerequisite for registration.
Before succumbing to any immediate desire to object and rebut on the basis that the applicant only needs to demonstrate that it will meet this requirement at the commencement of its business activities, consider the fact the PSIRA performs an onsite inspection of almost all applicants at the time of application and not at the time of commencement of the business activities of an applicant. The premises are inspected and even copies of telephone accounts are requested at the time of registration.
By implication, applicants will have to have offices, equipment etc. before registration is granted, failing which, the inspector will find that the applicant does not possess the necessary infrastructure and capacity to render its services. Any counter-argument to this assumption can only be met with a statement that such inspections serve no other purpose than for PSIRA collecting the required inspection fee.
The matter is further complicated by the provisions of Regulation 2(4)(b) which provides that the authority may register a security business as a service provider if it can demonstrate that the applicant is likely to commence business within three months, which, is impossible with the current waiting periods for the granting and issuing of firearm licenses. This provision is simply readily and freely ignored by the authority, and for good reason.
Having dodged the bullet of Regulation 2(4)(b), the applicant, upon registration, will now apply for the licences to possess the required firearms. It will now be enjoined to maintain its infrastructure whilst awaiting the granting of the license, which, as we know may take several months, more specifically as failure to do so may result in its deregistration in terms of the provisions of Regulation 5(3).
The required capital creates an impervious barrier to a new entrant to the armed reaction sector.
Objectors and rebutters must once again suppress their immediate desire to profer the argument that a registered security service provider may make use of another security service provider to render the armed reaction element of its services. Proper consideration of the following provisions will have to be addressed in their arguments in order to ensure the new entrant’s compliance with the PSIRA Compliance Universe:-
- Regulation 8(5) of the Code of Conduct
A security service provider may not hold himself or herself or any other security service provider out to any person as having any authority, power, status, capacity, level of training, accreditation, registration, qualification or experience which he or she or the other security service provider does not have.
- Regulation 9(3)(a) of the Code of Conduct
A security service provider may not make a contractual offer, conclude a contract or make himself or herself available for the rendering of a security service or the performance of any function, that requires a legal power, licence, permit, authorisation, accreditation, level of training, skill, knowledge, qualification, registration, security officers, firearm, ammunition, weapon, equipment, infrastructure, capacity or premises, which he or she does not have or is not likely to have when he or she has to commence rendering such service or perform such a function
- Regulation 9(3)(b) of the Code of Conduct
A security service provider may not render or purport to render a security service or perform any function that requires a legal power, licence, permit, authorisation, accreditation, level of training, skill, knowledge, qualification, registration, security officers, firearm, ammunition, weapon, equipment, infrastructure, capacity or premises, which he or she does not have
What is the resort for security service providers?
Salvation may be sought in the provisons of Regulation 9(10) of the code of conduct in that it implies that a new entrant may use the services of another security service provider when the client has given consent thereto. We believe that this argument will not amount to much specifically given the provisions of Regulation 9(3).
In any other nation this situation would have been described as a comedy of errors, save, that in South Africa, no comedy can be found in matters where new entrants are excluded from meaning participation in any economic sector.
If you need assistance with the Firearms Control Act, our team provides specialist support – contact us for assistance and advice and read more about it here:
