Ian Cameron - You will not take our guns!

Millions of South Africans fear that they will be disarmed and left defenseless in crime-ridden South Africa by possible new legislation. But in his latest interview with Chris Steyn, a defiant Ian Cameron, the Democratic Alliance's Spokesperson on Police and Chairperson of Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Police, issues this challenge:  “I want to see them disarm lawfully armed and law abiding citizens in this country because they are going to fail dismally. That is a fight they should not pick. It's a fight that I would advise them not to even try. We are going to protect our communities. We're going to protect ourselves and our families. And there's no way that we're going to allow them to arbitrarily take that away.” Cameron believes the disarmament agenda is a "way of gaining more control” as “the more control you lose as a government, especially one with the ideological, let's call them challenges, that the ANC has brought upon us over the years, the more you try and centralise certain things.” That level of “draconian control” could mean “only an elite few…are able to be supposedly kept safe - and that they would use State coffers to do so through… abusing police and whoever else the armed forces have at their disposal.” Cameron outlines the DA’s fight-back strategy.

Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.

Support South Africa’s bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.

If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here.

Watch here

Listen here

Edited transcript of the interview

Chris Steyn (00:01.677)

Millions of South Africans fear that they will be disarmed and left defenseless in crime-ridden South Africa by possible new legislation. We speak to Ian Cameron, the Democratic Alliance's Spokesperson on Police, and of course, the chairperson of Parliament's Portfolio Committee on Police. Welcome, Ian.

Ian Cameron (00:25.678)

Good morning Chris, thank you. I always say it's such an important topic when I speak with you because it always is, but this is one of the most critical things that could really have an extremely dangerous and negative impact on the future, any kind of future in South Africa.

Chris Steyn (00:48.887)

What would the worst possible outcome be for the ordinary citizen if this became law? We'll obviously go through the bill soon.

Ian Cameron (00:59.534)

Yeah, so Chris, let's just give background. So in 2021, we had this proposed amendment bill that came forward and the response was tremendous. I mean, over a hundred thousand objections or mainly objections were submitted with regards to the bill. 

It was an absolute nightmare for any person that thought they could just, you know, arbitrarily remove people's firearms in South Africa, especially for self-defense. 

So if I can give you some background or very briefly, what it basically says, or three of the critical things that stand out is one, you would basically lose your ability to get a Section 13 or a self-defense firearm unless there are extreme circumstances under which you can motivate such a… You literally would depend on the stroke of a pen from a minister to determine whether you could have a firearm for self-defense. 

Now the majority of firearm owners in South Africa, the large majority of them are firearm owners because of the critical need of being able to defend yourself because the State doesn't have the capacity to.

The second one is that you would have a very limited amount or access of limited amount of firearms under Section 16 or as we all know it's called it's under Section 16 of the Firearm Control Act but also known for being the dedicated sport or hunters accreditation and that would pose a severe limit to people that practice sports shooting or professional hunting for that matter. 

And the third one is just the general harsh restrictions that we would see on private security companies. It's interesting also to understand that this is an orchestrated attempt to disarm private persons and the private sector. There's no doubt.

And it's ironic that this 2021…

Ian Cameron (03:21.4)

…piece of so-called history has now been brought to the fore once again. 

From what we could find out, it's virtually exactly the same thing despite all the objections. And this happens just after they announced regulatory changes in the private security regulatory space, also known as the changes that were brought forward by PsIRA

Isn't it ironic that these two things happen or both happen within a space of 12 months? And while we're trying to fight the one, other starts popping up again. So we really have a very, very serious crisis .…

Chris Steyn (04:07.545)

So the Firearms Control Amendment Bill essentially contradicts the warnings of the government's own experts or its own research, doesn't it?

Ian Cameron (04:19.34)

Yeah, so I mean, basically, if I can add to that, it basically did research, the government itself along with with WITS University did a study quite a few years ago, it was in 2015. And it was a study by the Civilian Secretariat for Police and the WITS School of Governance. They did a firearms review.

And in that review, actually made it very clear that the problem is not with lawfully armed and law abiding citizens, but rather with South African Police Service amongst others and their corruption, mismanagement.

In all honesty, the report literally said, and I quote, the total collapse of the Central Firearms Register. So they went as far in that specific report to describe the CFR, the Central Firearms Register as technically collapsed, institutionally incoherent and incapable of maintaining accurate records. And remember, that's a direct quote. That's not me saying so. That's what that specific report said. 

It warned that more bureaucracy before fixing the problems in the South African Police Service would actually just continue to further destabilise the entire regulatory regime. Again, that's a quote from the report, not something that I said.

And it then concluded that violent crime trends correlate not with gun ownership, but rather with effective intelligence-led policing. And unfortunately, that's something that this government has consistently failed to deliver. At the moment, we do not have a proper intelligence-led policing system. We've got a very outdated model. 

And we need to look back at previous examples. You'd remember, Chris, not saying Chris, also Colonel Chris Prinsloo and the gun scandal. Yeah, so where he was accused and later found guilty for the trade or supply selling of over 2000  State-issued firearms. Now, if you read the book by Mark Shaw called Give Us More Guns,

Ian Cameron (06:35.15)

…it actually estimates that it was closer to 9,000, but nevertheless, almost all of those firearms came from State armories and they have been linked to over thousand murders and over 1,400 attempted murders in the Western Cape just between 2010 and 2016. 

So again, we are now starting to try and over-regulate the people that are not the problem, but we're not tackling the actual issue which is fixing corruption in the South African Police Service. 

So remember that we would essentially with this Bill give the minister the discretion to determine who has what. So basically it becomes a one-stop shop for determining who is allowed and may not be allowed to own whatever they need to own.

It limits ammunition to a hundred rounds per firearm, which is significantly impractical at the moment for the average firearm and it's 200, obviously much, much more when you get dedicated status. But the point is that if you and I go to the range for a day and we only allowed a hundred rounds per firearm, it makes it very difficult to even train them. So I must ask them the question, how do you expect people to really become competent if they can't train with actual firearm because they...hardly can get access to enough ammunition.

And then furthermore is going to force collectors, people that have been collecting firearms for the entire lives with all the checks and balances in place to literally become criminals and I want to challenge them. I really want to and some people might frown upon it when I say it but I want to see them disarm lawfully armed and law abiding citizens in this country because they are going to fail desmally. That is a fight they should not pick. It's a fight that I would advise them not to even try. 

It will not stop violent crime. It will only make communities more vulnerable. And that's something the majority of lawfully armed citizens in South Africa just simply won't allow. We are going to protect our communities. We're going to protect ourselves and our families.

Ian Cameron (08:51.904)

And there's no way that we're going to allow them to arbitrarily take that away.

Chris Steyn (08:57.839)

So Ian, what would be thinking be behind this apparent disarmament agenda of citizens in a country that is so crime-ridden with a police force that cannot protect the populace?

Ian Cameron (09:13.602)

Yeah, so I think it's a deliberate attempt to literally disarm people. I think it is a way of gaining more control. The more control you lose as a government, especially one with the ideological, let's call them challenges that the ANC has brought upon us over the years, the more you try and centralise certain things. And when you start centraliaing, you also have to get rid of potential threats.

Now, I think they have wrongly so identified the private security industry as well as private citizens that are lawfully armed as threats and they are now targeting them because they know that while the private sector as well as private citizens are adequately armed to do a certain job, they can't just arbitrarily take things that are not theirs.

And unfortunately, in countries where firearms were banned in the way that they are trying to do here or attempting to with this kind of Bill, they will then go for further draconian policy or political moves in which they can gain more power. So I think it's a power game. 

It's similar to many, many years ago when the commandos were disbanded, no replacement was put in place. We never saw that police reservists really came off the ground again.

And since then, things have just been going downhill with regards to giving any kind of community some kind of statutory capacity until the year around the city of Cape Town, for example, started with auxiliary capacity, where you have community policing, where community members literally fulfill the role of reservist law enforcement officers under municipal control, just purely because SAPS doesn't really do that anymore.

We've seen many, many promises over the years. And there's something, a piece that that Gideon Joubert, who is also a trustee at the South African Gun Owners Association (SAGA). And in the piece that he wrote, he actually said this, he says, it's unsurprising that this move regarding this whole gun amendment bill, considering…

Ian Cameron (11:34.836)

…that only about 50% of all civilian-owned guns in South Africa are licensed. 

The FCA binds only those who choose to comply with it. Criminals do not. They obtain firearms from corrupt state officials and through trans-border trafficking networks exploiting our porous and poorly defended borders. 

And then he goes on to quote a Global Initiative Against Transnational Organised Crime Report where he says…a report on corrupt Namibian police smuggling pistols, AK-47s and Uzzis to Cape Town gangs illustrates the scale and sophistication of these networks. So that just goes to show that the actual civilians are not the problem. Well, the law abiding civilians are not the problem.

Chris Steyn (12:24.441)

So what are they afraid of? An armed revolution?

Ian Cameron (12:29.678)

Well, I don't know if I could call it that. Maybe it is that. Maybe they are scared of people pushing back in that way. I think they make the wrong assumption about lawfully armed citizens of South Africa. A large majority of people that I know that are legally armed simply want to be able to defend themselves and their families. 

And I'm not speaking about those that hunt, for example, or sport shooting, et cetera.

The large majority believe in the capacity to be able to defend yourself, your family and your community. So they should be seen as an asset, not as a threat. And I think there's a real opportunity for government to actually work with them. It shouldn't be us and them. It should be a joint initiative. It would be so exciting if government could start seeing the asset that they actually have in lawfully armed citizens and start recognising that they are not part of the major threat that the country faces with regards to violent crime and especially gun-related crime. 

I think a total misperception is created as well by certain organisations. Actually just one that I can think of. I don't want to give them the glory of saying their name, but just one that I can think of that create the impression that guns are the major cause of crime as well in South Africa and even that is not accurate. If you go look at that report that we spoke of, less than 5% of all crimes reported to the South African Police Service are actually Firearm Control Act related. I mean, that already tells you that they are barking up the wrong tree. And even though the illicit trade must be addressed, again, why are you punishing the wrong people?

Chris Steyn (14:24.239)

Well the government does seem to have a short memory because what would have happened with the insurgency in KZN if it were not for the private sector.

Ian Cameron (14:33.486)

Well, exactly. If you go and look at what the private sector did there, and specifically, first of all, well-organised lawfully-armed communities, they stabilised what happened there. A few months ago in Parliament, a specific person that works in the private security regulatory authority made a comment in one of our committees and created the impression...that these armed civilians were the biggest threat during the 2021 riots. And I stopped him and I said to him, do you hear yourself speaking? If it were not for those private citizens that actually decided to do something because the State were glamorously absent, then things would have been far, far worse. And then I'm not even mentioning the role that private security firms played because...both citizens and private security firms were literally supplying ammunition to the police because they had run out. They didn't have the capacity to fight anymore. And the cops on the ground were begging for support and assistance. Yeah, it seems that they do have a mild case of amnesia when it comes to this. 

It's also important to say that there's a perception that this wouldn't have much of an economic impact. Now, I'm not the one that would just purely speak on that. I'm not knowledgeable enough on it. But we recently saw that just the hunting and sports shooting sectors bring into the country over 44 billion rand per year. And the majority of that is out of hunting. Now, if we consider the economic impact that that has and what a negative influence this legislation would have on an industry like that we really need to start questioning what the motive is. 

And it keeps on coming back to, let's call it draconian control or centralising power, that you only have an elite few that are able to be supposedly kept safe and that they would use State coffers to do so through, I don't know, abusing police and whoever else the armed forces they have to their disposal.

Chris Steyn (16:49.731)

Because their VIP protection officer certainly won't be disarmed.

Ian Cameron (16:57.41)

Well, exactly. There's no way that they would do that. And if we start looking at that specifically, a large amount of the people that have close protection officers that are supplied by government didn't even go through the necessary threat assessment process. Remember that when you get that kind of protection, it must be determined according to a threat and risk analysis, where they literally go and check what the threats or risks to you are, what level they are on, and whether you...should have protection or not. I think to be honest, in some cases it becomes a fashion accessory or even a status symbol to some. 

And therefore I encourage ordinary citizens to continue arming yourself within the framework of the law, continue to train well, continue to take part in fire on training courses and be ready and able, be able to protect yourself and your family.

I'm so excited about the increase that we're seeing in women that are taking up firearm training courses at a rate that we've never seen before. So I think the industry is actually growing. The industry is doing very well. 

And we are going to have a real fight on our hands if they try and bring this legislation forward. Remember that at the moment it's with NEDLAC. Once NEDLAC is finished with whatever their process is, and I personally don't agree with the fact that it is there, but nevertheless, once they're done with their process, it must go back to the Civilian Secretariat from where it must then go back to Cabinet. And depending on what Cabinet decides, it either needs to go back to the Secretariat for amendments or it will then be sent to Parliament. So regardless, there's still a lot that needs to happen. And again, we're going to have a big fight on our hands.

Chris Steyn (18:53.945)

Meanwhile, what is the Democratic Alliance's strategy to try and stop this from becoming law?

Ian Cameron (19:01.314)

Well, we've got a few things that we'll push on, but we have already said that we'll oppose what we need to in Parliament itself. 

We will also look at running a broader campaign and the necessary petitioning if need be. 

And if they need it, we will go to court, but we will make sure that we defend every single responsible citizen's right to lawful protection - and it's critical for us to take this fight up. 

Chris, we need to remember that whether you like firearms or not, if this kind of bill is passed, it's a threat to all of us, even those that don't necessarily like firearms personally. It's always interesting to me that even those that don't like firearms, when they're in trouble, trust me, they pray for someone with a firearm to come to their rescue. And it's also interesting many a time that the very people that are against firearms, which in most cases are in the minority, have armed response at home, or they have got some kind of private security function that uses firearms. So, you know, they need to decide where they want to draw the line. 

The point is that this holds a threat to all of us. And essentially it holds a threat to property rights in South Africa too, because it essentially will come to the point where you have no lawful way to defend yourself, your family, your community, and obviously your property too. So it's a very, very slippery slope. And I want to go as far as saying that if this is passed, there's very little left to really fight for.

Chris Steyn (20:46.159)

Well, Ian, if you were not allowed a firearm, you might not be doing this interview with me today. You came in for criticism because you used your own firearm to defend your life and the lives of two colleagues. And if you did not have your firearm on you that day and you were not willing to use it all, what would have happened? What would have been the worst case scenario? Do think you would have gotten out of there alive?

Ian Cameron (21:09.56)

Well, I mean, yeah, obviously, it's a split second decision that you would that you'd need to make. And on that day, and I would do it exactly the same if I had the opportunity again, I would I would use my firearm. And and if it it comes to saving your life or the life of another, then I believe that you need to step in on that day. It was us or them and they weren't stopping with the attack. The guy that I wounded with my lawful firearm came back for probably the third or the fourth time. He kept on trying to assault Nicholas that was sitting next to me. Nicholas had already lost consciousness. I wasn't sure whether Nick was dead or alive at that stage. He had collapsed forward and was completely covered in blood and they just kept on coming. They then started gaining entry at the back left hand side of the vehicle as well through the passenger window and just the attack continued and it certainly wasn't an attack to just simply steal something and get away. In fact nothing was taken during the whole ordeal, nothing was taken. So they weren't there to have tea and coffee with us.

I believe that that day, the fact that I had a firearm and that I was trained to use it and that I lawfully or legally obtained it gave me the opportunity to not only save my life, but save the lives of my two colleagues.

Chris Steyn (22:53.135)

We're very grateful for that, Ian. That was Ian Cameron, Democratic Alliance spokesperson on police and Chairperson of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Police speaking to BizNews. I'm Chris Steyn. Thank you, Ian.

Ian Cameron (23:08.738)

Thanks, Chris.