Disarming the Defenders: A Legal Shift That Could Leave South Africans Defenceless

The clock is ticking. South Africans have until 25 April 2025 to comment on proposed amendments to the Firearms Regulations under the Private Security Industry Regulation Act (PSIRA). These changes, proposed by the Minister of Police, could have far-reaching consequences for both private security providers and, by extension, every South African citizen. With over 580,000 active private security guards—outnumbering SAPS officers by nearly 4 to 1—this is no small matter.

The proposed amendments threaten to severely restrict the ability of private security to carry and use firearms. Though framed under the guise of regulation, the amendments are vague, burdensome, and introduced without public or industry consultation. Critics argue that these changes not only infringe on the operational capacity of security firms but also threaten the public’s safety by creating a power vacuum.

The Constitutional Right to Self-Defence South Africa’s Constitution guarantees every person the right to life (Section 11) and freedom and security of the person (Section 12), including the right to be free from violence. While these rights seem absolute, they are bounded by Section 36, the limitations clause, which allows rights to be limited if justified in an open and democratic society.

Yet, when it comes to self-defence, South Africa relies largely on common law. You have the legal right to defend yourself when:

You are under an unlawful attack.
The attack is imminent or already happening.
Your defensive action is proportional to the threat.
No reasonable alternative (like escape) exists.

In short, you don’t need to wait until you are injured to defend yourself. You need only act reasonably and proportionally. This legal principle is rooted in both our common law tradition and constitutional protections.

The Pattern of Disarmament Before Tyranny. History is a mirror. Consider three chilling precedents:

Nazi Germany (1930s): The regime disarmed Jews before the Holocaust.
Soviet Union (1920s): Civilian gun ownership was restricted before Stalin’s purges.
Cambodia (1975): The Khmer Rouge confiscated weapons, then slaughtered millions.

These weren’t isolated events; they were calculated moves to prevent resistance.

Expropriation Without Defence? Now, look closer to home. The Expropriation Bill, tied to amendments in Section 25 of the Constitution, seeks to allow the state to seize private property without compensation. Section 25 originally protected South Africans’ right to own property. But proposed changes weaken this safeguard.

Imagine a future where your land can be taken without compensation and your right to defend yourself is legally undermined. Removing firearms from private security is a stepping stone—a trial run. Next? Private citizens.

The 2021 Amendment and the Slippery Slope. In 2021, the government tried to amend the Firearms Control Act to remove “self-defence” as a valid reason for firearm ownership. Public backlash halted it. Temporarily.

Make no mistake: the intent to disarm the public hasn’t disappeared. It’s simply being reintroduced in incremental steps. Today, it’s private security. Tomorrow it’s you.

From Law to Real Life: Enter John Wick. The point isn’t to glorify violence but to highlight preparedness. The fictional John Wick defended himself with a pencil. The message? Tools don’t matter as much as readiness does. But while we still have the legal right to own firearms for hunting, sport shooting, and collection, we should exercise that right. The legal landscape is shifting fast.

We are witnessing a coordinated erosion of rights: the right to own property, the right to defend ourselves, and the right to security. All under the guise of regulation. Now is the time to: