The association argued before the Pretoria high court on Tuesday that the two sections were problematic in that they treated two classes of people – those whose firearm licences had expired and those that had theirs cancelled – differently‚ which it argued was contrary to the constitutional provisions that everyone was equal before the law and enjoyed the same protection from the law.

Section 24 of the Act requires that any person who wants to renew a licence must do so 90 days before the expiry date while Section 28 stipulates that if a firearm licence has been cancelled‚ the firearm must be disposed of through a dealer within 60 days or forfeited to the state.

Acting for the association‚ David Unterhalter SC submitted that Section 24 was not clear on how the firearm owner should dispose of the firearm on the expiry of the licence other than that it should be handed over to the nearest police station.

He said on the other hand‚ Section 28 gives a firearm owner whose licence had been cancelled due to infringement on the legislation or declared unfit to possess a firearm‚ a grace period to dispose of the firearm and several options to do so‚ including giving it to a gun dealer in exchange of its monetary value.

“The holder could be in hospital suffering after a road accident and spends that 90 days in hospital and is unable to renew the licence by the stipulated date. That person is more harshly treated than a person who is found to be infringing on the regulation or declared unfit to possess a firearm…that is fundamentally irrational and arbitrary‚” Unterhalter said.

He said this was grave in that penalties for illegal possession of unlicensed firearms of up to 15 years’ imprisonment were severe.

Unterhalter said the current scheme was dysfunctional and problematic‚ which he said was evident by a number of directives issued by SA Police Service‚ which he said were contrary to the legislation.

He mentioned the February 2016 directive signed by acting national police commissioner Lt-Gen Khomotso Phahlane which allows for late licence renewal if there are reasons for late renewal.

He said late renewal of licences was not provided for in the Act. One either applies 90 days before the expiry date or would be deemed to be in illegal possession.

“The directive‚ though commendable‚ points to a problem…it is a sensible measure that tries to alleviate the problem but it is inconsistent with the legislation‚” he argued.

The association wants the court to declare the two provisions unconstitutional.

But Geoff Budlender SC‚ for minister of police Fikile Mbalula‚ said the association had failed to make a case for constitutionality.

He said in South African law no one had the right to possess a firearm. He said a permit to hold a firearm was based on qualification as well as competency which he said was a gateway to a licence that was subject to conditions.

Budlender said one of those conditions was that the licence was renewable. He countered that “there is nothing arbitrary or irrational (about the two sections) as they dealt with different circumstances”.

He said time limits always had an arbitrary element‚ adding “that is how life is”.

Gun Free South Africa has been admitted as Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) in the matter and argued that these two sections were not only constitutionally proper‚ but a necessary and effective part of gun control in South Africa.

-TMG Digital/TimesLIVE