The FPC is nearly three years old and does not outwardly appear to have achieved much. It is true that very little has been achieved outside of the FPC by its own actions, but a lot has been achieved internally. Despite ongoing fights with SARS for PBO status, our corporate identity has slowly found definition as we developed a better understanding of why our firearm law looks like it does after more than 230 years of legal development. This message from the CEO is meant to provide an update to firearm owners and our few dedicated subscribers about where the FPC stands right now, and perhaps give a reason to be optimistic about the future of South African firearm regulation.
It is important to answer the question of where exactly the FPC stands now in 2025, especially considering that it is now nearly three years old and has seemingly not achieved very much. In all honesty, we did not have a very specific idea of what the FPC should end up looking like, even if we did have very broad and general ideas of what we roughly and more-or-less wanted to create. If that sounds ethereal and wishy-washy, it is because that is what it was. We needed a certain type context, perspective, and understanding if we were going to define the FPC in a way that set it apart from what already exists.
This was in addition to creating the corporate structure we need if the FPC is to be a viable corporate entity, and this is where things really have not gone according to plan. For starters, we knew from Day One that we required PBO status (public benefit organisation) if the FPC was to be an attractive option for large-scale donors. Our main funding strategy was always to rather be reliant on many small-scale donors, rather than a few big donors that could pull the rug out from under us. That said, big donors have a place. Acquiring PBO status would enable us to issue tax-deductible section 18A certificates to any donor.
Unfortunately, SARS is nowhere nearly as competent or efficient as we are led to believe (at least when exempting someone from income tax). They have routinely bungled our PBO application to the point that they are playing ping-pong with it in their offices. Office A and Office B argue about who has the authority to actually process it. Our accountants are hard at work screaming into the telephone, so it is not like we are sitting still.
A quick look at the FPC website makes three things very clear, and those have been our guiding light as we flesh out more exactly what it is we want the FPC to be. The FPC is unapologetic about firearm ownership, committed to increasing firearm proliferation, and desires to be a broad-based and inclusive entity for change. We have drawn some inspiration from the Firearms Policy Coalition in the United States, although any similarity in branding design is entirely coincidental.
Defining the FPC beyond those broad principles has been a continuous work-in progress, and heavily dependent on our the doctoral research. The reason for this is because the FPC quite simply needs to be different from the existing organisations in the firearm-related civil society space. Our corporate structure was one way we wanted to be different, but our identity was to be the main feature.
We started off with bold branding, and embracing the ‘controversial’ AR15 (it really is not that controversial, but definitely will be if we were to contribute to stigmatising it and firearms in general). Just like that, we are different from anyone else in the firearm advocacy space. We have a first impression impact, but lack staying power. This is where the doctoral research becomes relevant to fleshing out more exactly what exactly we are and what we want to achieve
It may be cliché to say that in order to understand who you are and who you want to be, you need to understand where you come from. This is absolutely true in the context of firearm-owning South Africa, where all existing organisations have a very narrow sense of perspective about South African firearm regulation: their knowledge extends about as far as the FCA, and maybe the Arms and Ammunition Act from 1969. Of course, the 1969 law is rather irrelevant today (it is a repealed law and of no value on its own).
This narrower focus by other organisations is not a bad thing, and whatever criticisms may be levelled against them (we all have our blind spots), they have proven remarkably able to hold the line and preserve what we have. They have not won us any concessions or reforms, but they do not need to. They are doing one thing exceptionally well, and are proving to be a very able vanguard against the government whenever the bad idea fairy chooses to bless the powers-that-be with a new terrible idea.
Where does this doctoral doohickey come in? The topic scope was initially quite ambitious and needed to be reduced, so the excluded themes will fall to post-doctoral research (by our CEO or someone else). As the scope now stands in final form, the topic is to simply understand the total history of the development of firearm regulation in South Africa, from the colonial era to present day. Every single law and amendment, and the underlying motivation for each one.
Even though the doctorate is a two-year LLD (to be completed by September 2025), the research began some nine years ago. The text for the colonial era has been finalised, and the 20th century and FCA exist in completed drafts. Several topics have also emerged for later research.
The result is that the FPC now has a deeper and more fundamental understanding of South African firearm regulation lawmaking, almost certainly more so than anyone else in the country. Every firearm law that ever existed on the statute books had very specific reasons for existing. Some of them were offensive and patronising, but most were just desperate and ignorant (a big thank you to the National Party, who passed their ‘knowledge’ on to the ANC). This wholistic and nearly all-encompassing perspective means that we understand our past, and are therefore well positioned to chart a way into the future.
Something that became apparent at the beginning, is that South Africa’s firearm past is rich with meaning and symbolism, and teeming with narratives of David vs Goliath, independence, empowerment, identity, community, and individualism. It goes far beyond a few farmers with rifles at the Battle of Majuba Hill, although they are certainly part of the broader picture. The colonial story in particular possesses all the drama and tragedy that would make multiple compelling Netflix mini-series. From the tragedy of the Langalibalele Affair of 1873 and the drama of the Confederation Project of 1875, to the BaSotho War of the Gun of 1880, there is a strong narrative just waiting to form the foundation of a firearm culture akin to the #2A culture in the United States.
Now that we have this material (which will be official come December 2025), we need to translate it into a compelling and exciting narrative to create a vision for the future that can be shared. As is a recurring theme by this point, this is a work-in-progress. When the research is finalised as a whole, it will become much easier to communicate a message. We will publish a follow-up article in a short while that discusses the research and vision that it stands to inform in a bit more detail. If you are an experienced and expert story-teller and would like to be part of this project, we would love to chat in the not too distant future.