The laws imposed on the Boer territories following the Second Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902 begin to tie up the development from the colonial era into something of a little package with a bow on top. Ultimately, they come to reflect all the principles of the Natal and Cape laws. Despite co-existing with these other provincial laws after Union in 1910, they are in fact the template for the coming centralisation of firearm law from 1937. Today, we walk through these first steps between 1902 and 1908 in the assimilation and reconstruction phase of South Africa and link it to modern day South Africa
For those that remember the 1969 Arms and Ammunition Act, it is worthwhile to mention that the 1937 version was virtually the same. The biggest difference was that the police administer the 1969 version, while the Department of Justice (through the local magistrate) administered the 1937 version. The 1937 version was similarly the same as the Boer territory laws.
Following the Boer defeat confirmed in the Treaty of Vereeniging in 1902, the victorious British administrators moved quickly to curb what little power the Boer populaces had left: their firearms. Even Cape Boers were targeted, and the same Peace Preservation Act that had been used against Cape blacks (but not the Sotho who fought a war and won), was used against the Cape’s Boers.
At first, the new 1902 controls were very draconian, and even covered bladed weapons. Rifles were of chief concern and their possession was immediately made subject to licensing (with a one-year validity period). In showing a distinction between rifles and other firearms, the Governor could revoke rifle licences, but not licences for other firearms. By 1905, the controls had become to be relaxed and less strictly applied and enforced.
By 1907, the new territorial governments for the now renamed Orange River Colony and Transvaal decided to update the 1902 laws imposed on them. The motivation for the new laws rested on the need to make citizens out of the Boers, since the coming Union of 1910 needed their participation if the new country was going to work. It went so far as the Transvaal Colonial Secretary saying that ‘every person of good conduct should have a right to possess firearms’, although this was to be limited to white people only.
These laws seem to have been modelled on Natal’s strict hyper-control laws. In line with the discrimination policies of the day, blacks could get licences, but it would be more difficult. Penalties of supplying firearms, especially rifles, to blacks carried heavy penalties if they did not have a licence. The fine was £500, which works out to £52,300 in 2025 (R1,900,000.00!). For those that could get a licence, the one-year licence validity was abolished and replaced by the lifetime validity many firearm owners remember from the 1969 Act.
The Boer territory laws begin to show the close relationship between citizenship and firearm ownership. At first, the Boers were a defeated people and therefore deserved suspicion and distrust. When the British decided that they had assimilated enough, and that they needed Boer and Brit to work together for make the new Union a success, they changed the laws to make firearm ownership less of a burden. The Boers were aware of the United States Second Amendment, but criticised it as being too broad in its application. Ironic considering what they had just been through, but perhaps an attempt to show how ‘civilised’ and assimilated they had become for their new national identity.
Blacks had not been citizens so far, were not citizens by the first decade of the 1900s, and would not be for some time. Shortly after Union in 1910, the evils of policymaking would start to make itself known. The 1913 Land Act would quickly arrive, despite Cape liberal efforts (by people such as Merriman and Molteno) to try and destroy it. In Merriman’s words, the 1913 Land Act was a policy ‘doomed to failure before it was even implemented and would keep South Africa back, perhaps forever’.
1910 would mark the formal end of the colonial era for South Africa, and showed how many issues had crystalised over the previous 150 or so years. It becomes very clear when looking back at previous themes such as the Cape Frontier Wars (1818-1875), the Langalibalele Affair (1873), the BaSotho War of the Gun (1880-1881): Citizenship and firearm ownership were intrinsically linked. A free people had the right to own firearms, and if they did not, they were at the mercy of anyone wishing them harm.
Even if self-defence was removed from the equation, it was still a significant mark of freedom and modernity. The Sotho said that firearms were their ‘playthings’, and the Boers saw it as a right for any citizen of good conduct. To own firearms showed that the government of the day trusted the people to not overthrow it, and the people appreciated this trust. It is possible to dig into the words of the American founding fathers and what they had to say about firearm ownership when we realise this, but that is a topic all by itself.
In the context of South Africa, disarmament attempts preceded Langalibalele because the Natal government did not trust him. In the Cape, it was targeted at the Xhosa so that they would not disturb the frontier colonists, and later to simply remove them as an obstacle to acquiring more land. This fed into the ideas of ‘agitating effect of firearms on the black mind’ that officials like Sprigg and Frere held (see the story of the Confederation Project), which meant that black disarmament was justified to guarantee peace.
Firearms caused rebellion, and therefore had to be taken away from people that could not be trusted. It is why blacks had to be disarmed pre-1900, and why the Boers had to be strictly monitored and controlled without taking away their firearms. When the Boers assimilated, they basically got their firearms back, subject to controls. This did not happen to blacks, even in the case of very loyal blacks like the Mfengu. The Sotho only got to keep theirs because they fought a war and won.
There are parallels with today (2025) as well. The government has tried to abolish firearm ownership through ‘death by a thousand cuts’. It started with the FCA in 2000, and in 2018 and 2021 the government tried to kick it to the next level and just outright ban entire reasons to own a firearm. Now in 2025, it is back and shrouded in secrecy.
The executive government does not trust South Africans, and it is now more true than ever. It is using the same logic that Frere and Sprigg used in the 1870s that led to total black disarmament: firearm possession causes people to do stupid things and hurt people. The only difference is that the post-1994 government sees everyone in the same way, and not just a specific group. There is no concern about actually dealing with the things that cause violent crime. The government would prefer to focus on symptoms, and even these they do not really care about. They never talk about sharp objects, but they do not shut up about firearms.
Firearm ownership is not just about firearm ownership. It is about self-responsibility and being able to look after ourselves. It is fundamentally about freedom to choose. We can debate the limits on that freedom, but our history should make the underlying freedom to own a firearm non-negotiable.