SOUTH AFRICA is already experiencing an ongoing crime epidemic, and now the government wants to strip the private security industry – the very people standing between law-abiding citizens and violent criminals – of the tools they need to do their jobs.
The latest draft amendments from the Private Security Industry Regulatory Authority (PSiRA) under Department of Police Notice 3088, are a masterclass in ineptitude and absurdity.
Instead of strengthening the security sector, these proposed Regulations will hobble the industry, disarm trained professionals (of both lethal and non-lethal tools) giving criminals an unprecedented advantage. Firearm owners and security professionals must wake up to this dangerous overreach and fight back before it is too late.
How this assault on the private security industry directly affects you the firearm owner
Make no mistake – this assault on the private security industry is the canary in the coal mine for all lawful firearm owners. If the State can arbitrarily disarm trained professionals who undergo rigorous vetting and operate under strict regulation, then stripping private individuals of their firearms is not just possible – it is inevitable. These proposals seem to be testing the water for broader civilian disarmament. The same bureaucrats drafting these absurd PSIRA amendments will soon be abusing responsible gun owners with new amendments to the FCA designed to erode your rights under the guise of public safety.
This is not just a fight for security companies – this is a fight for every South African who believes in the right to self-defence, hunting, sport shooting and collecting.
SAGA corporate member and premier firearms association NATSHOOT state in their latest newsletter: “We do not doubt that, that this is but the first ‘shot’ fired in the direction of curtailing legal firearm ownership.”
Ludicrous provisions and double standards
One of the most absurd proposals is the restriction on the types of firearms private security officers can carry. PSiRA claims bodyguards carrying weapons in public cause alarm. Talent Zwane, PSiRA’s Deputy Director of Law Enforcement, even stated, “We can't have people threatening the public. Even the president has bodyguards and is not protected with those high-calibre firearms.”
This is a ridiculous comparison. The presidential security team operates with intelligence support, almost unlimited state resources, and layers of protection. Private security personnel, on the other hand, face unpredictable threats in an uncontrolled and dynamic environment. The notion that both groups should be restricted in the same way is outright foolish.
Overreaching firearm and equipment restrictions
The amendments limit security personnel to specific firearms, disregarding the dangers they face. Among the proposed restrictions:
- Handguns and shotguns may only be issued for specific services (armed response, cash-in-transit, private investigation, anti-poaching, national key point security, and close protection services).
- Bolt-action rifles are restricted to environmental protection and anti-poaching. • Semi-automatic rifles are only allowed for cash-in-transit security.
These rules fail to recognize the real-world threats in high-risk sectors like the taxi industry, where heavily armed criminals and ‘protection operatives’ operate freely. Restricting access to appropriate firearms will cost lives.
PSiRA has failed to clarify its stance on handcuffs, but any restriction on their use would make it harder for security personnel to safely detain suspects until police arrive. This is yet another example of an unnecessary and dangerous overregulation. This begs the question - who are they protecting?
The proposal to install tracking devices in firearms is highly questionable. Whether such technology exists or not, this option is currently not locally viable and the challenges include:
- Technology limitations – Current tracking solutions are external add-ons and unreliable.
- Cost – Firearm tracking would impose massive costs on security firms, with monthly service fees on top of initial expenses.
- Privacy risks – These devices could be hacked or misused, exposing security personnel to further threats.
- Legal issues – Data protection laws could complicate implementation.
This proposal is a prime example of bureaucrats pushing impractical, ill-conceived policies without understanding the reality of the South African situation.
The hypocrisy of mental and physical assessments
The amendments propose rigorous testing of private security personnel’s visual, auditory, and neurological abilities to determine their fitness to carry firearms. While we all agree competency is crucial, these absurd proposals are ridiculous, detached from reality, and a huge overreach.
Consequences: Less security, more crime
The disastrous effects of these amendments will be immediate and severe:
- Security personnel at risk – Stripping them of necessary tools leaves them and those they protect vulnerable.
- Operational chaos – Security firms will struggle to meet contractual obligations in high-risk environments.
- Criminals empowered – Criminal syndicates will thrive, knowing security forces have been deliberately weakened.
These amendments will not just affect private security; they pave the way for tighter restrictions on law-abiding gun owners. If security professionals can be stripped of their rights, then nothing stops the government from coming for your firearms next!
Other organisations have rightly called these proposals ”irrational and reckless.” What insidious agenda is the government following? We know the security sector is twice the size of the police and military combined! South Africans must not allow their self defence rights to be eroded by bureaucratic stupidity, incompetence and a disarmament agenda.
The most dangerous aspect of these amendments is how they tip the scales yet again in favour of criminals. Security experts warn that criminal syndicates already infiltrate structures, wielding illegal high-calibre fully automatic weapons with impunity. Instead of addressing this, the government’s solution is to weaken law-abiding security professionals restricted to semi auto weapons, thus ensuring that criminals maintain the upper hand.
Time to fight back
These irrational and illogical draft PSiRA amendments are a dangerous, misguided attack on security and self-defence. They are riddled with impracticalities, contradictions, absurdity and outright stupidity. If left unchallenged, they will put security personnel, businesses, and private citizens at the mercy of criminals - is this the plan?
South Africans cannot afford to stay silent. The time to push back – hard and unapologetically – is long overdue. Firearm owners, security professionals, and concerned citizens must make their voices heard before it is too late.
Help us help you by addressing your concerns and objections, with a rejection of these proposals, addressed to The Director PSIRA, Pretoria at [email protected] plus sign up at https://www.freesa.org.za/protecting-public-safety-through-private security/.
Shaun Lyle is a SA Gunowners' Association Trustee. His views does not necessarily reflect those of the Sunday Tribune or IOL.