Disarming the Frontline: How PSIRA’s Proposed Gun‑Law Shake‑Up Could Leave South Africans Less Safe

Draft Firearm Regulations under the Private Security Industry Regulation Act (PSIRA)

1. What exactly is on the table?

The Minister of Police gazetted draft amendments to the Private Security Industry Firearms Regulations on 28 March 2025, with public‑comment open until 25 April 2025. Key provisions include:

Proposed clause	Practical effect
Restrict rifles to cash‑in‑transit, critical‑infrastructure & anti‑poaching only	Tactical response and mine‑security units would lose semi‑automatic rifles in most deployments
No firearms in public spaces (malls, schools, hospitals, taxi ranks, residential streets) without an approved risk‑assessment	Armed‑response patrols and mall guards would need case‑by‑case authorisation
“Reasonable” ammo limit (undefined)	Uncertainty over how many rounds guards may carry
Annual medical, psychometric & psychiatric tests for every armed officer, paid by the employer	Higher compliance costs; standards not yet defined
Tracking device in every firearm	Technology not commercially viable at scale, huge cost & data‑security fears
Ban on “less‑lethal” tools (rubber bullets, water cannons, Tasers) unless a separate exemption is obtained 7 days in advance	Hinders crowd‑management and protest security
Companies under investigation may not issue firearms	A mere allegation could disarm an entire firm before any finding of guilt

2. Government & supporter view — the pros

Benefit claimed	Supporting point
Closer oversight of a huge, lightly‑policed sector – ± 600 000 active guards vs 150 000 SAPS officers	Oversight gap highlighted by Gun Free SA
Aligns PSIRA rules with the Firearms Control Act	PSIRA says the aim is harmonisation, not a blanket disarmament
Reduces public exposure to high‑calibre weapons	Complaints about bodyguards openly carrying assault‑style rifles in restaurants & churches
Forces regular fitness‑for‑duty screening to weed out unstable or substance‑abusing officers	Research links prior violence/alcohol misuse to gun incidents
Firearm‑tracking & ammo‑control could curb diversion of guns to criminals	PSIRA stresses theft‑prevention intent
International precedent: many countries keep armed private guards out of civilian spaces	PSIRA notes SA’s draft mirrors stricter overseas models

3. Security‑industry & opposition view — the cons

Concern	Why it matters
Operational paralysis in public spaces	Armed‑response units could not lawfully enter streets, schools or shops during an alarm call
Cash‑in‑transit & high‑risk escorts weakened	Semi‑automatic rifles are routinely needed beyond the narrow categories listed
Job & business losses – industry worth ± R50 bn, over 580 000 jobs	Big employers such as Fidelity warn of closures and layoffs
Unfunded, impractical tech mandates	No proven, affordable gun‑tracking devices exist yet
“Guilty‑until‑proved‑innocent” clause	A rival or disgruntled client could lodge a complaint and instantly disarm a company
Ban on less‑lethal tools removes intermediate force options	Could push guards towards lethal force sooner, or leave them defenceless
Adds red‑tape instead of fixing weak enforcement	Rogue firms already flout existing laws; piling on new rules hurts compliant players

4. Potential impact on ordinary citizens

• Public‑space deterrence: Fewer visibly armed guards in malls, taxi ranks and residential complexes could embolden robbers and hijackers, especially given SAPS shortages 

• Response times: If armed response teams must first secure PSIRA exemptions for every area they patrol, alarm call‑outs could be delayed or unarmed.

• Crime displacement: Well‑resourced criminals (cash‑in‑transit gangs, shopping‑mall robbery crews) typically carry AK‑ and R‑series rifles. Limiting guards to handguns in those environments may tilt the fire‑power balance.

• Economic knock‑on: Lay‑offs in a sector that employs more people than mining would raise unemployment and erode a critical crime‑prevention layer.

• Conversely, fewer guns in crowded civilian areas might cut accidental discharges and stray‑bullet injuries, a long‑standing public‑health worry.

5. Constitutional & legal flashpoints

Right implicated	Possible challenge
s 12(1)(c) right to freedom & security of the person	Citizens may argue reduced private‑security capability infringes their safety.
s 22 freedom of trade, occupation & profession	Firms disarmed “under investigation” could claim arbitrary deprivation of livelihood.
Administrative‑justice (PAJA)	Vague terms (“reasonable ammunition”) open the door to inconsistent, potentially irrational decisions.

6. Where to from here?

• Public‑comment closes 25 April 2025; PSIRA and the Police Ministry must digest submissions, revise and retable the draft.

• Industry bodies (SASA, SAGA, large guarding companies) plan a coordinated legal strategy should contentious clauses survive the red‑pen stage.

• Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on Police is expected to call PSIRA to justify the draft during the upcoming winter session.

Bottom line

South Africa desperately needs tighter control over a private‑security sector that now outnumbers SAPS officers four‑to‑one. Many of the draft regulations – annual psych tests, better firearm registers, and a clamp‑down on rogue operators – are sound in principle.

Yet the current wording overshoots: impractical tech mandates, blanket geographical bans, and a presumption of guilt could cripple a R50 billion frontline against violent crime. Unless the draft is substantially re‑balanced after consultation, ordinary citizens may find themselves less protected, not more.

A workable compromise would: 

1. Target non‑compliant firms with stricter audits & sanctions instead of disarming the whole sector.

2. Define terms like “reasonable ammunition” and set clear, affordable tech standards.

3. Phase in high‑cost requirements (e.g., tracking) only when the technology is proven and subsidised.

4. Retain less‑lethal options under a robust licensing regime rather than a near‑blanket ban.

Constructive engagement now – not courtroom battles later – will determine whether these rules become a sensible safety net or a self‑inflicted security vacuum.