On a Sunday afternoon in April, a short drive through Emmarentia turned deadly. Faisal Ul Rehman was in the car with his wife and two children when their vehicle bumped into another vehicle. Minutes later, he was shot and killed. His wife was wounded, with their children watching as it happened.
The 58-year-old man arrested for the shooting has not been charged. The National Prosecuting Authority says the case, as it stands, is unlikely to succeed in court. That decision may come down to one thing: self-defence, which the accused has claimed.
A law under pressure
Right now, most legal gun owners in South Africa rely on a single provision of the law: section 13 of the Firearms Control Act of 2000. It allows civilians to own a firearm for self-defence. There are about 2.8 million licensed civilian firearms in the country. Most fall under this category. But that could change.
In November 2025, the government introduced the Firearms Control Amendment Bill 2025. Its biggest proposal is simple: remove self-defence as a justification for owning a gun. If that happens, millions of gun owners would have to either reapply under different categories, like sport shooting or hunting, or give up their firearms when it’s time to renew their licences.
What the Bill would actually change
The 2025 Bill is the biggest rewrite of civilian firearms law since 2000. It proposes, among other things:
- Ending “self-defence” as a standalone ground for holding a civilian firearm licence.
- Tightening the renewal and transfer of existing licences.
- Expanding police powers to inspect and revoke firearms.
But it stops short of a full ban.
Why this matters
For many South Africans, owning a gun isn’t about sport. It’s about fear and the belief that help won’t arrive in time. That’s why section 13 has been so widely used. It speaks directly to everyday insecurity. But critics say the law hasn’t made people safer.
Gun Free South Africa argues that section 13 firearms kept for self-defence are often used in domestic violence or disputes, rather than against criminals. In the immediate aftermath of the Emmarentia shooting, the organisation’s executive director, Dr Stanley Maphosa, told SABC News that the killing was “a really heart-breaking incident that could have been prevented”.
Maphosa said guns are increasingly featuring in everyday conflicts, not just organised crime. He pointed to Gauteng’s most recent quarterly firearm-homicide figures, released on 5 March. In the past quarter, 200 of the province’s 1 277 gun murders were classified as road rage, misunderstandings, or social arguments. Removing self-defence as a legal ground, in the organisation’s view, would be the single most consequential public-safety reform Parliament could pass this year.
The South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association, which represents a large share of licensed gun owners, has a different take. In a public call to firearm owners during the 2021 round of amendments to the law, the association’s chief executive, Fred Camphor, wrote: “It is in the interest of every firearm owner and anyone who believes in their right to own a firearm for self-defence to make their voices heard now.” The association’s core argument, carried through to the 2025 Bill, is that the law targets lawful gun owners while doing little to stop the criminals who overwhelmingly use unlicensed, untraceable firearms.
What the NPA’s decision actually means
The man arrested for the Emmarentia shooting hasn’t been charged. That’s not the same as being cleared: it just means the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) doesn’t think it can win the case right now, given the available evidence.
In legal terms, that’s a pragmatic call. In real life, it often comes down to one question: can prosecutors prove this wasn’t self-defence? If they can’t, the case struggles to get off the ground. If self-defence is the reason the shooter may avoid prosecution, it’s also the exact legal justification Parliament is considering scrapping.
If the new Bill becomes law, the system that allows people to legally own guns for that reason will start to disappear. That’s what makes this moment unusual. The same legal defence that could shape the outcome of this case may soon no longer exist.
The question in front of Parliament
If the Firearms Control Amendment Bill passes as it stands, it would reshape South Africa’s gun laws in a big way. Not overnight though – existing licences won’t suddenly vanish. But when these licences are due to be renewed, gun owners would need a new reason to keep their weapons. Over time, the “self-defence” licence category, currently the biggest, would slowly shrink.
If the Bill doesn’t pass? Then it’s business as usual. The roughly 2.8 million licensed firearms remain in circulation and the NPA continues making case-by-case calls on incidents like Emmarentia. The Bill is essentially asking: Should “self-defence” still be a valid reason for civilians to own guns in South Africa?
Why should we care?
This debate sits at the intersection of safety and trust. Trust in the police. Trust in the justice system. Trust in your ability to protect yourself.
For millions of South Africans, firearms aren’t a hobby – they’re a backup plan. For others, they’re a risk factor in already tense situations. The Emmarentia case shows how quickly things can escalate and how messy it gets when it’s time for the law to weigh in.
Whatever Parliament decides, it won’t change policy alone. In addition, it will shape how South Africans think about safety for years to come.
