Protect private ownership of firearms

Before this case, the Police had interpreted the Firearms Control Act in such a way that those who voluntarily handed in their weapons due to a previous failure to renew the licenses on time, could not submit new license applications for those weapons and therefore forfeited their property. Sakeliga argued in an amicus curiae application that this interpretation of the law was economically unsustainable and had adverse implications for the property rights of firearm owners. Sakeliga was able to make a significant contribution to the favorable outcome in the case. The court found in favor of Fidelity, ruling that firearm owners may apply for a new license for weapons with expired licenses. The court also distinguished between ownership and possession. Merely because a weapon is not in lawful possession does not mean an owner forfeits the property (weapon/s). Following the case, the Police sent a standing instruction to all provincial commissioners on July 1, 2022, clarifying the distinction between property rights and possession of weapons, and that firearm owners should be able to apply for a license at any time without forfeiting the weapon. According to the instruction, the police should not prosecute firearm owners where a weapon's license has expired and the owner retains possession of it while steps are taken to obtain a new license. The judgment makes it harder for the police to destroy privately owned firearms on the grounds of formalistic applications of the Firearms Control Act. The ruling facilitates responsible members of the public to retain ownership of their firearms.