Orville Taylor | FLAws exposed

When the first firearms were introduced to Jamaica, they were muskets; to discharge them, you needed not just lots of powder but balls made of iron. This is Jamaica; not the United States. The Second Amendment to their Constitution reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It was the late 1700s and by 1798 all of the 13 original colonies had ratified the change. Killing another human being using a firearm was still a difficult task though. Indeed, time was what most gun users killed in the early 1800s, until a more accurate rifle, with tight bores that cleaned easily, was invented.

In fact, the famous rapid-fire Gatling gun did not emerge until the American Civil War in the 1860s. So the awesome lethality of guns was not an issue at the time of the adoption of the amendment. Indeed, there is solid legal opinion that the ‘arms’ under reference did not contemplate yet to be invented weapons, but certainly included swords, crossbows, and long knives.

Nothing in our Constitution apes the American and thus, none of our laws permit us to carry offensive weapons without permission. Our 2001 ‘Knife Act’ The Offensive Weapons (Prohibition) Act runs a list of banned tools of harm. These include knives, daggers, knuckledusters, and swordsticks, among others. An all-embracing “offensive weapon” is defined as “any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person or which is intended by the person having such article with him to cause such injury”. True, a trained fighter’s fists are also deadly weapons, and by intense training, the knuckles do get adapted for causing injury. But backing out one’s ratchet knife in public is not an equivalent under the act.

The point is, Parliament, in accordance with the Constitution, is clear that even the most innocuous of tools, such as the machete or ‘kitchen bitch’ which have other uses, have to be regulated, in a country where more than 1,200 are killed by others annually.

Legal firearm holders have their weapons checked regularly and ballistic reports can easily link them to crimes if committed. However, these persons can legally purchase up to 50 rounds each year. A criminal-minded licensee can sell his extra bullets on the black market or give thugs in the underworld a cut of his stash. For this reason, the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA) must be as watchful as a man ‘getting bun’, because all one needs is one legally empowered criminal to fuel a killing spree.

DUG UP CEMETERY

They have stopped talking for now, but FLA chief executive officer, attorney Shane Dalling, and chairman, retired army colonel, Audley Carter, seem to have dug up a cemetery. With more than 200 and counting persons with ‘criminal traces’ discovered to have approved firearms, the air is like a fish market. Akin to a quid, octopus and calamari buffet, the tentacles are spreading and the suckers are touching many.

Not everything that Dalling has done since his tenure has met my approval. For example, in my considered opinion, many of the tenets of ‘decent work’ including rules of natural justice and good human resources fell below what I consider acceptable. However, the data are damning. Somewhere in the discussions, there is some lack of clarity. For instance, entertainer Jah Cure, who served time for rape, was reported as having been given approval for a gun. Yet, the complete story was that the process was incomplete. To be honest though, whether attorneys cried tears of blood, violent convicts should never ever be granted gun licences.

That Cure and any other convict could even be considered for a licensed gun is a ‘hawk and spit’ in the faces of decent police officers and military personnel. Too many have been told that despite being long-serving members, who are authorised to keep and care the Government-issued firearm, they are unqualified. Perhaps though, given that a police officer has to account for his assigned rounds and has more internal inspection, the FLA believes that another layer of scrutiny is necessary, because we do have criminals within the armed forces.

Chips have to fall, and people must be held accountable. Any decent citizen must welcome a deep probe and an examination of the past and demand tighter control and penalties in the future. Like attorney Peter Champagnie, I endorse tougher penalties for corruption in the approval process for firearms. A gun cheat is more dangerous than a smuggler of uncustomed goods or someone who launders money, including their own fees. But, it must start at the top. If political allegiance is a criterion, then both sides of the divide should have locus standi to appoint members.

Board members should be ‘above board’, appointed with as little political interference as possible. It is also very repugnant that the minister is the final arbiter. Both the individual and the police, or other concerned entities, should be able to appeal a decision to grant or not grant a licence.

Enough is enough! If we can’t complete the simple task of regulating the legal ownership of firearms, then it tells us that our leaders’ rounds are mere pellets.

Dr Orville Taylor is head of the Department of Sociology at The University of the West Indies, a radio talk-show host, and author of ‘Broken Promises, Hearts and Pockets’. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com.