Gordon Robinson | Abolish FLA and disarm the citizenry

So the line of government ministers resigning suddenly under clouds of suspicion lengthened as Bobby Montague left the ball hurriedly at 10:59 p.m. on March 10 before his carriage could turn into a pumpkin at midnight.

With apologies to John Deacon:

Bobby walks warily down the street

with his brim pulled way down low.

Ain’t no sound but the sound of his feet.

Machine guns ready to go!

Are you ready (hey) are you ready for this?

Are you hanging on the edge of your seat?

Out of the doorway the bullets rip

to the sound of the beat (yeah)

Another one bites the dust

Another one bites the dust

And another one gone and another one gone

Another one bites the dust!

A seemingly damning report from the Integrity Commission revealed that as National Security Minister, Bobby allowed six appeals from Firearms Licensing Authority (FLA) denials to appellants with at least questionable antecedents.

Only the day before he bolted, Montague published a strong rebuke of the Integrity Commission in which he asserted that despite the commission asserting that he was given an opportunity to respond to the findings, he was not, in his opinion, given a “full” opportunity.

Montague’s statement included:

“The report also fails to take into consideration that all my actions concerning the referenced issue were informed and guided by the recommendation of a panel of experts, which I had tasked with assisting in assessing appeals made to me in my capacity as Minister of Security.”

Yet, within a day, he was rushing away from the bright lights without naming the “panel of experts” or specifying their expertise.

The public wasn’t satisfied as in that same report, Leader of Opposition (Business) Senator Peter Bunting was also flagged as having allowed two controversial appeals. One involved an appellant whose conviction was subsequently “expunged”.

The Gleaner reported:

“Bunting approved an applicant who was arrested and charged in the United States for the offences of trafficking cocaine, four counts of larceny, and grand theft in the third degree.

The applicant’s firearm user’s licence was revoked in September 2012 on the basis that he misrepresented himself to the FLA and could no longer be considered fit and proper to be issued with a firearm.

But the report said the applicant’s criminal record was expunged two years later in October 2014, and by way of a letter, ‘it was indicated that Mr Peter Bunting, then minister of national security, granted the issuance of a firearm user licence’.

The FLA board also subsequently withdrew the 2012 revocation because the basis on which the permit was revoked had become void.”

How on earth does something “become” void? The word “void” means it never happened or has been cancelled not that the record of its happening has been erased. The revocation was withdrawn “subsequently”? To what? The expunging? Or the successful appeal? Why was that necessary? Doesn’t a successful appeal automatically overturn a revocation?

On the second matter, Bunting pointed out that the allegations of sexual assault didn’t even reach the stage of formal complaint to the police.

How does the expunging of a criminal record or the official status of an adverse trace affect the issue of whether or not someone is “fit and proper”? A licence was revoked “on the basis that he misrepresented himself to the FLA and could no longer be considered fit and proper … .” The problem was not only the convictions, but also the appellant’s character and credibility.

In addition to several other pre-conditions, the Firearms Act provides:

“A permit, certificate or licence shall not be granted to a person who the Authority has reason to believe [my emphasis] to be of intemperate habits or unsound mind, or to be for any reason unfitted to be entrusted with such a firearm or ammunition.”

For. Any. Reason! Not any “other” reason, which would limit the FLA to reasons akin to intemperate habits or unsound mind.

The administrative expunging of a criminal record may be good enough to be granted a visitors’ visa, but in my opinion, it doesn’t change character or antecedent action. It only erases the record of your punishment for the crime. That you are alleged to have lied to FLA hasn’t changed. That your antecedents make you a high risk for the issue of a firearm permit hasn’t changed.

The fact that a possible victim of sexual assault doesn’t make a formal report doesn’t mean that in applying for a firearms licence, the applicant doesn’t have challenges (especially if the FLA has “reason to believe” that the applicant is “of intemperate habits”) to overcome.

ACT REASONABLY

Let me be clear. In this process, the principle of innocent until proven guilty is irrelevant. The Authority must act reasonably and not arbitrarily but need not prove any allegation to any courtroom standard. Under the Criminal Records (Rehabilitation of Offenders) Act, nobody whose conviction(s) has/have been expunged may be excluded from “any office, profession, occupation or employment” because of expunged conviction(s). But licences, especially those requiring “fit-and-proper” conditions, remain discretionary.

Appeals from FLA refusals where there’s evidence upon which the FLA could’ve relied to reject ought never to be allowed by anyone no matter how much that appeal authority feels it would’ve decided differently. The FLA must be wrong in law or act arbitrarily or irrationally (e.g., in the absence of any adverse trace).

So the public also called for Bunting’s head. Some Comrades went so far as to mount a protest outside PNP Headquarters. They were determined that “heads” should roll and not just one.

Hey I’m gonna get you too

Another one bites the dust.

Bunting defended himself publicly as did the PNP. Bunting, like Montague, pointed out that he acted on expert advice. The PNP put up a stout, lengthy defence of its leader (oops, sorry, senate leader) which included:

“Nothing has come to light that suggests the decisions were flawed or improper and we are guided by due process.”

What exactly does the PNP mean by “due process”? Does a member have to be convicted in court before he/she can be removed from sensitive national office? What’s the level or adjacency to public duty of concern required before a public servant should step aside? Is an Integrity Commission red flag to be treated like a jealous spouse’s accusation? Or should it be treated as the JLP treated Robert Montague, Ruel Reid, Andrew Wheatley? What “due process” did PNP/Bunting give Shane Dalling before demanding his resignation?

But once again, all this loud, blind chopping of trees while ignoring the forest leaves me cold. And bored. The fact that national security ministers from both parties were flagged screams that there’s something wrong with the system. But in tribal Jamaica, we only want to decapitate as many political opponents as we can.

I’ve been telling you for too many years that the luxury of licensing citizens to carry firearms in a nation plagued by gun crime is a counter-productive, corruption-enabling, murder-promoting source of political and personal patronage that Jamaica can’t afford. At this rate, we’ll be calling for every national security minister who hears a firearms appeal to resign.

The answer is NOT to replace the minister with another politically appointed “review panel”. The real answer is to abolish FLA and disarm the citizenry. THAT would reduce the opportunities to license persons despite dangerous adverse traces and also cauterise an indirect source of guns for criminals who repeatedly rob (or worse) law-abiding licensed firearm holders.

DO NOT PASS ‘GO’

IF Jamaica insists on burning down the house by trying to fight fire with fire via a gun-licensing regime, then don’t waste time and space with another administrative tribunal to hear appeals. The correct remedy for a person aggrieved by a FLA rejection should be to go directly to the Supreme Court for judicial review; do not pass “go”; do not collect $200!

The Old Ball and Chain’s “baby” SputNik’s favourite rock band was formed in 1970 when guitarist Brian May and drummer Roger Taylor (bassist John Deacon joined in 1971) invited Freddy Mercury, an awkward teenaged Zanzibar-born son of Indian immigrants, to be their rock band Smile’s lead vocalist. Freddy suggested the name change to Queen (no surprise); soon became the band’s talismanic star; and is widely recognized as the best lead singer of a rock band of all time.

Queen is synonymous with pomp rock ( We are the Champions) especially in live performances. So when in 1980, the John Deacon-written Another One Bites the Dust featured on the group’s eighth album, it became a worldwide hit and Queen’s best-selling single. The song won an American Music Award for Favorite Rock Single and a Grammy Nomination for Best Rock Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal!

Peace and Love!

- Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com