Bert Samuels | New draconian sentences are out of line!

AFTER 55 years, our Parliament repealed and replaced The Firearms Act of 1967, with a new law called The Firearms (Prohibition, Restriction and Regulation) Act of 2022. This new law consists of 132 pages, 117 sections, and seven schedules.

The lawmakers, no doubt, were driven by the surging and out-of-control gun violence, and so decided to, as it were, put away offenders for decades and, in some cases, for life. The new law, at ‘Part 111’ and commencing at Section 20, provided for the creation of a new Firearms Licensing Authority, which is the sole entity empowered to grant citizens the right to be armed.

The offence of “dealing in a prohibited weapon” is to be found at Section 10 of the new law. It makes possession of 20 rounds or more of ammunition, deemed to be “dealing in a prohibited weapon” and this offence is punishable with imprisonment as a felony, with a term of not less than 20 years “that the convicted person shall serve before being eligible for parole”.

NEW OFFENCE

A further new offence was created at Section 6 (2) (b) labelled as “stockpiling of prohibited weapons”. It creates the offence in this way; if you are in possession of “fifty rounds or more of ammunition”, you “shall be treated as having stockpiled prohibited weapons”. The law, in its own wisdom, has changed the meaning of “ammunition” making it, in law, a “weapon”. At the same time, the definition of “firearm” in the new law, includes it being a “weapon” capable of using (the weapon) ammunition. Convicted for a felony under Subsection 2 of Section 6, the “Court shall specify a term of imprisonment of not less than 20 years, that the person shall serve before being eligible for parole”.

I readily concede that, without ammunition, the illegal guns are physically harmless. I accept, also, that there needs to be prohibition against the supply of bullets to the criminal world and, hence, those who are unlawfully in possession of ammunition should be punished. No cow, no milk.

It is not difficult, however, to think of a number of circumstances which makes these new and extremely harsh sentences grossly severe, out of line, disproportionate and hence, inappropriate. One such example is of the licensed firearm holder who is allowed to have in his possession, 50 rounds of ammunition annually. If he uses 30 of these 50 rounds and, in the following year, buys his 50-round quota, not mindful of his “extra” 20 rounds, he is immediately in possession of 20 excess rounds and hence guilty of “dealing in a prohibited weapon”. In this example, the law gives the judge no choice but to send the otherwise law-abiding licensed firearm holder to prison for 20 years before he is eligible for parole.

Similarly, should the same licensed firearm holder be found with 40 extra rounds, he goes off to prison for a minimum of 20 years for being in possession of a “prohibited weapon” that is the 40 extra rounds. This is the law gone crazy!

In both cases, we have a less than astute and (possibly) forgetful citizen being locked away with hardened killers for a minimum of 20 years!

SEPARATION OF POWERS

The truism that “circumstances alter cases” ought to hold true in the two instances outlined above, but parliament continues to tie the hands of our judges. The legislature has dangerously entered the province of judges to determine “appropriate sentences”. It is now Gordon House that has debated and determined that a blanket minimum sentence of 20 years will fit a myriad of varying circumstances. I am a firm believer in the separation of powers which dictate that the Parliament should make laws, but leave it to judges who among other factors, rely on social enquiry reports to determine, on a case-by-case basis, the appropriateness of sentences. Should our Parliament also dictate to our medical doctors what drugs, and in what dosages, should be prescribed to our citizens?

In 1974, following on a prolific rise in the illegal use of guns, the Gun Court was established with undue haste. The sentence legislated for possession of illegal guns was that of “indefinite detention”. Soon after the law was passed, two middle-class men known as the McKenzie brothers were arrested, tried, and sentenced to “indefinite detention”. They had, in their vault, two rifles which they had locked away for safe keeping on behalf of two friends. The inappropriateness of the indefinite detention sentence rocked the vocal minority middle-class. The misplaced effect of the intended crime-fighting sentence became strikingly apparent. I predict that we will soon face similar atrocities, aptly described by philosopher Edmund Burke, who professed that “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny”.

Bert Samuels is an attorney-at-law. Email: bert.samuels@gmail.com. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com