Legislators spar over proposed tough gun law

A person in the company of a licensed firearm holder who commits a felony could, in the absence of what the law terms “reasonable excuse”, also be charged jointly with the person who has the gun permit.

A controversial provision – (Section 43 (3) (a) – in the new Firearms (Prohibitions, Restriction and Regulation) Act, 2022, triggered intense debate Wednesday among lawmakers who are members of a joint select committee reviewing the proposed law.

The legislation states that any person found guilty of breaching the law could face a fine in a parish court of not less than $3 million or a term of imprisonment of not less than three years.

However, if the person is convicted before a circuit court, a sentence of life imprisonment could be handed down.

Committee chairman and Minister of National Security Dr Horace Chang said he was not comfortable with the provision that could land innocent persons in trouble with the law.

He told the committee that he understood clearly a situation where two gangsters were charged with a firearm offence when travelling together and one was in possession of a gun.

However, in the case of an individual who is in the company of a licensed firearm holder, Chang said the provision was placing a burden on the other party, which is not reasonable.

Minister of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Marlene Malahoo Forte pointed out that the law stated that if someone “aids and abets”, that person could face the same punishment as the principal offender.

But Chang said that steps were taken in the law to separate the person with a legal firearm from those with illegal guns.

“I walk beside a friend who has a licensed firearm. He commits a breach of the Firearms Act. Why should I be associated with him? There is no reason,” said Chang.

Seemingly irritated by the provision, Senator Donna Scott Mottley contended that the legislation should not be crafted so that people are charged with the proviso that they have a defence.

“You know what it is like as an innocent person to be charged? You look at the law and you say, ‘Ahhh, they can give a reasonable excuse.’”

She argued that it was not sufficient to say that the accused person can go before the court and offer a defence.

“Legislators must start from the point of making laws that are fair and just not one that accommodates a defence,” she insisted.

Clarendon South West Member of Parliament Lothan Cousins told his fellow legislators that any holder of a licensed firearm who commits an assault can be charged for illegal possession of a firearm.

He argued that if someone was in the presence of the person who committed the offence, under the common law, he can be charged based on the evidence gathered.

Malahoo Forte acknowledged that many who appear before the courts “are weak against the might of the State” and must be protected.

She argued that the evidence for conviction has to meet a certain standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. She added that evidence for acquittal only has to cast reasonable doubt on other evidence.

“While there may be concern from the perspective of law guided by the courts, there is nothing egregious about the provision,” she insisted.

But Fitz Jackson, who joined the committee meeting late, also raised concern about the provision, saying it was “very troubling”.

edmond.campbell@gleanerjm.com