Current revocation provision in firearms law draconian, says Dalling
Published:Thursday | March 24, 2022 | 12:10 AMChristopher Serju/Senior Gleaner Writer
Firearms Licensing Authority (FLA) CEO Shane Dalling yesterday told the Joint Select Committee reviewing the bill to update the Firearms Act that the current provisions guiding how the agency deals with certain matters regarding permits were draconian.
He made the remark after there was an attempt to clarify the role and powers of the FLA board vis-à-vis its CEO.
Opposition Spokesman on National Security Senator Peter Bunting seized upon the issue that under Dalling’s stewardship, the FLA has been operating contrary to the law, particularly in regards to its decision to suspend some firearm licences.
Dalling agreed, saying that the current law was too harsh.
“The only provision currently in the legislation is draconian – straight revocation. There is no cancellation, there is no suspension. So I am saying to you that the current legislation is defective in many cases, and the fix, including the suspension and the cancellation that are in the bill now, are recommendations coming out of the FLA,” he responded.
Bunting – who, along with former National Security Minister Robert Montague, was recently caught up in a firestorm over decisions to grant permits to persons with criminal traces – sought to belabour the point about the FLA abusing its authority but was cut short by committee Chairman Marlene Malahoo-Forte.
“Even though there is no such authority in law, Mr Dalling has invented a power of suspension and is prosecuting that … ,” Bunting said before he was interrupted.
“I believe that there are some grievances and that this may not be the appropriate forum,” Malahoo-Forte said.
“Please don’t interpret anything that I am saying … ,” Bunting, also a former national security minister, responded.
Following a reading of Section 36 (1) of the bill, Senator Charles Sinclair rose to question the relevance of Bunting’s point since the matter was being dealt with in the pending bill.
Bunting’s response was swift.
“That’s a silly submission. The reason we’re … ,” he started, but Sinclair cut him off, demanding a retraction, and forcing the chairman to interject.
“I think the comment ... made by Member Bunting a while ago is really unparliamentary and should really be withdrawn,” Sinclair protested.
“Member Sinclair, I know you want to shut me up because matters that I raise make you uncomfortable, but that’s really not my concern,” Bunting responded.
Despite the din threatening to disrupt the proceedings, Malahoo-Forte’s calm voice prevailed.
“Members Sinclair and Bunting, may I just ask
,?” she said, ushering in a moment of silence.
“It really is not in the interest of cordial and constructive deliberations to regard … points of order as silly,” the chairman told Bunting.
“It’s not a point of order, with respect, Madam Chairman,” he retorted.
“Let us try not to use this forum to try to resolve all the grievances that may exist,” Malahoo-Forte then appealed.