Sunday, 16 October 2016

Illegal gun possession and usage

Q: Since photos emerged of two armed civilians believed to be the minor children of Attorney-General, Faris Al-Wari, I have been asked if any laws have been broken. 
A: Yes, Several laws have been broken.

8. (1) A person who gives, sells, lends or rents a firearm or ammunition to a child commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of fifty thousand dollars and to imprisonment for ten  years.

6. (1) Subject to section 7, a person may purchase, acquire or have in his possession a firearm or ammunition only if he holds a Firearm User’s Licence with respect to such firearm or ammunition.

9. (1) Any person who sells or transfers a firearm or ammunition to any other person who does not hold or who is not exempted from holding a Firearm User’s Licence is liable—
(a) on summary conviction to a fine of seventy-five thousand dollars or imprisonment for eight years; or
(b) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for fifteen years.

(2) Any person is liable on summary conviction to a fine of forty thousand dollars or to imprisonment for ten years who purchase or acquire from, sells or transfers a firearm or ammunition to, or repairs, tests or proves any firearm or ammunition for, any other person whom he knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, to be—
(a) ...; 
(b) ...; 
(c) ...; or 
(d) under the age of twenty-five years.


1 comment:

Ron Williams said...

Law shouldn't be left to interpretation,but should be clear and concise that even a four year old could understand it.
No laws were broken. No one lent anyone a firearm. Rather the youngsters were allowed to hold a fire arm, a legal one at that, under supervision in a controlled environment. Secondly noone was using a firearm. It was unloaded thus useless in its capacity as a weapon, at least for which is was intended. Thirdly, holding the firearm doesn't mean possession. Possession is to own. Having in one's possession is to have on one person or premises. In the case in question the weapon was being displayed rather than possessed.
The above and referenced act didn't mean what it has been interpreted as, hence my statement: law shouldn't be left to be interpreted but should be clear.