Divergent views in Arms Bill debate

MPs yesterday continued to take contrasting views on the provisions of the Arms Bill, even though the government and the opposition have declared agreement on the text in principle.

Labour MP Joe M. Sammut said that all weapons were dangerous and proper precautions had to be taken. However, once permits were to be given for minors to practice shooting using airguns under supervision at ranges, one should also allow them to use other sports weapons for the same purpose, such as shotguns. Some shotguns were adapted for use by children of a certain age.

Later in the debate Mario de Marco (PN) said a delicate balance had to be struck between sports and safety and in case of doubt the balance should tilt in favour of safety. It was better to have one less shooting champion, than one more casualty of shooting.

In his speech, Dr Sammut said the bill needed to better define the secure places where weapons could be kept. Many liked to keep antique weapons in glass cases for display. Would this be permitted?

He said that while the address of the person licensed to hold a firearm needed to be known to the police, it made no sense that a firearm had to be kept only at that address. Why were licence holders being fined Lm50 for taking their gun with them when they went to Gozo or a summer residence for a few days?

Dr Sammut said that now that the bill was authorising the use of small calibre weapons, it was important that shooting ranges were also licensed for this purpose. Perhaps people having a certain amount of land could also be granted a permit to practice shooting small calibre weapons privately. He hoped Mepa would not create a million problems for the setting up of new ranges.

Turning to antique weapons, Dr Sammut said many people inherited antique weapons. He suggested that people holding such antiques should only be requested to declare them, rather than apply for a licence. And there should be an amnesty for such declarations.

The Labour MP said the police were being given extensive powers to inspect properties where firearms were kept. This provision practically amounted to an open search warrant. He felt there should be prior notice of such inspections and such searches should be limited to where the weapon was kept, and not all the property. As it where, a police inspector could search everywhere on the pretext of looking for ammunition.

It was good, Dr Sammut said, that the bill would better control the transfer of ownership of weapons made when a company changed hands.

However he saw no need for an individual having to go to an arms dealer in order to sell his weapon. This would give a monopoly to the dealers to fix prices. The current arrangement where one could sell a weapon directly should be retained, as long as the sale was approved by the Commissioner of Police.

Turning to penalties, Dr Sammut said he did not understand why the Probation Act would not apply in this case. Neither did he understand why parents who consented to their children using shooting ranges under supervision would still be held responsible if the child used the weapon wrongly when such parents were not at the ranges.

He felt the courts should be given greater leeway in the application of penalties.

Why should a person once involved in prostitution be barred from practicing shooting at a shooting range, as the bill said? Also, one should not be too rigid in denying a permit to people who once, when young, may have taken some drugs. The bill should give a better classification of drug dependence.

And it should not be a minister who should decide appeals from refusal for permits, especially since ministers could come under pressure as elections approached, Dr Sammut said.

Dr de Marco said one had to strike a delicate balance between sports and collecting weapons on one hand, and public safety on the other hand. There were different views on whether having a bigger number of gun owners meant a higher level of gun crime. While in the US there was a high number of weapons and a high number of crimes where weapons were used, in other countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, having a high level of gun ownership had not resulted in a high level of gun crime.

The fact remained however, that when arguments flared and tempers soared a person having access to a weapon may be tempted to use it.

The balance between sports and safety should always tip in favour of public safety, since sports and collecting weapons were a hobby, but human life was not. Turning to licensing conditions, Dr de Marco said he disagreed with the wording of the bill where it said that the Police Commissioner may, in special circumstances, issue a licence for the acquisition, possession or importation of weapons falling within the category of prohibited arms where this was not contrary to public order or public security.

Rather, what the bill should say was that in such circumstances, the commissioner could issue permits for such weapons only when that was in the interest of public order and safety.

Indeed, the commissioner's discretion was more restricted for firearms of the second category where the bill said that the commissioner may, in special circumstances, grant a licence to any person to keep a firearm (listed in schedule II and III) for purposes other than sporting activities if in his absolute discretion "he considers that the issue of such licence is necessary in the public interest or for the protection of the life and security of persons." This, Dr de Marco said, was better wording and should also apply for weapons falling in the first category.

The Nationalist MP referred to target shooting, saying the bill spoke of licences being granted only with respect to firearms used for sporting activities. This wording was somewhat strange in that the licence was not actually binding the holder to use such weapons only for sporting events. Firearms used for sports could also be used for other purposes, and what needed to be specified was that the weapon was only used for sports, Dr de Marco said.

He called for better drafting of the text regulating weapons collectors, also suggesting that the government could assist people having vast collections of antique weapons by forging a public-private partnership through which the government could provide a secure place, such as a section of Lower Fort St Elmo, where such weapons could be put on public display.

Dr de Marco said he disagreed with Dr Farrugia's call for firearm permits to be issued for persons who felt they were under threat. Anyone who felt under threat should report to the police and expect protection.

Indeed, there should be proper guidelines under which the police could issue licences for weapons which were not meant for use in sports as for collection.

The bill said the commissioner could not issue licences for weapons to be used for target shooting unless there were enough facilities at shooting ranges. It was therefore important to have such facilities available so that this sport could be well regulated and one would not have a situation where people would exercise their hobby in an unregulated fashion.

Dr de Marco referred to the register of gun owners which arms dealers would be required to keep. He suggested that this register should be in electronic format and accessible to the police round the clock.

He observed that in terms of the bill, the commissioner could not issue a weapons licence to people who in the previous five years would have been convicted of an offence involving violence or attempted violence or an offence of bodily harm involving weapons. He felt this period was far too short and should, at least, be 10 years. Interjecting, Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg said the commissioner could still refuse to grant licences in such circumstances.

Continuing, Dr de Marco said he still felt the commissioner should not have this discretionary power. A person convicted of violence in the previous 10 years should not even be eligible to apply for a licence to hold a weapon.

Furthermore, the bill also said that a licence would not be issued to persons who in the previous five years would have been convicted of a drug offence. But nothing was said about alcohol abuse, even though one was more likely to be violent under the influence of alcohol than drugs.

He also felt that the power being granted to the minister to issue a licence "under special authority" was something the minister did not need. Did this mean that a person who was not qualified to be granted a licence could still be granted such licence by the minister?

The bill also said that a firearm licence may be suspended when a licence holder was convicted of an offence. Dr de Marco said that in cases of serious crime, a licence should be suspended even while court proceedings were still underway.

Touching on issues of inheritance, Dr de Marco said that inheritance sometimes took months or years to be sorted out. In such circumstances, the commissioner of police should take possession of weapons which may have belonged to the deceased until the heirs decided who should inherit them and apply for a licence.

Other speakers will be reported tomorrow. The bill was later given a second reading.