The recently tabled report by the Integrity Commission on its “investigation into allegations concerning acts of impropriety, irregularity, and corruption in the issuance of firearm user licences” shares some keen insights.

The 245-page report details instances of firearm licences and permits being granted to people who are identified by the investigator as being of “questionable character”, and therefore “unfit to hold such an authorisation”.

These licences and permits were deemed to have been granted by various boards of the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA) or various ministers of national security subsequent to receiving recommendations from the review board. It should be noted that not all licences granted by the various ministers of national security upheld the recommendations from the review board.

Indeed, some recommendations from the review board were overturned by at least one minister, resulting in licence(s) being granted to individuals for whom the review board had recommended “denial and/or revocation” of licence.

Recent public commentary has been filled with outrage and has focused mainly on these findings, prompting calls for resignations, new regulations guiding ministerial decisions, and new regulations governing how people are appointed to authorisation boards.

MISSING THE MARK

I believe, however, that most of the public commentary has completely missed the mark on some of the other, more important insights.

Looking at the report in a holistic manner reveals one damning flaw of the entire system — the use or misuse of “discretion” by various individuals.

The report tabled averred that ministers have “unquestioned discretion”, but seems to question that very same discretion exercised by the ministers.

How can anyone question something which the current regulations say is unquestionable?

Yet here we are — questioning the discretion of various boards, review boards, and ministers, all of whom were granted discretionary powers.

But let’s dig a little deeper. In the tables of the appendix to the report, we see evidence of another group of people also exercising their discretion, namely the people within the FLA’s Investigative Department. In fact, columns number six and seven of these tables reveal opinions and/or recommendations from the investigators as part of their reports and findings.

Who requested or gave these investigators any authority to submit an opinion or recommendation? They were simply tasked with investigating the antecedents of the applicants and submitting a report. All findings, favourable or adverse, ought to be supported by verifiable evidence. Not opinion or recommendations…just the facts!

DISCRETION CAN BE GOOD OR EVIL

Discretion is generally defined as “acting on one’s own authority and judgement”.

Some people believe it can be problematic, while others believe it is essential to help guide our way of life. Some people have it, some don’t. Some people use it liberally, some sparingly, others not at all. And some people abuse it. These are the facts of life.

I believe discretion has a time and place, but only in very limited circumstances. I believe the consideration for firearm licenses is not one of these circumstances. We see repeated evidence of poor or questionable decisions being made.

THE SOLUTION

The Integrity Commission’s report states as part of it’s key findings: “There is no written policy and/or document which outlines the elements which would constitute a fit and proper applicant to be granted a firearm user licence by the FLA.”

And they have recommended a solution: “In addition to the provisions of Sections 29 and 36 of the Firearms Act, the DI [director of investigations] recommends that amendments be made to the Firearms Act Regulations to incorporate specific requirements and character traits that would constitute the criteria to be met by an applicant who is deemed fit and proper to be granted a firearm user licence.”

Read that again:”incorporate specific requirements and character traits that would constitute the criteria to be met by an applicant who is deemed fit and proper to be granted a firearm user licence”.

This excellent recommendation from the Integrity Commission’s report would immediately resolve many, if not all, of the issues cited in the report, and points to developing a “shall issue” policy instead of the current discretionary “may issue” policy of the issuing authority.

Incorporating clear, specific, objective requirements for the granting of firearm user licences will remove the discretion, and thereby remove, or at least reduce, the opportunities for corruption.

There is an opportunity right now to incorporate this critical recommendation in the new draft Firearms Act being considered in Parliament. We must fix the problems now.

proactivejamaicans@gmail.com