Even as defence lawyers protest the rigidity of the Firearms (Prohibition, Restriction and Regulation) Act, 2022, calling for a review by legislators, proponents have pointed to a section that allows offenders with up to 19 rounds of illegal ammunition to evade the mandatory minimum sentences being balked at by the legal fraternity.

If convicted under Section 45 of the Act for unauthorised possession of ammunition, the Sixth Schedule outlines the penalty for an unlicensed person as ‘on summary conviction before a parish court, a fine, not exceeding five million dollars, or imprisonment, for a term not exceeding five years’.

To the chagrin of proponents of the disputed Act, attorney-at-law Ruel Gibson of Stubbs, Gibson and Associates explained that the difference lies in the number of rounds as evidenced by Sections 5 and 10.

“It appears that Section 45 allows the parish court to deal with matters of illegal possession of ammunition by an unlicensed person, providing that the amount is under 20 rounds. Being in possession of 20 rounds, or more, as per Section 10, makes the offence tantamount to that of dealing in prohibited weapons, which becomes a Gun Court matter, carrying a minimum penalty of 20 years upon conviction,” Gibson remarked.

Explaining how an increased number of illegal rounds possessed by an unlicensed person further triggers mandatory minimum sentencing, Gibson pointed to Section 6 (1) (b).

“Section 6 deems the possession of 50 rounds or more to be stockpiling of prohibited weapons, which would result in a minimum penalty of 20 years. Therefore, evidently, under 20 rounds allows sentencing flexibility in the parish court,” Gibson added.

However, proponents of the Act have lashed out at illegal possession of ammunition being tried in the parish court, pointing to the capacity of most handguns, the murder weapons of choice for criminals, carrying a maximum of 18 rounds.

Criminologist Dr Jason McKay, an active serving police officer, agreed that aspects of the Act are in need of review, suggesting there should be a separate Act, distinguishing licensed firearm holders, who could easily be in possession of an extra round for many reasons including sport-shooting but was adamant that no leeway should be afforded unlicensed persons found in possession of illegal ammunition.

“It does not take more than one round to take a life,” McKay pointed out. “Homemade firearms with one round, ‘one-pop’ guns, will kill you as instantly as the most expensive pistol on the market.

“Gunmen do not walk around with extra magazines to put themselves in the 20-or-more category. Therefore, if a premises, or person, is searched and ammunition recovered, it will rarely ever exceed 17 rounds. Does that make any of those bullets less deadlier than 20 rounds?” McKay asked.

However, he shared concerns with the legal fraternity about the treatment of imitation firearms under the Act.

“Possession of imitation firearms should come down to a matter of circumstances and intent, particularly if used in the commission of a crime,” he said.