The Editor, Sir:

I am at a loss regarding the arrogance of the Firearms Licensing Authority (FLA).

Why is it that the FLA requires that policemen, soldiers and diplomatic security personnel go through the same process as ordinary citizens to be granted a licence to carry a firearm?

Some years ago (before the FLA came into existence), I was em-ployed to a security company that provided security for one of the embassies in Jamaica. I applied for a licence to carry a firearm. At the time, it was handled by the police. I will not get into how much was quoted to me in order to have that licence granted. Needless to say, it was not granted, as I refused to support what I saw as the then corrupt acts of the police force.

Years later, we are faced with the FLA and it is not much different. But I just cannot understand how it is that one may have a licence/permit granted to carry a gun to protect a diplomat but refused one to protect oneself and family.

In addition, they even require the same of the police and soldiers - the very men and women who are entrusted with carrying far more powerful and dangerous guns than they, the FLA, can grant a licence to carry!

If this isn't absurd, I really don't know what is!

It makes me wonder what wisdom functions there, and even more, what wisdom guided those who drafted the Firearms Act.

I am, etc.,

MICHAEL KHREUZ

michaelkhreuz@yahoo.com

Delaware, USA