Those new FLA stipulations

Garth A. Rattray

Many friends and patients who own licensed firearms have been expressing their extreme distress and displeasure at the intended changes to the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA) rules.

They stated that all holders of firearm licences, certificates and/or permits must successfully complete the FLA Safe Use and Handling Assessment (SUHA) twice every year to qualify for renewal. They were to be instituted on January 1, 2015.

And, once every five years, one of the two mandatory range visits must be replaced by a use-of-force lecture. All will be done by approved instructors for a fee that does not include range fees, target fees, or ammunition costs. Personal instructors must be hired by those who need preparation and by those who fail to qualify.

The FLA intends that licensed firearm holders must demonstrate proficiency in dismantling their weapon for cleaning, drawing and presenting, holstering, loading/unloading, recovering from jams, proper grip, breathing, sighting, alignment and trigger control.

The candidate must draw the pistol from concealment, fire a total of 10 rounds at regulation cardboard targets, nine and 21 feet away (with six feet between them). A maximum of two misses are allowed. Shotguns/rifles have targets further away and air pistols/air rifles have their own particular stipulations.

money-making venture

The new rules were severely criticised by Parliament's Public Accounts Committee and withdrawn, but, ostensibly, there is a plan to put them through the proper process and then reintroduce them.

However, so far, every single person who told me about the new rules believes they are overkill and a money-making venture (for the new players in the firearms industry). Many remark that they may surrender their firearms because the new rules are excessive, oppressive and prohibitively expensive.

The FLA only cites the need to protect 'inept' licensed firearm holders from harming themselves, but what hard evidence is there for the need of these new, radical and difficult requirements? What percentage of licensed firearm holders endanger themselves, shoot themselves in the leg/foot or shoot others accidentally? Is it enough to justify the added hardships about to be placed on all of them?

Even with proper training, security personnel sometimes accidentally discharge firearms, seriously injuring themselves or harming or killing others. I know of a well-trained, senior firearm industry authority figure who was ambushed and killed as he tried to retrieve his firearm that he left in his vehicle. Yet, no extraordinary training has been implemented for the security forces or for people of that very unfortunate gentleman's ilk.

protection of self

A licensed firearm is for the protection of self and family - usually in the place of business and/or the home. Attacks by gun-toting criminals occur within about nine feet. Pointing and firing is all that anyone gets to do. If anyone fires at an aggressor many feet away, the court will probably question his/her opportunity to take careful aim and may interpret it as a premeditated, malevolent act.

Even our regular police who carry powerful weapons in public and engage dangerous criminals are required to undergo recertification once every two years; why should regular citizens who only want the ability to protect themselves do so much more? I know of other (overseas) jurisdictions with similar (but far less stringent) requirements for people who carry concealed weapons.

In spite of our horrible driving and hundreds of road fatalities (about 80 since January), no one is required to pass a driving proficiency test twice per year and go to use-of-vehicle lectures once every five years.

Many women can't dismantle their firearms; many people can't aim that well. But no one needs to do any of that in close-quarter firearm combat.

The new proposals are expensive and appear exploitative. Gun owners should be encouraged to train/practise; there's no need for mandatory requalifications.

Garth A. Rattray is a medical doctor with a family practice. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and garthrattray@gmail.com.