NTA leader Gary Griffith has criticised the UNC for an advertising the issuance of Firearm Users Licences (FULs) once they have returned to power.
In a release on Thursday, he said, issuing of FULs must be balanced and must not be used as a political ploy to win votes.
He said the recent proposal by the political party, which came coupled with a flyer advertising such, to indiscriminately issue firearms to all law-abiding citizens is not just impractical, but it poses a serious risk to public safety.
(see advertisement below)
Griffith said this proposal is a stark example of the politicization of national security issues, attempting to secure votes by promising broad firearm access without the requisite checks and balances.
“This approach is in stark contrast to more measured and effective policies practiced during my tenure as CoP and runs counter to excessively restrictive practices which was a feature from past Commissioners and the present political directorate.”
“In the past, we’ve seen policies that restricted firearm issuance to a select group closely aligned with political leaders, effectively monopolizing the right to self-defense. This not only bred inequity but also fostered a distrust in the fairness and integrity of law enforcement practices. At the other extreme is the current proposal, which suggests distributing firearms as freely as everyday commodities, ignoring the complex implications and responsibilities associated with firearm ownership. This liberal distribution model is naive and overlooks the potential for increased violence and criminal activities.”
Griffith said his tenure overseeing firearm regulations focused on creating a balance between upholding citizens’ rights to self-defense and maintaining public safety.
He added: “We managed to issue firearms to 1,000-1,200 carefully vetted applicants annually, about 100 per month. This level was maintained not arbitrarily but was the result of stringent vetting processes including in-depth background checks, psychometric evaluations, and comprehensive assessments of each applicant’s suitability. This rigorous approach ensured firearms were entrusted only to those posing no threat to safety, and remarkably, there were no incidents of firearm-related crimes, losses, or negligent discharges under this regime.
Dangers of the Current Proposal:
The former top cop said the proposal to indiscriminately distribute firearms threatens to dilute these proven vetting standards, potentially allowing access to firearms for individuals with hidden criminal ties or those engaged in activities that, while not criminally prosecutable, pose significant community risks.
“The fact that over 90% of persons involved in criminal activity have no criminal record and as such meet the minimal legal criteria for firearm ownership under this new proposal is alarming and underscores the proposal’s inherent risks.”
He said to ensure a responsible approach to firearm distribution that balances individual rights with community safety, several steps should be considered:
1. Stricter Vetting Standards:
2. Controlled Issuance Rates:
3. Enhanced Transparency and Accountability:
4. Educational Initiatives:
5. Reevaluation of Criteria:
6. Allow tribunal to issue FULs not only Commissioner
In addition to maintaining stringent firearm regulations, other measures have proven effective in enhancing public safety:
• Accessible Non-Lethal Defenses:
• Improved Border Security:
• Community Policing Enhancements:
Griffith said the need for professional discourse on firearm policy cannot be overstated.
“It is critical that changes to firearm policies are approached with a focus on empirical evidence and a commitment to the safety and security of all citizens. As we move forward, it is essential to foster policies that reflect a deep understanding of the responsibilities involved in firearm regulation and to avoid simplistic solutions that compromise public safety for political gain.”