Policy of inspecting firearm storage is not irrational, court says
A man whose firearm licence was not renewed this year lost his appeal this week to the Cayman Islands Court of Appeal.
Technically, Dennie Warren Jr. was applying for an extension of time so he could seek judicial review of the Commissioner of Police’s decision not to renew his firearm user’s licence for a Winchester shotgun. Court president Sir John Chadwick told him that judicial review is a procedure for cases in which there was no alternative remedy, but the Firearms Law does provide a remedy by way of appeal to the Governor in Cabinet. Hearing Mr. Warren’s appeal as an application for judicial review would not address his main contention – that it was an abuse of power by the Commissioner to not renew the licence because Mr. Warren would not agree to an inspection of where he stored his firearm.
Justice Chadwick said the court would hear argument on that point and, if it had real merit, would make a decision accordingly.
Mr. Warren told the court he did not agree to the inspection as a matter of principle. He argued the requirement for such an inspection could be imposed only through a regulation made by the Governor in Cabinet, but the Commissioner of Police had made it a requirement as a matter of policy. By doing so, he had acted outside the scope of his authority, Mr. Warren contended.
He told the court that he had possessed a firearm licence since 1993. The application form asked if he had a secure place in which to keep the firearm and he had answered yes. The application also asked him to declare that, if any information in his application changed, he would notify the appropriate authority within seven days. Mr. Warren told the court that he moved to a new address in 1995 and did inform then-Deputy Commissioner Kevin McCann of the change within seven days. He said Mr. McCann wrote back thanking him and no inspection was done.
“That is the right way to act. Mr. McCann continued to trust me. I followed the law. It wasn’t until 2008 that the issue of inspection came up,” he said.
Justice Chadwick said the present commissioner had taken the position that safe storage of firearms was not a question of “Do I trust, do I distrust”. He was requiring everyone to show they have a gun safe. The judge suggested that policy was driven by what is perceived to be a particular problem on this Island.
Justice Elliot Mottley asked if Mr. Warren’s difficulties with the commissioner arose against the background of an increase in the use of firearms to commit crimes in Cayman. Mr. Warren agreed. Asked if firearms could be stolen and used for crime, he agreed it could happen.
The judge referred to Mr. Warren getting his first licence in 1993. “Cayman is different now. Now [the Commissioner] wants to be sure you have a place that is safe and he sets it out for everybody in a policy, not regulations.”
Justice Chadwick pointed out that the grant of licences is in the “absolute discretion” of the appropriate authority – in this case, the Commissioner of Police. “The Commissioner in exercising his absolute authority is saying ‘I need to inspect your firearm safe.’ This is not something new.”
Mr. Warren disagreed. “No, this is a change of behaviour that started in 2006 and got progressively more restrictive.”
He said the Commissioner did not have the power to enter a private residence.
Justice Chadwick replied, “I don’t think he is saying he has the power to enter. He is saying he can’t exercise his discretion [if he doesn’t inspect the storage]. If you don’t want him to come in and look, that’s fine. You won’t get a licence. He won’t force his way in.”
Taking the argument from another perspective, he asked, “Is it really your case that the Commissioner of Police is acting irrationally if he wants to be satisfied that the licensee will keep the firearm in secure circumstances?”
Mr. Warren said no, but it was irrational in the absence of statute.
The judge asked again, “Are you really saying it’s irrational?”
Mr. Warren replied, “To word it that way is not the argument I’m making.”
The judge suggested it was not surprising that the Commissioner of Police would have a policy. Not to have a policy would mean decisions were arbitrary and random, he said.
The appeal panel, including Justice A. Campbell, retired to consider the matter after more than two and a half hours of discussion with Mr. Warren.
Justice Chadwick read their decision, noting it could not be said that a policy of inspection was irrational and it could not be said that the Commissioner of Police had not followed his own policy in reaching his decision regarding Mr. Warren’s licence.
The challenge, which Mr. Warren had presented with courtesy and some skill, was to the commissioner’s power to impose a requirement for inspection as a matter of policy in circumstances in which the requirement was not imposed by regulations made by the Governor in Cabinet, Justice Chadwick said. In his view, while he accepted that Mr. Warren sincerely believed he was correct, his contention was misconceived and really quite unfounded.
He said the Firearms Law gave the commissioner absolute discretion whether or not to grant licences. He said it was plain that the Commissioner must be satisfied that the circumstances are such that it is appropriate for a licence be granted, having regard to the public interest. He concluded that Mr. Warren’s application had to fail and it was accordingly dismissed.
Crown Counsel Dawn Lewis, from the Attorney General’s office, appeared on behalf of the Commissioner of Police.
Related Videos
Dear Mr. Warren
I’m sorry but I can’t agree with your argument either and I’ve supported your views on firearms possession for self-defense, in principle.
If your position was one that questioned the Commissioner of Police’s sole authority and discretion on who is issued firearms licenses or not, I could agree with you wholeheartedly…but, in the context of British and Caymanian law on firearms possession, your challenge of the CoP’s right and discretion to inspect how your firearm is stored is completely unreasonable and unsupportable, in my opinion.
As a champion for more powers of self-defense and protection for ordinary citizens in Cayman, you have done your cause much disservice; it would have been better for you to allow the CoP to inspect your storage facilities, obtain your license, and then challenge the process after you were in possesion of your license.
I completely agree that weapons possessions laws in Britain and Cayman are completely inconsistent and irrational.
I will give you a prime example.
In Britain, I can obtain a shotgun license just by applying for one and having no criminal record of violence; it is my right, not a privilege, as it is in Cayman.
But neither in Cayman or Britain, can I possess an expandable police baton, a tool in which I am an expert and qualified advanced trainer but, not being a police officer, I cannot legally possess this tool but…
I can, in my home and for hunting, possess any type of non-lethal bore firearm, including shotguns, pellet guns, high-powered CO2(gas)guns, which I assure you, can be quite lethal.
Now tell me, which is a more deadly weapon, a blunt-trauma tool like a baton, or any type of firearm ?
This is deja vu from my shooting days in the UK and it could be the start of a very slippery slope.
When I started shooting, shotguns could be racked on display but had to be secured with something like a cycle lock and firearms simply had to kept in a locked, metal container secured to the building.
Then shotguns had to be kept in a locked gun cabinet while firearms and their ammunition had to be stored in separate gun safes – again these all had to secured to the structure of the building.
And it went on and on. Where I lived they introduced compulsory visits from Crime Prevention Officers who not only made ridiculous requirements to have alarms, deadbolts, window grilles, additional window security locks and a whole bunch of other stuff fitted but also specified preferred suppliers – in one case a company run by two former police officers.
There was also deliberate harrassment, with officers turning up at all odd times to make inspections of the premises and making repeated visits to deal with very simple queries that could have been handled over the phone.
Eventually, senior police officers (represented by ACPO) ganged up with the Home Office and forced through the 1997 Firarms Act, which effectively killed off most competitive target shooting in the UK.
Ironically, the two major incidents (Hungerford and Dunblane) that led to the 1997 Act were both caused by failures in policing. In Hungerford a firearms certificate was issued to the killer before the proper vetting had been completed. In Dunblane a recommendation by an experienced officer that the killer was not a suitable person to own firearms was rejected by his superior.
The rest, as they say, is history. Right now many of our prospective competitors in the 2012 London Olympics are being forced to train abroad because their target pistols are prohibited weapons in the UK.
And has all this made any difference to the levels of armed crime? In 1997 there were 4903 recorded reported crimes involving firearms, 10 years later that figure had more than doubled and the number of people killed and injured by firearms had also gone from 874 to 1760.
Firey, I agree with everything you have to say, although holding both a firearms and shotgun license in the UK is not quite as simple as you are making out. To obtain both, your premises are still inspected to ensure that weapons have a secure place to be stored and that ammo is stored separately. To possess a firearm – a .22 rifle, you also need to be a member of a gun club, you can’t just apply for a license and have one at your house. These checks are done at each renewal. If your weapons are stored correctly there should be no problem in an inspection – unfortunately in the world we live, you can not make a decision on firearms and shotguns based on trust and anyone who wishes to possess these items should fully understand this. I completely agree that people need to be able to protect themselves and agree about the expendable batons – its a crazy law.
I do not supported your views on firearms possession for self-defense. I have lived here for 28 years and guns are NOT needed and Police should be the only people with guns.
TT
Thanks for your response.
My comments weren’t meant to convey that there are no conditions attached to obtaining a shotgun/firearms license in the UK.
We all know what those conditions are and they are similar to those in Cayman, except that a shotgun licence, barring any criminal record or record of mental health problems, is almost always automatically granted as all British citizens have a right to have a shotgun in their homes if they so wish; it is not considered a privilege.
My point was that I support the checks and conditions for safety and security and that Mr. Warren’s challenge of these conditions was unreasonable.
It is easier to get a gun license in Britain than it is to in Cayman but then, as John’s comments and stats have pointed out, even with those numbers, the levels of crime and deaths associated with guns in the UK is far below those in Cayman by head of population stats…firearms are far less widely used by criminals in the UK than in Cayman so…
It is quite easy to understand the CoP’s concerns regarding safe and secure storage issues.
To be totally honest though, with Mr. Warren’s known history of gun advocacy and increassed self-defense powers, I believe that he felt that the decision by the CoP had an element of harassment and vindictiveness to it, thus why it was challenged in court; we all know how British police operate with people they consider a thorn in their side when that person has to go to them for anything.
In any case, Mr. Warren’s advocacy has contributed to laws being consideredto to take away the sole discretion from the CoP on the granting of firearms licences and…
In that, he has my total support; eventually, Mr. Warren will still have his firearms licence renewed, no doubt.
The problem is that whether good or bad the policy is arbitrary
Come on Dennie Warren, seems like they would consider you for the license if you cooperated with the Commissioner to inspect where your gun would be kept if in a safe place. That’s reasonable. Based on the rate of crime the Commissioner of police is ensuring that the wrong person will not get their hands on your gun. We were all on your side up until now, but now you’re being very unreasonable and appear to not care if the community will be at risk since you chose to not comply with the new law that simply request that you show the police that you are a responsible licensed gun owner and that you keep your shot gun in a safe place. What part of that reasonable request do you not understand Dennie. Come on now don’t create a barrier where there’s none. Mr. Baines is the Commissioner of police, not you. You must learn go respect authority. Its for your own good. Mr. Baines has the rest of us 60,000 people to keep safe, not just you and your shot gun, so get it right this time Comm.Baines patience must be wearing kind of thin by now where your attitude is concerned.
The Commissioner of police is right on this one. I wouldn’t want Mr.Baines to be my comm. of Police if he acted any less responsible. He is acting like the responsible Commissioner of police that we expect him to be.
Firery, just a couple of points
Gravity batons/spring batons are not prohibited in the UK, although their importation is supposedly restricted, they are classed as offensive weapons so you just can’t carry one in public unless you are a police officer. If you can find one for sale (or bring one in on a ferry or Eurostar from the continent without getting caught) and you keep it at home there’s no problem.
But if you think getting a shotgun certificate in the UK is easy you clearly haven’t tried it round here lately.
I now live in a rural area with plenty of opportunities for rough shooting. Even here it can take at least three months to process the application, the grant for sure isn’t automatic and it may involve 2-3 visits from the police. Lost applications are fairly common, as are silly queries that hold things up and some of the security requirements being suggested are downright daft.
And if you want something like a .22 rifle be prepared for an even longer wait while they vet you, the owner of the property you plan to shoot on and just about anything else you can think of.
Our last Chief Constable actually set annual quotas for reductions in the number of shotgun and firearm certificates held in county and some of his officers weren’t too fussy how they met them.
Vietnam,
This matter is not over, so I’d still rather not discuss it publicly yet. However, my firearms were more secure than the two RCIPS firearms which went missing a few months ago.
I’ve kept all of my firearms properly secured since 1993 and will do so in the future.
Dennie, I know you are coming from a colonial rule mentality. You find it hard to trust government; especially, the uk government through the Foreign Office. However, what can you do about it? There is nothing you can really do about the governments mistrust of the people, and the criminal element in the Cayman Islands. If they enforce the law, you have to comply with the law or you will be breaking the law and deemed a criminal. That is just my advice to you: dont let the right hand, know what the left hand is doing. And there are other means of self-defense. It is not the end of the world.
Dear Mr Warren,
I would like to refresh your memory, Firearms inspection was implemented as a matter of policy by a Firearms Committee that was implemented to ensure that the necessary requirements stipulated in the Law were met. (Safe storage facilities). Please abide by the Law and stop wasting the Courts time. For pete’s sake.
John
I never said it was easy to get a firearms licence in the UK; I said it was easier than in Cayman.
Why this is so is that the issue of firearms licences in Cayman has always been under an ‘old boys’ culture where if you were not someone or someone’s friend, you were and are automatically denied a licence, same as so many others things in Cayman.
At least in the UK, the Chief Constable might harrass you because he doesn’t want you to have one in the first place but eventually, once all laws and conditions are met, you more more than likely will get your licence.
How the lads where I live get around it is they use the air-loaded .22 caliber rifles for shooting pigeons for their ferrets.
Have you ever seen one of those .22 pellets mate; they’re proper .22 sized calibre and these guns are totally legal to own and use without a permit.
Who needs a ballistic bore .22 rifle when you can have one of those things without the agro the Old Bill is gonna give you about a licence ?
Sorry Firery but that’s BS and you know it.
I’m a former firearms instructor, I was a member of the Shooters’ Rights Association, the NRA, the NSRA, the UK Practical Pistol Association, two local shooting clubs and I was a Registered Firearms Dealer (RFD) who worked with two companies that had Section 5 (fully automatic weapons) licences – don’t tell me that getting a firearm in the UK is easy. The fact that your friends choose air weapons over .22LR proves my point.
I have to agree with John
Licences are granted as a privilege not a right, as such you need a valid reason to apply.
My uncle is a sporting shooter and having saved for many years bought a few acres of land with shooting rights, prior to this he had letters from local farmers – he has a valid reason to own shotguns. As a responsible gun owner, he is happy to go through whatever checks are required rather than have a lax system that could result in armed criminals.
In England and Cayman, Home Defense / Self Defense, is not a valid reason for gun ownership.
Last year a burglar was shot and killed with a rifle – given the potential range of a rifle, the homeowner could have just as easily killed a neigbours child asleep in their bed. Residential areas are no place for discharging firearms, if you believe you have a good reason to have one in your home, your neighbours have every right to know that they are safe – the burden of proof falls on the homeowner to SHOW that they are responsible and their neighbors are safe – they do that though the Police (Keep up the good work guys, the rest of us really appreciate you!).
On a small island, may I suggest that Mr Warren has done himself no favours with this ill concieved action. By publicising his gun ownership, has he not put everyone at a greater risk? Many criminals now know where a firearm is located, he has effectively painted a target on his house and his gun safe. The Commissioner now needs to be doubly sure that Mr Warrens’ security arrangements go above and beyond the regulations…
I wish I could remember who said it but there was a comment as to the best firearm for home defence,
The reply was
It’s got to be a Heckler and Koch with that special thingy that goes at the back of the grip, you know what I mean, it’s about 6′ and has a blue ballistic vest marked Police
Sonic,
Re: In England and Cayman, Home Defense / Self Defense, is not a valid reason for gun ownership.
Reply: Not true. Section 18(1)(a) of the Firearms Law (2008 Revision) reads: No person shall discharge any firearm on or within forty yards of any public road or in any public place except in the lawful protection of his person or property or of the person or property of some other person
The Commissioner is trying to disarm private residents. If that is allowed to happen, then even the people he doesn’t like will have to depend upon him for their safety. Even a fool can understand the problem with that. This debate is just getting started. Watch the nonsense happening in the UK at: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=9130st=11:38:30
Starting with the Firearms Law (Amendment) Bill, 2011, legislative creep is one of the main weapons that will be used to disarm the balance of lawful firearm owners.
Dennie, You are a bit stuck like an old record player.
THE POLICE would like to come and check your safe to make sure you have one and everything is safe. That way I and your other neighbours can feel safe in knowing it will be a hard job for the burglar who breaks into your house to remove your shotgun and then commit robberies with it. That is the end of it, there is not a big conspiracy against you.
I had a business buying Jewellery and Vintage watches in Spain. Every month the Police came to inspect my safe and see that everything is stored safe. I was even forced to install a very expensive time delay safe. But I understood the procedure as it was all to protect my neighbours and my self.
My Father was a Police Officer in South Africa. He had his service 9mm and many other guns. Once a year an officer from the local station came to inspect our safe and afterwords we had a beer and chat with the officer.
Life can be so much more fun than you are making it. Put this affair behind you and rather put your energy to more positive things. Go and help out at one of the many fantastic charities we have on Island.
I mean all this in the best possible way. I take it you do not have a wife, otherwise she would have told you a long time ago to stop being stubborn.
Re: In England and Cayman, Home Defense / Self Defense, is not a valid reason for gun ownership.
Reply: Not true. Section 18(1)(a) of the Firearms Law (2008 Revision) reads: No person shall discharge any firearm on or within forty yards of any public road or in any public place except in the lawful protection of his person or property or of the person or property of some other person
As I read it – you’ll find that only applies ONCE you have been granted permission for a a firearm for a legitimate sporting purpose, and it may have been introduced to protect armed police from malicious law suits. In the section of the application where you give the reason for proposed gun ownership – try quoting that and see how far you get.
If I recall, it is an offence to use a firearm outside the scope of the permit – A gentleman who applies for a shotgun for Rabbit control commits an offence by intending to shoot a crow (i.e. even without firing a shot)
Furthermore ‘Lawful Protection’ is down to circumstances – remember that the law only allows for reasonable force NOT Lethal Force
Don’t assume I’m anti gun ownership, I just dont think it’s safe that joe public should be buying a firearm for self defence – if it’s properly locked in the safe then you can’t use it and if not it’s just as likely a burglar could get to the gun as the homeowner. For the price of a good shotgun the money would be better spent on locks and extra security
Sonic,
Re: ‘As I read it – you’ll find that only applies ONCE you have been granted permission for a firearm for a legitimate sporting purpose’
Reply: Section 18(1)(a) is a general statute right, which is not subject to the discretion of the Commissioner of Police. Therefore, his dislike for that provision is one of the reasons why he is attacking lawful private firearm ownership. He may well do great damage to private firearm ownership, but in the end he will not destroy personal protection by means of lawfully owned firearms. That is the view of many who never speak publicly.
Where an attacker has the capacity (knife, firearm) and is threatening to seriously injure or murder a person, that person if he or she lawfully possesses a firearm, may use that firearm to prevent or stop those attacking him or her from committing those crimes against him or herself, and if lethal force is necessary to do so, then that is reasonable. Are you suggesting that is such a case, you prefer the law-abiding to die and the criminals to live?
Re: ‘it may have been introduced to protect armed police from malicious law suits.’
Reply: There are two problems with your speculation. (1). Read the balance of Section 18 to see why it doesn’t apply to a person who is police officer, because he or she is a police officer; and,(2). Section 44(d)(ii) of the Firearms Law reads: ‘This Law does not apply to any member of the Royal Cayman Islands Police Force.’
Re: ‘I just dont think it’s safe that joe public should be buying a firearm for self defence’
Reply: Since it’s not possible for the RCIPS to prevent the possession of unlicensed firearms by lawbreakers, who are using them against law-abiding residents, why do you feel that law-abiding residents should NOT have firearms for their defense?
Re: ‘if it’s properly locked in the safe then you can’t use it and if not it’s just as likely a burglar could get to the gun as the homeowner.’
Reply: Firstly, it is true that a licensee could, in certain circumstances be at a severe disadvantaged, where his or her firearms are locked away in a safe, but some safes can be accessed by the owner within seconds. While in other circumstances, having firearms stored in any safe could be fatal to the licensee… Secondly, I take firearm storage seriously, but because one has a firearm safe does not mean they will not be stolen, and allowing RCIPS inspections of firearm safes do not guarantee firearms will not be stolen either. For example, it is possible for armed burglars to enter the home of licensees whose firearms are ‘properly secured’ and order that the licensee’s safe to be opened. So much for inspections
Re: ‘For the price of a good shotgun the money would be better spent on locks and extra security.’
Reply: A person may have to first survive an attack, before he or she will be able to call the police for help. Hopefully you don’t learn that the hard way.
While the Commissioner of Police is working to disarm all firearm licensees, it is the RCIPS which is losing firearms. My firearm was safe, because for me security is a lifestyle, not just a secure place.
There is really not hate like UK gun hate.