Editorial

Last week's second reading debate on the Arms Bill should serve as a model of how discussions should be conducted in Parliament.

It was not a long debate, by local standards. Both sides of the House basically agreed with what was being proposed but then MPs expressed their own views on the Bill's strengths and weaknesses.

The large number of weapons held in Maltese households and the success in international shooting competitions by William Chetcuti were undoubtedly among the main movers of this legislation.

In a nutshell, the authorities realised they need the tools to better regulate the importation, sale and use of firearms while making it easier for Malta's sports shooters to train and, as it were, aim for higher success.

In terms of the Bill one will still need to be 18 to be granted a weapons licence but children aged between 16 and 18 will be able to practise target shooting with airguns, long firearms and smoothbore barrels and muzzle-loading firearms under supervision on licensed shooting ranges as long as they have the consent of their parents.

Children aged 14-16 may similarly be able to practise shooting using airguns under the same conditions.

Home Affairs Minister Tonio Borg was right to declare there would be no further relaxation of the rules, at least for the time being.

The new rules necessitate the building of a whole structure, including more shooting ranges and a mechanism to ensure that minors are really monitored all the time while they are on the ranges. It is the duty of the state to ascertain that children, in particular, learn about safe and responsible use of weapons even before they start pulling the trigger.

One would hope that by enticing young shooters to the ranges, the new law would instil in them a preference to target and clay pigeon shooting rather than hunting in the countryside, come adulthood.

Eyebrows were, justifiably, raised over the provisos granting the minister "special authority" to issue gun licences and to decide appeals from a refusal by the Police Commissioner to grant licences.

Valid points, too, were made about exaggerated conditions for the licensing of antique, artistic and historic weapons. What is needed is a reclassification of such weapons with appropriate conditions for each. Artistic and historic weapons may not need a licence but one can understand the need for precautions with regard to World War II guns, which, although now classified as antique, remain potent.

As expected, the proposed law imposes several record-keeping requirements on arms dealers as to the identity of persons buying a weapon and the nature of the weapon. What should also be considered is adding the requirement of ballistic fingerprinting before a weapon is sold. This would assist the police investigating crime where firearms are used to trace bullets back to the guns that fired them.

At the opening of the debate, Dr Borg said the government is considering granting an amnesty for the registration of unlicensed weapons. Distasteful as amnesties are, this step is a necessary evil enabling the authorities to better control gun ownership. One would then hope that the amnesty and the new law would combine to deter unlicensed possession of weapons and to better gun law enforcement.