GUN LAWS

[00:00:00] Speaker A: You're tuned into the all new freedom 106.5. 106.5. [00:00:11] Speaker B: Good morning again, Trinidad and Tobago. Good morning. Welcome Back to Freedom 106.5 FM. We are into the segment known as justice here in Trinidad and Tobago and we have covered quite a variety of conversations thus far where it relates to, you know, judicial matters, persons who are seeking judicial advice, or legal advice as it for that matter. Remember, anything that Andisa and I discuss on this show is basically generic information we are putting out there to you guys. And based on your story or what you choose to share with us, we are able to respond or Andisa is able to respond. Again, the legal advice will have to be tailored to your personal needs when you visit an attorney's office, whether you come to Andisa's chamber or you go to your personal attorney, but your questions will be answered to the best of our ability this morning as we give you another edition of Justice. Andissa, good morning to you, sir. [00:01:03] Speaker C: Sweetheart, good morning. [00:01:05] Speaker B: All right. Good morning and welcome, welcome, welcome again to freedom. And I, I must commend you on your tardiness these past few Fridays. [00:01:12] Speaker C: Tardiness. [00:01:13] Speaker B: You have been doing well. You've been very. [00:01:15] Speaker C: I've been early. [00:01:16] Speaker B: Yeah, you're on time. You're just here bright eyed and bushy tailed with your guests. Shade. Good morning wherever you are. And our new magistrate. [00:01:27] Speaker C: Yes. Adafia Trancuso Ribeira. [00:01:32] Speaker B: Her worship, she called me the other morning. I said, yes, your honor, she started off. What I appreciate about her worship is that she still maintains her ground. She's still very humble and down to earth. I can call her at any time. She takes the call, she answers. And you know, I appreciate that, you know, yes, that was well appreciated. Brother Larry, good morning to you. Let me hear what you have to say. Good morning. [00:01:55] Speaker A: Good morning. [00:01:55] Speaker B: Devi. Right. Everyone in Trinidad and Tobago is free to apply for a fire user license. Tunnel restrictions are in there, but the questions just come down to meeting the standard or and exceeding it. You know, I just sometimes wonder what is defined as a good reason, you know, accordingly, if I am Zach planting for a commission of police to issue a firearms user license, right. I see online waiters like a refusal attempting speak about waiters. There's no threat to your life and yeah, not carrying large sums of cash and all that kind of thing. Right. I mean, I wonder if it is that you have to be a victim of crime first in order to qualify for a fire music license, you know, if it is that you had to have something Ongoing. All right. And if you could find out that from away, you know, what, what is deemed to be a good reason that qualify for fire user license. All right, thank you very much, brother Larry, for sharing your concerns this morning as it relates to business businessmen and business women in the country. Now, Andy said bring you up to speed. We was chatting earlier about a story where a businesswoman was murdered and her mom is saying if she had a fire legal firearm, she could have defended herself. Now, the businessman in whose wife moved. [00:03:31] Speaker C: Yeah. So hard. Legal. [00:03:34] Speaker B: And where is he? Right. So I'm just saying, you know, this legality of if I get a gun, I could. Yeah, not necessary. [00:03:41] Speaker C: Yeah. I believe the opinions generally vary based on what side of the line that you're on, if you're four persons carrying arms or if you're not four persons carrying arms. Because a lot of persons have the concern that they need some reform in relation to the process to obtain a firearm user's license to allow persons to be able to access it. Because a lot of persons who think that they should receive one, you know, have difficulty getting it. And it may seem as though it's who, you know, whatever, that kind of thing. And then some persons don't believe that there needs to be any change at all and we shouldn't allow persons to be able to easily access a firearm. So it really and truly just depends, I think that what is possibly required at this point, because I know this particular government campaigned a lot on defend your ground and things like that. The legislation that they put in place is really and truly just generally a codification of the existing laws on self defense. So maybe what is needed a step further is kind of like consultation with the general public to figure out how the country feels about this particular topic and whether the existing procedure needs some type of reform. And even if they reform it to ensure that there is some type of, you know, you know, checks and balances to ensure that we don't place guns in the hands of persons who would then use it to, you know, to [00:04:58] Speaker B: carry out criminal activity. Now, you mentioned, I want to say good morning going out to our Facebook listeners this morning. We have quite a few of you on Facebook locked in from Chagonas. Indira Chandu. Good morning to you, Indira, and thank you for choosing us as your mode of information and entertainment as it relates to radio programming and early morning shows. Thank you very much, Indira and others on Facebook this morning. You're locked into justice with Andisa west and Davey Murray. Now, Andissa, going forward, when we let's Elaborate a bit more on this stand your ground laws. You talk about the codification, it's just a codification of what existed before. Right. Stand your ground legislation. Does it have to include a legal firearm to defend oneself? Is that what the stand your ground means? Because a lot of persons say once they stand your ground, that means everybody getting a gun. [00:05:46] Speaker C: No, it didn't. The Sandy grant legislation didn't necessarily touch or concern the issuance of firearm users license to persons. What it really says is if someone you know intrudes, you have the ability to defend yourself, which is generally what the laws on self defense says, that if someone is coming to you or somebody is attacking you, you have the ability to defend yourself. Obviously there are, you know, guidelines in relation to that. You have to be using reasonable force, you have to be experiencing imminent threat or danger. So that generally existed before under what we would consider self defense. So it really just was to clarify that there were one or two little things that they added that we could possibly talk about on another occasion. But generally the law, self defense existed previously. So it really and truly was just a codification of the common law position on self defense. Really and truly. But it didn't go further to say that you could use a firearm to defend yourself. If you have a firearm user's license, you're allowed to use reasonable force to defend your property, because that's generally what existed before, essentially. [00:06:55] Speaker B: All right, thank you very much for clearing that matter up. Hello, good morning. [00:06:59] Speaker A: Morning. Gurubasa here. This, this thing about imminent threat or danger, that's like when dietitians use the word moderation. That's no meaning, because how am I going to determine what is imminent? I'm an old man, I'm 66. If you get anywhere inside my yard at certain hours, that's imminent to me, I had to blow you away or somehow deal with you. I can't wait until you get within 10ft of me or 20ft or get inside my house. You know, and same thing with women and anybody who is not a trained Van Damme or Chuck Norris, you had to treat these things at certain times of day or night after they have crossed your perimeter fence as though it's an imminent threat. Given the climate that we are in. We are not in Switzerland here, we are in TNT and we know what's going on. I want a better explanation of imminent. Thank you. [00:08:00] Speaker B: Thank you. I mean, thank you very much. [00:08:02] Speaker C: So, I mean, generally they are vague terms. So like even if you read through certain legislation, pieces of legislation, you'd see vague terms and our legal system functions where we look at previously decided cases to determine what these terms mean. So there would be cases and there are cases that explain what these terms mean. And the whole reason why there is these restrictions, because it doesn't, you don't want a situation where you would threaten, let me say last year, and then you see this person and you decide to attack them and then go to the court and say, I was acting in self defense. That can't work. So if, I mean, if somebody is entering your yard, you could possibly argue that you were in imminent threat or danger. It's up to you to put forward that argument. But it's just to ensure that persons don't. You were, you know, attacked last week and then another week after, you're now coming to retaliate, essentially. But at the same time there has to be checks and balances as to what persons could do. It can be a situation where somebody just enters your yard and you decide to fire three shots at this person. Even take for instance, in relation. So let's, let's look at, let's change it, let's not look at it in the situation of someone entering your yard. But if a police officer is trying to apprehend a person, generally we see when the police officers use more than is necessary and the person dies. So when you see a police 2D shooting and the person dies, we complain about that because we say, well, the person was no longer a threat, the person had their hands outside the, the car, why did you need to shoot him and kill him? He could have possibly shoot him in his leg. So it's really and truly just a matter of doing what is reasonable to apprehend the threat. If some, if someone enters your yard and you could do something to stop the person, you could call the police, do that or. But why would you then try to kill someone? So essentially what I'm saying is there are these requirements that you have to be in imminent danger, that it has to be reasonable to ensure that there's some kind of checks so that persons aren't just going around killing persons or you know, trying to defend themselves and then saying it's self defense, essentially. [00:10:11] Speaker B: I think I understand where you're going with this. Hello. Good morning. [00:10:15] Speaker A: Good morning, Devi and to your guests. [00:10:18] Speaker C: Good morning. [00:10:19] Speaker A: If I am the holder of a licensed firearm and I leave it home in a draw and I am out, my wife is home and somebody breaks in to my home, can my wife use that firearm to defend herself and put down the Person. [00:10:40] Speaker B: All right, that's a good question and thank you for asking. And let me just remind persons who are that Andissa west is not my guest. Andisa is a staple and she is the co host of a segment of a show that we do every Friday from 7:20 to 8 to 7:55 on Freedom. It's called Justice. So she's my co host, not my guest. All right. She graduates. She in upper six right now, no longer in lower six. She in upper six. So it's a very good question. It's a very, very good question. A householder has a legal firearm. I leave it. And first of all, you can't leave it in a drawer, so it had to be in a safe. [00:11:24] Speaker C: It raises all the questions in relation to, you know, if you have a firearm, how you should be using and treating with this particular firearm. Because let me say, if it wasn't your wife who found the firearm, it was a child who found this firearm. You know, all right, I'm not against it, I'm not for it, but I want to say two things in relation to that. I know the firearm user's license relates directly to the person and not the firearm. So you have a firearm user's license, not your wife. And I just want to explain what usually happens when situations occur. So for instance, I don't know if you guys could remember the incident where the young man was shot, I believe on George street by a woman recently. It was either late last year, early, early this year. Right. So we, we dealt with that. And in that situation, what generally occurs is this. The police officers would arrest the person. In that case, it was the woman who killed the young man. They would have to carry out the investigation. So she's held at the police station. They will go, they'll take statements from persons who were around. They'll check to see if there's CCTV footage. They will conduct an interview with the person, do their general due process. At the end of that, they would review the evidence and determine whether this person should be charged with murder because someone just died or if they should take the other route. They would have to submit the entire file because this involves the death of someone to the Director of Public Prosecution and he would review the file to determine whether to charge or move forward in that particular situation. They recognized that the young man had attacked the woman first and she was acting in self defense. So while she was on the ground, she got hold of the, I believe it was a knife that I think he had and stabbed him and he end up dying from that entire situation. And at the end of it, they decided to do an inquest into the debt and she was not charged for the murder of the young man. So it's generally a situation where whenever these things occur, the police officers conduct their investigation. Usually it's homicide. They will go, they'll take statements, they'll look for CCTV footage, speak to the persons around, do an interview with the person to see what the person says, and then submit the entire file to the Director of Public Prosecution for him to review the evidence to determine if there are the elements made out to charge this person for this particular offense or, you know, if to release the person or order an inquest into the death of the individual. So that's generally what occurs. So it isn't that as soon as someone died, they're going to automatically charge you for murder. They generally have to conduct an investigation and then determine if to take the steps to move forward to charge the police. [00:14:09] Speaker B: All right, just to reiterate the point very quickly, a person taking a legal firearm. All right, I just want to. Because I want the persons to really understand the severity of the law right now. So your spouse is the legal firearm holder. [00:14:29] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:14:30] Speaker B: They have the ful that is in a safe. They are not at home. An intruder comes in, you are able to punch in the code and get access of that firearm. And you take it and you act [00:14:43] Speaker C: with it, punching the code and get access to this firearm? [00:14:46] Speaker B: Well, I mean, if his husband and wife. You are the code, you are not the firearm user. [00:14:51] Speaker C: You don't have a firearm user's license. Your husband bundles. So how do you have access to this code? The whole point of there being a safe is to ensure that persons who don't have a firearm user's license does not have access to it, including children. So how do you have access to the arm code to go into the safe to get this firearm, use this firearm? [00:15:08] Speaker B: That's the first question that the investigators [00:15:11] Speaker C: will ask, that I would ask, that anybody would ask. You are not the arm. So this the offense of having a firearm. The only thing that the police is going to ask you, do you have a firearm user's license? No charge for possession of firearm and [00:15:23] Speaker B: ammunition, you're getting that charge. [00:15:26] Speaker C: Remember when Adafia and Jeremy and they were discussing strict liability offenses? It is a strict liability offense. Once you do not have a fire music, you are automatically charged with possession of firearm. And if they remove it and they pull out the magazine and there's 16 rounds of ammunition, possession of ammunition and [00:15:44] Speaker B: you're getting a charge, you are deemed [00:15:46] Speaker C: to be in possession of firearm, and you're deemed to be in possession of ammunition. That's how that charge goes. And then you would have to go to court and explain. So say, for instance, aside from the firearm user's license, they found the firearm under Martin Li car, and you didn't even know it was there. Then you would have to explain that. I had no idea that. Before you go to that point, before [00:16:11] Speaker B: you go to that point. Right. Before you go to that point, I want to be very clear. I want to take a couple calls. There are calls. I see you guys calling. I see any WhatsApp message. But let me be very clear. Is it that your spouse should not have the code to that safe where that firearm is launched? If they are, and they are, because they are not a ful holder. So you, as a husband, you are the ful holder. You. You secure and lodge the weapon safely in the safe, but you leave. Your wife is not to know the code for that safe. Is that what you are saying? [00:16:42] Speaker C: That is what I presume. That's what I think. No, no, no. Because at the end of the day, this is what I'm saying. And we could possibly go to his name, I'm Alderman Nahos, to explain this even further. But the end. At the end of the day, the firearm user's license is issued to the person and not a firearm. So it isn't that because someone has a fire user's license, this firearm is automatically can be used by anybody in the house. So if you have a firearm user's license, you will give the code to you. Your children, of course. I mean, not your. It doesn't need to be minor children if you have adult children. So all the adults in the house would have access to this. This firearm. So if something happens, they could just punch in the corner and go and get this fire money. [00:17:23] Speaker B: All right, good point. But is there any legislation or law in place that governs and says that? Because if you have it on your person for some reason, and I will get to that point, because I really want to hammer down on this. So is it that even if you [00:17:39] Speaker C: have it on your person, say, for instance, you have it on your person, your person in public, and you're walking, whatever the case may be, and I. Someone comes and they grab me and I see your firearm there and I pull it and I shoot the person. Is that allowed? Okay, so the firearm user's license attaches to the person and not the firearm. [00:17:59] Speaker B: Right. I get that so. And I want to be clear. So if it is, I'm asking you directly. Let is. Is your spouse. [00:18:07] Speaker C: She's. [00:18:08] Speaker B: She knows the code. [00:18:09] Speaker A: Code. [00:18:10] Speaker B: Just saying she go know the code. Right? She knows the code for the safe. She knows it. She knows it. There is no legislation in place that states that you're, that you alone supposed to know that code. There's none. But there's legislation that governs persons to not handle that firearm because they are not an ful holder. So I'm saying wifey know the code and wifey punch the code in because an intruder is in the house and picks up that firearm and imminent threat and danger reacts in self defense, you say, and then the investigation is done. She is deemed liable because she handled a firearm without a ful. This is where we at. [00:18:51] Speaker C: Yes, I feel like if in that I don't. I do not want to give a definitive answer because generally law depends. You hear attorney saying that all the time. It depends. But I am thinking that the offense of a possession of fireman ammunition even when I'm doing cases for it. And you're reading true because I read through the interview notes to see how the police officers deal with this situation. The only question they need to ask you, do you have a firearm user's license? [00:19:15] Speaker B: No. [00:19:15] Speaker A: No. [00:19:16] Speaker C: Or even if they think so, you're charged with it does that, that's that type of offense. [00:19:21] Speaker B: Let's, let's, let's, let's let me bring it home for you. Now you are a firearm holder. You get in an accident, you are rendered incapacitated, you are semi conscious, right? The firearm is there people coming around, can I. And a responsible adult says he look, this man have a firearm on him and they take the firearm to secure it, but they have to handle the firearm so that no other onlookers who might be criminal of criminal intent can get it. So they seek it and they secure it. And when the police come, they say officer, I saw this gun on the guy. I believe, I don't know based on how it was looking like he is a f. Holder. Here is the weapon. And the police taking weapon from you, right? [00:20:04] Speaker C: Well, I mean in that situation the police would have a discretion to determine if they take it further or not. So they, they, you know, they would assess the situation and use their good reason and say well, you know, they just took the firearms to, you know, to put it in a safe space or something like that and determine if they want to take further action. But obviously if they arrive at the scene and they realize that you just concocting this story to explain why you have this firearm on you, then they could possibly take steps. Do you have a fire music license? No. Take steps and charge you. But it is obviously these police officers would use good sense, you see, because [00:20:39] Speaker B: we want to get to the point that no person should be handling a firearm unless you have an ful. If you do not have an ful, you are not to be in possession of guns and ammunition. [00:20:50] Speaker C: As I said before, that is that type of provision under the Firearms act where the. It is asking someone who has a firearm in their possession without a firearm user's license and then you are deemed to be in possession of it. [00:21:04] Speaker B: Right. [00:21:04] Speaker C: Well, the, the possession there is, you know, there is some vagueness in that area too that we use when we're doing sufficiency hearings. But generally once it is so, for instance, just to explain, like in a car, again, the person driving the vehicle has control of the vehicle. So generally they are usually found to be in possession at that point of the sufficiency hearing. But say for instance, there is a person in the passenger and it was a taxi and he was just, you know, taking a drop home, a ride home, paying this person. He had no idea then we, we could be then argue whether or not he was in possession of it as the act states, because he had no idea, he had no knowledge that that was there beginning. [00:21:46] Speaker B: We get into that point in a little bit. Yeah, I don't want to rush it. I want to come back. So remember you mentioned. Let me take a call. Quickly, quickly. Ask you a question. Good morning. [00:21:57] Speaker A: The TTPS have to get something and let me tell you why. Now, both parties had serious domestic problems. Both parties must have. [00:22:05] Speaker B: All right, all right. I don't want to talk about that incident. It's an ongoing investigation. [00:22:09] Speaker A: Okay, 10 seconds, 10 more seconds. The both parties. [00:22:12] Speaker B: I just tell you I don't want to talk about it. You ask me for 10 seconds. Good morning. [00:22:16] Speaker A: Quickly morning again, Davy and your host. [00:22:19] Speaker C: Good morning. [00:22:21] Speaker A: Let's say I have a driver's license. I have a car in the garage. My wife does not have a driver's license and my house is on fire. And my wife moves that car from the garage and carry it out in the road. Would she be charged for driving without a license? [00:22:41] Speaker B: You see, I could answer that question for you based on Andesa's explanation over the past shows investigation and discretion would play. However, if you do not, and now if you do have a driver's license and you are driving With Andesa, Andisa is the driver. Andisa gets so sick, she pulls aside use. Realize you need to get her to the hospital. But you could drive. You just don't have a license to drive. And you take possession of that vehicle to rush and decide to the hospital. Think about this. If the. If you get in an accident while in possession of the vehicle, insurance does not cover you because you are driving a vehicle that without a license. So the insurance covers a licensed driver. So now you're liable if you caused death or injury to someone on the roadway because you were in possession. A noble gesture. Rushing and Issa to the hospital. Noble gesture. If the pull. If no incident happens along the way and the police stops you and realize you don't have a license, but they look at the nature of the, of what is taking place, they can exercise discretion whether to charge you or not. [00:23:48] Speaker C: Yeah. And at the end of the day, I'm sure that police officers, when they stop persons, they usually get explanations like that, that I was on my way to do, you know, to help someone or whatever the case may be. So even if they charge you, because we did in fact delete a situation where the person was charged and they were essentially trying to get someone to the hospital for them to receive medical care. So obviously, even if the person is charged and you go before the magistrate, the magistrate will hear all the evidence at the end of the matter and determine which sentence to impose. And one of the options that they have is to reprimand and discharge the person. So they, you know, after reviewing whatever, could they really believe that this person should, you know, be fined or face any additional penalty for it, and they could reprimand and discharge the person. So at the end of the day, the police officers does in fact have a discretion. They would assess the situation and determine what they want to do. But even if they charge, obviously the trial of facts would determine what would be, you know, and the magistrate who will impose the sentence at the end will determine, you know, how to deal with this particular situation. So what we are discussing are generally the extreme ends of the situation. And, you know, in reality, we would be able to consider all the facts to determine how exactly to assess the situation. But at the end of the day, I feel as though, you know, we try to. We try to get the gray areas, especially as it relates to the firearm and the possession of firearm. But I'm saying this to everyone, and even when Adafia, the public defenders department was here, they explained that the possession of firearm is essentially like a strict liability Offense. Once they find you in possession of that firearm, you could be charged for possession. And once they open it and they realize that it includes a magazine, it has 16 rounds, also in possession of ammunition. And then you would have to explain why you had this firearm and this ammunition in your possession without a firearm user's license. And at the end of the day, the license applies to the person and not the firearm. [00:25:43] Speaker B: And I want to make that clear. All right. The reason that Andisa is making sure that we. We make mention of this is when you look at a vehicle, a vehicle is insured. The vehicle is insured. Not, not. Not a person, but the vehicle and the user of the vehicle. [00:26:03] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:26:04] Speaker B: So if you drive a vehicle with insurance, that's why the insurance stays in the vehicle and not in your pants pocket. All right, so if the. If somebody takes possession of the vehicle, once they are licensed 25 and over, driving for more than two years, they fit that prerequisite, they can operate the vehicle with your permission. [00:26:22] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:26:22] Speaker B: All right. So similarly with the. As opposed to that of a ful, where you're not licensing the gun. No, you license the gun used. [00:26:31] Speaker C: Exactly. Because if it applied to the gun, we all know situations where license fire went missing from, you know, police officers and things like that. And if someone uses that, then we're saying they're. That they are allowed to use it because the gun is licensed. The gun isn't licensed. The person is licensed to carry the particular firearm. [00:26:50] Speaker B: And I want to clap on access you with public transport, but let me take this call very quickly, please. Good morning. [00:26:55] Speaker A: Good morning, Mr. Davey. Good morning. To Ms. West, your host. Good morning, Princess Tong. Mr. West, I would like you to hear your recommendations on two issues here that is plaguing our country. One, the low detection rate by the police in Trinidad and Tobago and also the backlog of cases. What you recommend that can be done to treat with these two critical matters. And secondly, or thirdly, we have a lot of license for driving license. [00:27:26] Speaker B: All right, thank you. We don't want to stretch it too much. You asked a question. Are we dealing with firearms? But would you like to respond to. [00:27:32] Speaker C: Yeah. So the backlog. [00:27:34] Speaker B: Backlog. That's the one I wanted definitely. [00:27:35] Speaker C: Because that is something that I am extremely passionate about, love criminal law, and I am particularly passionate about the criminal justice system. So I would say that they have taken steps to reduce the backlog, at least within the criminal law arena. As we explained before, with the passing of the legislation, where we now have sufficiency hearings instead of the Preliminary inquiry, and they are now strict deadlines. But I would also say that there have been some judgments that came out that, you know, give a little leeway to the court to allow adjournments, which in my opinion, kind of carrying us back to the era where, you know, we have all these adjournments where we come to court and the police officer didn't get the file so they can proceed with the matter and things like that. But there have been serious steps to ensure that and even the introduction of the public defenders department and things like that. What we possibly need now is more courts. We had new judges recently in addition to the new magistrates, but we need more judicial officers, more courtrooms and more staff. So like even persons, particularly in the office of the Director of Public Prosecution, we definitely need more prosecutors because usually they are overworked and overburdened and they can't handle the amount of cases that are before the courts. So that's definitely what we would need. [00:28:59] Speaker B: Okay. [00:29:01] Speaker A: Unnamed driver thing alone. Yes. You have to be 25 years and over and you have to be driving for at least two years, but you also have to be driving with the permission of the owner. So, you know, if somebody steal your car and get an accident, the insurance don't pay because that person who stole your car is not driving with the permission of the owner. [00:29:17] Speaker B: Yeah, but when you look at it like that, the person who is driving without the permission of the owner, remember this is. You had a stake insurance, if it's full, comprehensive. Well, what we call, if it's comprehensive insurance. [00:29:27] Speaker C: Comprehensive. Yeah. [00:29:28] Speaker B: Well, it's not really full. Yeah, comprehensive is comprehensive. [00:29:30] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:29:30] Speaker B: But if it's comprehensive insurance, you are covered because somebody stole the car and they crash. But if it is a situation where it's like fire and theft, you take out third party insurance, fire, and you add fire and theft. So somebody steals your car and they crash it, you have fire and theft on your insurance. So you, you benefit all the same. Hello. Good morning. [00:29:50] Speaker A: Good morning, Davy. A pleasant. Good morning, Trinidad and Tobago. [00:29:52] Speaker B: Very quickly, please. [00:29:53] Speaker A: Yeah, Davy. As council was saying, it's a firearm user's license. So the license is owned by the user, not the firearm. So I just wanted to reiterate that. You asked him the question. No, there is no law which talks about the information on the safe. There is no law. And that is difficult to do in an event because you could write it down. You could have, if you are licensed, you could write it down in some personal diary or whatever and some member your house can see the number. So it is difficult to create that legislation. What I really called for is to add to the conversation. When someone is held by the police, they are firearm user's license. They have a firearm and they are held for some offense and the firearm is seized. The police also seize the firearm user's license because season the firearm alone is not enough because they could use the license and still use somebody else's firearm. That happened. So that's the reason that the police seized the. The license also. I thank you. Enjoy. [00:30:58] Speaker C: Yeah, so he does make some integral points. There really isn't anything saying that no one should have the code for the safe. But what I am saying is there are generally guidelines that they give you when the issue the firearm users license. You have to keep the firearm in a safe space. So it is. I, I don't think that they, they envisioned that if you then have a firearm and you have a save, then you would be giving every and anybody the access to the code and they'll be able to access it. [00:31:23] Speaker B: But not only that, what if the person dies and somebody is asking if the person, my spouse dies and the police needs to get this firearm because if the person dies, that legal firearm in the house has to be surrendered to the police. [00:31:36] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:31:37] Speaker B: All right. How are they getting access to the safety give the police. [00:31:41] Speaker C: We never see the police officers get access to saves before without a, without a code. [00:31:47] Speaker B: So do you think [00:31:49] Speaker C: there isn't anything saying that someone can have the code for, you know, just for good measure? But I'm just saying that I don't think that they envision that any and anybody could you, your aunt, your grandmother, your grandfather, your children, your grandchildren, everybody have access to the code and if something happened, everybody running to get to put the code to say, well yeah, I'm going to get that to defend myself. I don't think that's what you know, they envision. [00:32:13] Speaker B: All right, let's take a quick call. Hello. Good morning. [00:32:17] Speaker A: Morning, lady. Until I want to raise an issue here during standby, let's stand by the yourself legislation. Many persons spoke about reasonable force to be used by the victim or the person who may be murdered. Right. Many persons talk about reasonable force used by the victim but can't recall anybody saying what reasonable force must be used by the perpetrator or the criminal. Could you comment on that please? [00:32:49] Speaker C: By the perpetrator or the criminals that question just. They shouldn't be using any force. [00:32:55] Speaker B: Exactly. Hello. Good morning. [00:32:57] Speaker A: Yeah, good morning, Davy. [00:32:58] Speaker B: Good morning. [00:32:59] Speaker A: I think all of going along a wrong direction in terms of the case where the lady in the house, what a guy said you're not there and his wife use his thing and the lady said the first question she would ask is do you have a firearms on. That is the wrong first question. The first question should be did you invite this guy into your house? [00:33:20] Speaker B: You see, you miss any point, you know, you missed the point. The train, the train leading station and you behind. [00:33:25] Speaker A: Listen, listen, listen. So she should have, shouldn't ask about if you have a. That should be a secondary question. I know she needs to protect for people from abuse and then. But the question should be asked, did you feel threatened? Did you invite this guy? And then all the other issues would be secondary. She should use any means necessary to defend yourself. [00:33:48] Speaker B: All right, thank you very much. Thank you very much. While that's your personal opinion, it does not replicate what is law. Andy, sir, respond. [00:33:56] Speaker C: And the reason why I know that, I know we feel very passionately about this particular topic, but is really and truly just to ensure that there are checks and balances so that we don't go around just shooting anyone. Because at the end of the day, say for instance someone enters your property and you say that you shoot this person inside self defense. This person isn't there to give their version of the event. They're not there to say, well I was just coming to drop off a banana bread for this person and then we had an argument and this person pull out a gun and shoot me or nothing like that. They don't have, they don't have that option. So it is a situation where we just want any and anybody coming in and you feel threatened and you shoot this person. I'm not saying that you don't have the ability to defend yourself and defend your property. That's not what I'm saying. I'm not saying that I'm against you defending yourself and defending your property, but there are these checks and balances to ensure that persons don't abuse this particular ability to defend yourself and your property, essentially. [00:34:52] Speaker B: All right, I want to get to the next point after the news, but let's take this call quickly. Quickly with your question. Good morning. [00:35:01] Speaker A: Morning again, Davy. And to your host. No, you say you get a license to use the firearm. No. Do you get a license to defend your family or the firearm defends your family? Which one you have Eliza to do. [00:35:14] Speaker B: I think you're playing smart with a foolish Trinidad. Hello, Good morning. I ain't even wasting time on that. Good morning. [00:35:20] Speaker C: Good morning. [00:35:24] Speaker A: I have if you are license and I heard Kerry Central say something just now that if your arm police take your firearm, you have to take the license to. Which is correct. Right. But if you have a firearm license, the firearm license only for the firearm that you have, not your firearm, not Ms. West firearm, not Mr. Deep south firearm, your firearm license is only to use what you have, nobody else's own. That's why I wanted to make clear. [00:35:58] Speaker B: Yeah, that's common sense. You are an FUL holder. The license carries a serial number that. What? From my understanding, speaking with Nicholas, is that you go to the gun shop which we have in Trinidad, secretly. You know, there are locations where you can go and see a firearm. [00:36:18] Speaker C: Right. [00:36:18] Speaker B: And you see the particular firearm that you're interested in and it carries a serial number with it, it carries certain things. You take that information with documents about the firearm and the amount of rounds that you would like to carry as well. Some firearm carry 15 in the. In the chamber. In the chamber? Not the chamber, sorry, in the casing. [00:36:41] Speaker C: Right. [00:36:41] Speaker B: In the magazine. So you want 30, you want 15 extra. You take that information and you apply on your form to the police commissioner. The police commissioner receives this information when he is granting you after doing checks and balances and your mental capacity to attain one, when he gives you that ful, that FUL will carry that same serial number of that make and model firearm that you saw, that you are interested in. Only then, after you acquire that information and that FUL document, you take it back to the gun shop, as it were, and you pay and you purchase your weapon with your rounds of ammunition. Yeah. And you're safe. You should have that installed already. And then you, you keep it on your person or you put it in your safe. So you would keep the magazine clipped with the 15 as required by the weapon and the rest is at home. [00:37:37] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:37:38] Speaker B: And you cannot have not one in excess of 15 of 13 total. So if police comes to your home because some neighbors say, that man have a gun, I see him with a gun in the yard and the police say they get information that you have a gun, you are. They arrive at your home. Do you have an fuel? Yes, sir. Can you show it to me? You show them your fuel, they see it. Where is this weapon lodged? They go and they check if them find 31 rounds of ammunition, including inclusive of what you have in the magazine, you are charged with possession of illegal fire, illegal ammunition. That one one wrong you're facing a charge for because you are legally required by law to only have 30. To only have 30. So I want to be very clear. And this is coming from Nicholas. [00:38:27] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:38:28] Speaker B: So if you have an extra one or two, you wouldn't be charged for the 30 that you have, but the extra two that they find on your premises, you'll be charged for that. [00:38:37] Speaker C: And that is possession of ammunition. Even if it's just the one. [00:38:41] Speaker B: It is. So coming up in the next hour, for the next right after the newscast, within 15 minutes, we want to talk about being a police stopping a vehicle, a private car versus a public transportation vehicle, or even coming onto your property and finding a weapon and holding everybody in the house. [00:38:59] Speaker A: Right. [00:38:59] Speaker B: And Lisa will clear up those issues. If you catch if the police stop a taxi and a gun is in the car, if the passengers are liable as well, or if it's a private car and they find. What's the difference between the two? What's the difference with police coming into a public building and finding ammunition and guns and ammunition or coming into a private home and finding such and arresting persons? We'll clear up that in the next hour. So I'll take one call. 30 seconds. 30 seconds. [00:39:27] Speaker A: Hello. Good morning. [00:39:28] Speaker B: 30 seconds, go. [00:39:29] Speaker A: Yeah, right. I just want to know what about if you use the assailant firearm against him? Thanks. [00:39:34] Speaker B: We'll answer that in the next hour as well. What if you use the assailant's firearm against him? You talking about the bandit come with a gun and you get a gun and shoot the bandit? She'll answer that in the next hour. Stay with us. [00:39:47] Speaker A: You're tuned into The All New Freedom 106.5. 106.5 [00:39:55] Speaker B: welcome back, Trinidad and Tobago. Five minutes after the RV and Disa west and David Murray in the building for justice this morning we continue our discussions as it relates to firearm users license in Trinidad and Tobago when police officers raid any property, public or private. We're going to touch on those issues now, whether police stops a vehicle, a private vehicle, a public transport vehicle and guns and ammunition is found, what entails? Because usually if police stops a private car and they find a gun with ammunition, everyone is arrested. Similarly to if they walk into a house. But what happens when they stop a taxi, when they go into a store and they find these, which is a public place, they find behind a mannequin some guns and ammunition, what happens then? So, Andisa, welcome back. And those of you on Facebook locked in to us, good morning, all of you streaming with us, good morning as well. Andisa, what happens when police storms your home, find gun in a water tank in the back of the yard or in the dog house, somebody's bedroom. [00:40:59] Speaker C: Yeah. So I pull up my laptop so that I could actually state what the legislation says. And the legislation says a person may acquire, purchase, or have in his possession a firearm or ammunition only if he holds a firearm user's license with respect to such firearm or ammunition. So essentially, this provision, similar to the provision in relation to the possession of marijuana is, we call it that is a demon provision, where you are deemed to be in possession of the fire or more ammunition. Similarly, how you would be deemed to be in possession of the dangerous drug. If they stop a vehicle, whether the vehicle is a taxi or a private vehicle, all the persons in the vehicle, especially if no one actually claims it, could be arrested. And it happens time and time again, every single person in that vehicle would be arrested and charged for possession of firearm and possession of ammunition. But what usually occurs, as we explained previously, there is the sufficiency hearing, right? And what defense counsel or the defendant could then explain. Because if the person, the prosecution must first establish that that individual had that firearm or ammunition in their possession. And the legislation, the cases has shown time and time again, such as Lakshmi Bharat and those other cases, that mere present isn't enough to establish that possession. So you would have to show that the person was in control or they had it, you know, it was under their seat or something like that for them to be deemed to have been in possession. Because usually what occurs is once you are found in possession, you then have to explain the burden kind of shifts on you, which, which is a reverse burden that we call in, in law to explain why you had this particular firearm and ammunition in your possession. But the cases have shown that mere presence isn't sufficient to establish that the person was in possession of the firearm and ammunition. So, for instance, there's a case where the gun was found in a house, right? And there were two persons. I believe it was a very small wooden house in Kush, I believe. So everybody in the house was charged for possession of firearm and ammunition. And they said that mere presence in that house wasn't sufficient because the evidence showed that the person isn't originally living in that house. They were just staying there because their house was under renovation. They had no idea that that was there, you know, so in that circumstances, they said that that person couldn't have been deemed to be in possession of that firearm or ammunition. [00:43:41] Speaker B: But what about the person who was living there? [00:43:43] Speaker C: The person who was living there would. So they would have an element of control. So the, the legislation also, you know, talks about Control. So if the person was driving the vehicle, you are driving the vehicle where they found the fireman army ammunition. And so you had some, you kind of were in possession of it, you had some type of control the burden. Well, that doesn't mean that you're going down for possession of iron ammunition altogether. You wouldn't have to explain that. I was just driving. I didn't even know that that passenger coming or that person who I was given a job came in and they had that fireman and push it under the seat. I didn't even know that. You wouldn't have to explain it. [00:44:17] Speaker B: But what about the person who had the fireman pushing under. You see them saying, I don't know, neither. So both of you are refuting the claim that you. [00:44:25] Speaker C: Both persons could get charged. [00:44:27] Speaker B: They would get charged, right? [00:44:28] Speaker C: Yeah, well, yes, we could sift out some of them. So say, for instance, and this is actually a market that I'm doing currently where there's three persons, there's a driver, there's a person in the passenger seat, there's a person in the back seat, they found the gun under the passenger seat, front passenger seat. All three persons charged with it currently arguing that at least the passenger who. Because obviously what happens, as I said, the police would do an investigation and will conduct interviews. You have a right to remain silent. But most persons don't remain silent. So if you go in the interview and you say, well, yeah, it's me who push it and then he did it, it's going to be used against you to say, well, at least you, you'd have some evidence that we have to try. Obviously, when you go to the trial, you'll try to fight up with that particular statement that was made and say, well, you know, that was made without his attorney present, etc. [00:45:23] Speaker B: Right. [00:45:24] Speaker C: But then at least he, they would have some evidence for him to move forward. The driver was driving the vehicle, so he has some elements of control. They would find some evidence for it to move forward to go to the trial states. But the passenger who had no idea, but what they will also consider, not just that he was just the passenger, where was the gun found? Was it found in the middle, out in the open? And he could have seen it, so he knew it was there. You're also in possession. So those are the things that the master would consider. So usually it's like a. All the questions that they would ask, something that I might actually have to do today, where they would consider, where was the gun found? Where was it under wrapped in Clothes covered. Not, no. The other passenger had no idea at all that it was not there or was it found out in the open in the middle by the console and everybody could see. But then everybody in possession. And now you have to go and explain that. Whatever. Right. [00:46:21] Speaker B: So my thing is, my thing is so you borrow your neighbor's car, but your neighbor, your neighbor have a gun in the car or in the trunk. You drive in the vehicle, I drive in, but the gun is in the, the, you know, the, in the trunk of the vehicle. You have a spare tire. The gun is hidden at the side there. All right, and we driving, me and my two brethren and we going down the road. Police have a roadblock. They say, hey, open the trunk. Let me check the routine, check bomb. They find this weapon. I said, but. So I borrowed this car. All right, Yeah, I borrowed the car. I don't know. Passenger said, boy, we didn't. We. We don't know. [00:46:53] Speaker A: We. [00:46:53] Speaker B: This is not my car. Yeah, but okay, wherever all you're arrested, taken to the station, chances are we're going to be charged for possession of guns and army gun and ammunition. Even though you borrow the car, that doesn't mean that you don't own it. [00:47:05] Speaker C: Exactly. Because realistically thinking, if you're driving a vehicle and there's a fire minute and police stop you, are you, well, some person just say, oh, are you going to say, that's not my car. I know borrowed that car from. I am certain that that's usually what they hear. [00:47:21] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:47:21] Speaker C: But when they stop coming, if that's [00:47:23] Speaker B: the case, you had a problem, prove it. [00:47:24] Speaker C: And you would have to go before the court and prove it now. [00:47:26] Speaker B: And then I go on and say, [00:47:27] Speaker C: well, they have to ask, do you have a firearm user's license? No. [00:47:32] Speaker B: No. [00:47:33] Speaker C: Possession of fireman ammunition. As I said, this particular. Because this was very intentional, this particular piece of legislation, because they recognize that, you know, firearm and ammunition is a problem in Trinidad, so they are deemed to be in possession of it and the burden reverses for you to explain. Because usually what you hear, that is the prosecution, once you don't have the firearm user's license, you don't have to explain why this fireman ammunition was in your possession. And you could give a good reason. You know, I've, I've seen cases where they explain, well, it was a taxi driver. Well, obviously everybody went down. [00:48:10] Speaker B: We ain't went for the taxi yet. We still need private car. [00:48:12] Speaker A: Okay. [00:48:13] Speaker C: Yeah, right. Yeah, yeah, okay, sure. [00:48:14] Speaker B: So, but right, so you give, you give a reasonable explanation to the master and you can be seen not guilty. [00:48:20] Speaker C: You wouldn't have to give a reasonable explanation to the master. You'd have to give a reasonable explanation [00:48:24] Speaker B: to the judge or to the judge as to why you. [00:48:26] Speaker C: You and the reason why. I explained the difference because it's different levels of the case. So the master would hear it when it's at the sufficiency hearing stage and as to determine if there's sufficient evidence to move forward to the judge. Essentially. [00:48:38] Speaker B: Right. [00:48:38] Speaker C: And at that stage what they will do do is they would. They'll tender all these statements, all the evidence in the matter. So they will have the statement. They would have to have a certificate of analysis because even though we know it's a fireman ammunition, usually you would hear them saying a L shaped item. [00:48:56] Speaker B: Yeah. [00:48:57] Speaker C: Because the police officers cannot. They would have to get that certificate of analysis that says that this is a fireman, this is ammunition. Right. If they don't have that, the case could just fall altogether. [00:49:09] Speaker B: All right. What about the public, A public transport? [00:49:12] Speaker C: Yeah, well, well, with the public transport, that's a kind of tricky situation. It would depend where they find the firearm. But everybody could kind of go down. But at the end of the day, as I said, the cases. Let's go back to Lachmi Barat and the other cases that says very clearly mere presence is not enough. So just because you are in the vicinity of the fireman mission, that doesn't mean that you were in possession of it. But where was it found? Did you see it? Was it by you? Because who wants to claim a firearm? [00:49:41] Speaker B: Nobody. [00:49:42] Speaker C: Exactly. [00:49:42] Speaker B: So in a taxi does stop the taxi. PTSC bus, maxi, taxi, taxi. The final weapon lodged under hide up in the maxi or the taxi under the seat somewhere passengers. Everybody's saying, it's not mine, the driver's seat. But sir, I, I operate in a taxi. I can't search people when they come in my car. I don't know is it that they seize the firearm and ammunition alone or everybody in the taxi had to go in the station. [00:50:08] Speaker C: I feel as though everybody. Taxi would have to go on because I'm certain nobody is going to claim it. To claim it. But it will definitely depend if it's a big. Reason why I pause is if it's a big maxi like the PTSD bus, you know, they might consider the persons who are around it. But I'm thinking everybody would have to. To go. They would, they would. Obviously it never is a situation, I would hope, where the police officer just automatically just charge randomly persons with Offenses, they usually have to do their investigation, they usually have to do interviews. They usually conduct interviews with the person. Even if they're going to release the person, they conduct an interview first to see, you know, whatever is said. You have the right to remain silent. And I want persons to remember you have the right to, to remain silent. Because what usually occurs as a defense attorney is you go to visit your clients and then you realize they said the most to the police and then you're sinking yourself and you could possibly be charged. And then you would then have to go through the whole process, go before the master to conduct the sufficiency hearing. And then obviously at that stage, your attorney hopefully would make a no case submission to say, well, I was just driving home, I was just taking a job home, sorry, with this PTSD bus, I had no idea that this gun was 10 seats in front of me. So how exactly am I being caught up in this? And the whole point of that stage is to filter it to ensure that all these frivolous cases don't go before the judge to be heard. [00:51:35] Speaker B: Unnecessary waste time. So, so you're saying the right to remain silent. I see the callers calling her and he has to go. You're saying the right to remain silent. If I choose to not talk to the police because people believe when they talk and explain themselves they'll get released because they had to go through all this. But what is the best advice? I mean, as an attorney? [00:51:52] Speaker C: Remain silent. Don't sign nothing. [00:51:55] Speaker B: Don't sign nothing. [00:51:56] Speaker C: I'm certain that the prosecutors and the police officer is probably mad at me for saying this, but you could remain silent. You don't have to sign anything. So usually when I, when I go to do interviews, most attorneys don't generally like to do interviews at the station, but when I go to do interviews with clients at the station, they would conduct the interview. You just saying you have no comment. And at the end they will ask you if you want to sign it. Because when you sign it, you kind of accepting that this is what was said. You don't even need to sign a document. I never sign the document and I always advise my clients not to sign the documents too, because I just didn't matter. And that's why I stressing on the right to remain silent where we got all these statements out, because there was an issue with it. And the issue was that the virtual complainant was a child. And if you're taking statements from a child, it has to be done in the presence of a trusted adult because this is a child and it wasn't so got all these statements out and what sink the person is that they were in the interview talking to the police saying the most most you don't have to say anything. You have the right under the constitution to remain silent. And this isn't me giving advice to criminals to avoid being caught or anything like that. But I'm just saying general, generally if because you could say the wrong thing and they interpret it as something and now you're charged and then you would have to go and find the money to pay an attorney to go through this whole long process to prove your innocence when you're probably just, you know, you just didn't know and you said something off. But you have the right to remain silent firstly. And you have the right to counsel must get entertained. If you're going to be charged for offense like murder. They usually and they should and they must. Which what usually occurs is they call duty council immediately. So even if you cannot afford a private attorney like me, they contact Adafia, and they legally advise the authority and they send illegally the attorney to meet you a decision because you have a right to counsel. Because the regular person doesn't know the intricacies of this and they might, you [00:53:59] Speaker B: know, implicate themselves innocently. [00:54:01] Speaker C: Exactly. [00:54:01] Speaker B: All right, quickly. 30 seconds. Go. Quick, quick, quick. [00:54:05] Speaker A: Morning, Mr. David. Morning, Mr. S. Yes, tell me something. If I have a firearm, a license firearm and he happened to be used on somebody, they will have to take if I am on his user license. [00:54:18] Speaker B: Okay, what are you saying? If you have a legal firearm and like like this situation here and the person deemed okay it was a defect takes place that'll take it. [00:54:27] Speaker C: I believe they usually seize it when they're conducting their investigations and it's probably returned to you if they decide whatever it might be, it would be returned because even for regular matters they seize your item. So they might seize your phone, they might seize your, your id. Once they get what they need from it, they usually have to return it. So that's a general thing. They would, they would seize it to conduct the investigation. And based on the conclusion of their evidence of the investigation, they will determine if. [00:54:54] Speaker B: All right, quickly, quick, quick, quick. [00:55:01] Speaker A: So what's the situation with that? [00:55:02] Speaker B: All right, so first of again what you do have one FUL for two firearms. Each firearm carries its own fulfillment. So you have to get an FUL for this Glock, this Beretta, this nines, nine millimeter, this rifle Trinidadians. [00:55:21] Speaker C: And these firearms is always don't feel [00:55:24] Speaker B: they get One firearm. Because it's like you have five cars and you have one insurance to cover all five. Each car has to have an insurance. [00:55:31] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:55:31] Speaker B: Even if it's the same insurance company, each car carries its own insurance certificate. Similarly with the firearm, you'll have to have multiple firearm users license for each firearm. Hello. Good morning. [00:55:43] Speaker C: Good morning. [00:55:44] Speaker A: Davy. [00:55:45] Speaker B: Quickly, quickly. [00:55:46] Speaker A: All right, please hold that. Turn that here. You're wrong. The one fuel booklet. If you have three firearms, the one fuel booklet have pages in it. [00:55:55] Speaker B: Okay, thanks for the insight. Thank you. Thanks for the insight. Hello, good morning. I was going to call Nicholas on it anyway, but thanks for the insight. [00:56:04] Speaker A: That case where when I catch somebody with a five misunderstands I'm about it but sometimes four quick Morales and they don't know that this other Persona firearm on them and you could get in problem because you innocent, you are not going not involved. So where's how you treated that situation like that? Where do this person the other friends or whoever. [00:56:32] Speaker C: Yeah. So the police officers usually charge everyone in the vehicle. That's usually the case. Sometimes some persons own up to that. This is my firearm. But who actually does? And the, the process generally is just again, one more time is that you would then have to explain that you had no knowledge of this firearm. So you would have to go to trial and prove that. I genuinely didn't know know that this firearm was in this vehicle. I was just, you know, taking a job to go and watch football with my friends and I didn't know that he had this firearm, etc. Etc. But you have the, you have to, you know, prove that to the court that you didn't have knowledge essentially. [00:57:10] Speaker B: All right, so thank you very much, Andissa. I think that covers it. I know there's a lot of persons [00:57:14] Speaker C: wanting to get in firearms is usually a very tricky topic with Trinidadians guys. If you do not have a firearm, you user's license, you shouldn't have a firearm in your possession regardless of how much you think that you deserve it. Until they actually do the the changes so that you know more persons could possibly have it. However you feel about that then. But as it stands, you can only have a firearm if you have a firearm user's license and if they find a firearm and ammunition in your possession, without it, you will be charged for possession of firearm and possession of ammunition. And there's a reverse burden for you then to prove to the court that you had no knowledge of that firearm or you had no knowledge that the firearm was in your possession. [00:57:53] Speaker B: Now another thought that I want to leave you with. I love, I love the fact that she says reverse burden. Because if you're, if you're charged with an offense, the burden is on the state to prove your guilt. [00:58:03] Speaker C: Yeah. [00:58:03] Speaker B: In this instance, the burden will be reversed. You now have to prove your innocence. [00:58:08] Speaker C: Well, you more or less, yes. Prove that, that you have, you still presume innocent. So you don't necessarily want to across. That's, you know, but it's got to [00:58:16] Speaker B: prove that you have nothing, no knowledge, [00:58:18] Speaker C: no knowledge of this, that fireman, ammunition, [00:58:21] Speaker B: and finally, a firearm user's license to be on your person. Once the weapon is in your possession, you can't have the, you can't have it home, but you have the weapon on you down the road. You, you pick up the weapon, you pick up your license, your booklet, whatever it is, but in your pocket. It has to be not in the car, but on you once the firearm is on you. Please bear that in mind. All right. Andisa, thank you very much. We have gone over our time. We do appreciate you being here. Have a good case this morning. And we'll definitely revisit our conversations as we continue with another edition of Justice. Next week. [00:58:57] Speaker A: Friday, you're tuned into The All New Freedom 106.5. 106.5.