No right to a firearm permit exists

Jun 17, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – Years ago, there was a man who contended, “I need a firearm licence because I have a lot of money.”

The then relevant officer replied, “Then you can afford security—next application, please.”

The man had been so confident he would get a firearm licence that he bought a holster before applying. The only thing he ended up carrying was the rejection letter.

There is a growing tendency in some sections of society to speak about firearm licences as though they are an entitlement. They are not.

No citizen of Guyana, whether rich or poor, possesses a legal right to be granted a firearm licence. A firearm licence is a privilege granted by the State under carefully prescribed conditions.

Many people believe that because they are successful businesspersons, transport large sums of money, or operate enterprises in remote locations, they should automatically qualify for a firearm permit. That belief has no basis in law.

The Firearms Act does not say that a person who handles cash is entitled to carry a gun. It provides a framework under which the State may decide whether it is appropriate to grant a licence.

The distinction is important. A right belongs to an individual and can generally be claimed as a matter of law, while a licence depends on the exercise of lawful discretion by the authorities.

A businessman may genuinely face risks associated with his trade. However, the existence of risk does not automatically translate into a right to possess a deadly weapon.

If handling large sums of money were sufficient justification, thousands of people across Guyana could make the same claim. Shop owners, market and pavement vendors, gold dealers, contractors and cashiers would all argue that they need firearms for protection.

The State cannot function on the basis of everyone deciding that they need a gun. Public safety demands a more careful and restrictive approach.

Those who handle large amounts of cash have alternatives available to them. They can employ licensed security services, improve security systems, use electronic payments, install surveillance equipment and adopt safer business practices.

The law does not say that the State must arm citizens whenever they feel vulnerable. It says that applications must be assessed according to established procedures and considerations.

The very existence of a licensing process demonstrates that firearm ownership is not automatic. If it were a right, there would be little need for authorities to scrutinise applications.

The courts in many Commonwealth jurisdictions have repeatedly recognised that firearm licences involve discretion rather than entitlement. Licensing authorities are expected to weigh public safety, security concerns and the suitability of applicants before reaching a decision.

Indeed, courts have consistently held that a person does not acquire a vested right simply because he desires a firearm or believes he has a need for one. The public interest remains a central consideration.

In Guyana, the regulatory framework surrounding firearms has evolved precisely because of concerns about accountability and public safety. The establishment of the Firearms Licence Approval Board reflected a recognition that decisions involving firearms should be subjected to scrutiny and oversight.

Some persons allege favouritism, political influence or corruption in the licensing system. They use these allegations as the basis for contending that they are being discriminated against.

That argument is fundamentally flawed. An alleged abuse of a system does not create a legal right where none previously existed. And if there is no such entitlement, there can be no contention of discrimination.

If corruption exists, the solution is to eliminate it. The answer is not to expand the distribution of firearms in the hope of making an unfair system appear fair.

The State has an obligation to ensure that weapons do not fall into unsuitable hands. Every additional firearm in circulation carries potential risks not only for the holder but also for the wider society.

A government that simply hands out firearm licences to all who claim they need protection would be abandoning its responsibility. Such an approach would inevitably increase the number of weapons in circulation and potentially increase the opportunities for misuse.

The purpose of firearm regulation is not to inconvenience citizens. It is to balance individual security concerns against the collective safety of the nation.

The licensing authority must be free to consider the broader public interest. It must also be free to refuse applications where it believes that refusal better serves public safety.

This is not discrimination. It is the very essence of a licensing system.

No one has a constitutional right to demand that the State place a firearm in his hands. No one can insist that wealth, status or occupation should compel the authorities to issue a permit.

The possession of firearms is a matter that affects every citizen. For that reason, the law properly reserves to the State the power to decide who may be entrusted with such weapons.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.) 

---

• firearm licence, firearm permit, money, Peeping Tom

---