Firearms User License HELP

[zoom rader]

i turn on the captions for those who refuse to watch the video
says he issuing ful at a particular rate

IMG_4251.jpeg

Why allyuh does lie so?

that there
1:08:08
was a commissioner of police who took it upon himself to arm the population in that way unbeknownst to the
1:08:16
government 2016 we imported 6 million rounds of
1:08:22
ammunition 2017 4 million 2018 2 million 2019 8 million 2020 57
1:08:33
million rounds
1:08:40
now if that is what the policy is and if that is what is being offered to the
1:08:48
population at that rate we will end up with the kind of problem that the United States has
1:08:56
where they make more guns than we everybody has a right to a gun in their
1:09:03
constitution and they're trying their best to survive in a situation where
1:09:10
everybody has a gun and a right to shoot everybody else this has not been our government
1:09:18
policy the government policy has been you can apply for a firearm you can be screened and at a
1:09:27
particular rate Firearms were allowed into the country because we do not subscribe to
1:09:35
the fact that if we give people Firearms at will it is now being
1:09:40
said in this country and from high places that once
1:09:46
you are not convicted you are entitled to have I am but let me just say to all of you
1:09:53
here tonight there are number of high ranking criminals in this country who
1:09:59
have no conviction because they know how to be a criminal to evade conviction because
1:10:07
conviction is based on evidence and live Witnesses in most instances so if we are
1:10:13
saying as some people are wanting to say now if I am not convicted I must get me
1:10:19
gone remember you will then be opening the door to give a right to a gun to no
1:10:25
known criminals because not convicted the system required that if a

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPvwRZN-Q2g&t=3817s

He was contrasting US gun policy with T&T gun policy. A policy that existed long before he became PM. He was not saying "he issuing ful at a particular rate." Under the Firearms Act (which is TT govt policy like every other law) only the CoP can issue FULs, not the PM.

For those who don't understand, this is what knowing the context is.

Habit7 its time for you to stop posting

U looking like a real kant now

[Habit7]

The text trail clearly shows Rowley reminding GG about the ful for Warner saying he can deliver it Thursday. GG then proceeds to inform him that it was signed. But habit wants us to believe that there may be further unpublished messages where Rowley said ' nah hoss I was only joking, that would be illegal, don't fast track nothing'
You're free to be dotish and delusional in believing that and in which case I have a bridge to sell. But please don't insult the intelligence of people who actually have some .

How is the PM asking GG that illegal? Please explain.

[alfa]

The text trail clearly shows Rowley reminding GG about the ful for Warner saying he can deliver it Thursday. GG then proceeds to inform him that it was signed. But habit wants us to believe that there may be further unpublished messages where Rowley said ' nah hoss I was only joking, that would be illegal, don't fast track nothing'
You're free to be dotish and delusional in believing that and in which case I have a bridge to sell. But please don't insult the intelligence of people who actually have some .

How is the PM asking GG that illegal? Please explain.

'Don't forget the FUL for Allen Warner. I could drop it off if it's ready'
'Send it to me and I will take it to him Thursday evening'
Show me where you seeing a question mark.
In case you don't know, asking a question ends with this symbol. ?
Your getting sloppy when desperately grasping at straws. You've embarrassed yourself enough today, take a rest

[pugboy]

habit watching too much trump
he have to resort to come up will all kind of nonsense
just digging a deeper hole

[88sins]

habit watching too much trump
he have to resort to come up will all kind of nonsense
just digging a deeper hole

You ever see anybody accuse that boy of being intelligent

[Habit7]

The text trail clearly shows Rowley reminding GG about the ful for Warner saying he can deliver it Thursday. GG then proceeds to inform him that it was signed. But habit wants us to believe that there may be further unpublished messages where Rowley said ' nah hoss I was only joking, that would be illegal, don't fast track nothing'
You're free to be dotish and delusional in believing that and in which case I have a bridge to sell. But please don't insult the intelligence of people who actually have some .

How is the PM asking GG that illegal? Please explain.

'Don't forget the FUL for Allen Warner. I could drop it off if it's ready'
'Send it to me and I will take it to him Thursday evening'
Show me where you seeing a question mark.
In case you don't know, asking a question ends with this symbol. ?
Your getting sloppy when desperately grasping at straws. You've embarrassed yourself enough today, take a rest

You are not answering my question. How is that illegal? What is the law that was violated?

habit watching too much trump
he have to resort to come up will all kind of nonsense
just digging a deeper hole

You talking big for somebody I just clearly showed to be lying.

[alfa]

If you could understand plain English you'd see that there PM didn't ask GG anything so no I can't answer a question regarding something that never happened. But let me entertain your nonsense a bit. FULs go directly to your district police station with a letter to purchase a firearm. After you pay down on same the police need to transfer the serial number into the FUL booklet before it is given to the intended recipient. So yeah Rowley delivering an FUL to someone on a random Thursday is illegal.
Quit while your behind. You're only making a fool of yourself at this point

[88sins]

The text trail clearly shows Rowley reminding GG about the ful for Warner saying he can deliver it Thursday. GG then proceeds to inform him that it was signed. But habit wants us to believe that there may be further unpublished messages where Rowley said ' nah hoss I was only joking, that would be illegal, don't fast track nothing'
You're free to be dotish and delusional in believing that and in which case I have a bridge to sell. But please don't insult the intelligence of people who actually have some .

How is the PM asking GG that illegal? Please explain.

'Don't forget the FUL for Allen Warner. I could drop it off if it's ready'
'Send it to me and I will take it to him Thursday evening'
Show me where you seeing a question mark.
In case you don't know, asking a question ends with this symbol. ?
Your getting sloppy when desperately grasping at straws. You've embarrassed yourself enough today, take a rest

You are not answering my question. How is that illegal? What is the law that was violated?

habit watching too much trump
he have to resort to come up will all kind of nonsense
just digging a deeper hole

You talking big for somebody I just clearly showed to be lying.

If something is ethically questionable, but not necessarily outright illegal, in your mind, is it a good idea for a "leader" or high office holder to engage in such practices? Will such conduct enhance or diminish their credibility/reliability/trustworthiness?

[pugboy]

when you ask this clown questions he doesn’t answer
he will ask you back a question or change the context of the words
man say rowlee was referring to usa gun policy but yet rowlee using word “we”
is rowlee part of the yankee NRA?
is rowlee a red neck ?

[Habit7]

If you could understand plain English you'd see that there PM didn't ask GG anything so no I can't answer a question regarding something that never happened. But let me entertain your nonsense a bit. FULs go directly to your district police station with a letter to purchase a firearm. After you pay down on same the police need to transfer the serial number into the FUL booklet before it is given to the intended recipient. So yeah Rowley delivering an FUL to someone on a random Thursday is illegal.
Quit while your behind. You're only making a fool of yourself at this point

Cool story bro, I think you are mixing up procedure with what can be cited in Firearms Act.

But even if I were to indulge you, won't it be Gary Griffith who violated the procedure by acceding to Rowley's request?

But just like you wrong said that there is no criteria for a FUL and the law says differently. What is the LAW (as in Act and section) that Rowley violated?

[Habit7]

when you ask this clown questions he doesn’t answer
he will ask you back a question or change the context of the words
man say rowlee was referring to usa gun policy but yet rowlee using word “we”
is rowlee part of the yankee NRA?
is rowlee a red neck ?

Big man ting, you fail English A?

that there
1:08:08
was a commissioner of police who took it upon himself to arm the population in that way unbeknownst to the
1:08:16
government 2016 we imported 6 million rounds of
1:08:22
ammunition 2017 4 million 2018 2 million 2019 8 million 2020 57
1:08:33
million rounds
1:08:40
now if that is what the policy is and if that is what is being offered to the
1:08:48
population at that rate we will end up with the kind of problem that the United States has
1:08:56
where they make more guns than we everybody has a right to a gun in their
1:09:03
constitution and they're trying their best to survive in a situation where
1:09:10
everybody has a gun and a right to shoot everybody else this has not been our government
1:09:18
policy the government policy has been you can apply for a firearm you can be screened and at a
1:09:27
particular rate Firearms were allowed into the country because we do not subscribe to
1:09:35
the fact that if we give people Firearms at will it is now being
1:09:40
said in this country and from high places that once
1:09:46
you are not convicted you are entitled to have I am but let me just say to all of you
1:09:53
here tonight there are number of high ranking criminals in this country who
1:09:59
have no conviction because they know how to be a criminal to evade conviction because
1:10:07
conviction is based on evidence and live Witnesses in most instances so if we are
1:10:13
saying as some people are wanting to say now if I am not convicted I must get me
1:10:19
gone remember you will then be opening the door to give a right to a gun to no
1:10:25
known criminals because not convicted the system required that if a

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPvwRZN-Q2g&t=3817s

He is comparing and contrasting US policy of constitutional gun ownership with TT policy of CoP request and approval.

You fail comprehension bad.

[88sins]

when you ask this clown questions he doesn’t answer
he will ask you back a question or change the context of the words
man say rowlee was referring to usa gun policy but yet rowlee using word “we”
is rowlee part of the yankee NRA?
is rowlee a red neck ?

bruh
sometimes yuh hadda let people figure out how they dotish all on their own, because if you tell them they dotish, they will get offended and never see how they dotish, no matter how many ways or times you show them what qualities they are displaying that qualifies them as idiots..

And then, there's Habit7

[alfa]

If you could understand plain English you'd see that there PM didn't ask GG anything so no I can't answer a question regarding something that never happened. But let me entertain your nonsense a bit. FULs go directly to your district police station with a letter to purchase a firearm. After you pay down on same the police need to transfer the serial number into the FUL booklet before it is given to the intended recipient. So yeah Rowley delivering an FUL to someone on a random Thursday is illegal.
Quit while your behind. You're only making a fool of yourself at this point

Cool story bro, I think you are mixing up procedure with what can be cited in Firearms Act.

But even if I were to indulge you, won't it be Gary Griffith who violated the procedure by acceding to Rowley's request?

But just like you wrong said that there is no criteria for a FUL and the law says differently. What is the LAW (as in Act and section) that Rowley violated?

So you're saying Rowley can hand deliver a FUL to someone after influencing the COP to grant in the first place and no law is broken. Werent you the one ranting for some weeks that a PM could never influence a COP into who to grant FULS to but now it's suddenly not only possible but also not illegal, hypocritical much?
The object of this whole discussion and the newspaper article was never to charge Rowley with anything but rather to show him to be a hypocrite in condeming GG for the same thing that he was requesting him to do,namely fast tracking applications at the request of dealers and now apparently PMs as well. But you already knew that but trying hard to squeeze a win from any angle. Also I notice you're deliberately avoiding 88's question about questionable ethics.
Section 17 5 of the act states:
A licence or certificate shall not be issued to any person until the appropriate fee has been paid.
Unless he planned to pay Rowley after hand delivering they FUL, then see what is the charge for using a firearm without a valid licence in section 6

[pugboy]

ethics, what ethics
is all about financiers and getting real estate deals from them

[Habit7]

If you could understand plain English you'd see that there PM didn't ask GG anything so no I can't answer a question regarding something that never happened. But let me entertain your nonsense a bit. FULs go directly to your district police station with a letter to purchase a firearm. After you pay down on same the police need to transfer the serial number into the FUL booklet before it is given to the intended recipient. So yeah Rowley delivering an FUL to someone on a random Thursday is illegal.
Quit while your behind. You're only making a fool of yourself at this point

Cool story bro, I think you are mixing up procedure with what can be cited in Firearms Act.

But even if I were to indulge you, won't it be Gary Griffith who violated the procedure by acceding to Rowley's request?

But just like you wrong said that there is no criteria for a FUL and the law says differently. What is the LAW (as in Act and section) that Rowley violated?

So you're saying Rowley can hand deliver a FUL to someone after influencing the COP to grant in the first place and no law is broken. Werent you the one ranting for some weeks that a PM could never influence a COP into who to grant FULS to but now it's suddenly not only possible but also not illegal, hypocritical much?
The object of this whole discussion and the newspaper article was never to charge Rowley with anything but rather to show him to be a hypocrite in condeming GG for the same thing that he was requesting him to do,namely fast tracking applications at the request of dealers and now apparently PMs as well. But you already knew that but trying hard to squeeze a win from any angle. Also I notice you're deliberately avoiding 88's question about questionable ethics.
Section 17 5 of the act states:
A licence or certificate shall not be issued to any person until the appropriate fee has been paid.
Unless he planned to pay Rowley after hand delivering they FUL, then see what is the charge for using a firearm without a valid licence in section 6

So after all this long talk you cannot substantiate that the PM did anything illegal.

If the CoP issued a FUL without the applicant paying the fee then the CoP violated the law. But because we don't have the full context of the WhatsApp thread we don't know if he paid the fee. If Warner used a firearm without a FUL then Warner violated the law.

But you still haven't substantiated your original claim that the PM violated the law.

[alfa]

I'm sure he walked into a random station and said he came to pay the fee for the FUL Rowley delivering on Thursday.
Still avoiding 88s question on ethics I see, no surprises there
You started this nonsensical rant about context and when that fell apart, suddenly context doesn't matter cuz Rowley isn't breaking the law.
I'm no lawyer but hand delivering an FUL to someone without them paying the fee or having the police enter the serial number of the firearm is assisting an illegal act which is also illegal. See the accessories and abettors act.
You can take win on this one as it's probably the only thing you've won in life.

[Habit7]

I am not avoiding anybody, I am addressing you long before anybody jump in. You are saying the PM did something illegal but are only citing responsibilities of the applicant and the CoP.

Issuing a FUL to and underage person is against the law according to Section 9 of the Firearms Act. The audit showed that this occurred, this is illegal.

What Rowley did might be hypocritical, it might be unethical but it is not illegal. You can allowed yourself to be distracted, but I won't.

[zoom rader]

I am not avoiding anybody, I am addressing you long before anybody jump in. You are saying the PM did something illegal but are only citing responsibilities of the applicant and the CoP.

Issuing a FUL to and underage person is against the law according to Section 9 of the Firearms Act. The audit showed that this occurred, this is illegal.

What Rowley did might be hypocritical, it might be unethical but it is not illegal. You can allowed yourself to be distracted, but I won't.

Just answer the tuners questions and stop spinning ur bullŞhit

We know Rowlee is a Çûñťť and u seem tobe joining him

[16 cycles]

https://trinidadexpress.com/newsextra/b ... ac75e.html

He exited the bar to get some fresh air. However, he collapsed and fell unconscious. People at the bar placed the officer in a vehicle and took him for medical treatment.

[88sins]

I am not avoiding anybody, I am addressing you long before anybody jump in. You are saying the PM did something illegal but are only citing responsibilities of the applicant and the CoP.

Issuing a FUL to and underage person is against the law according to Section 9 of the Firearms Act. The audit showed that this occurred, this is illegal.

What Rowley did might be hypocritical, it might be unethical but it is not illegal. You can allowed yourself to be distracted, but I won't.

Yes you are, but if you want to prove that you're not avoiding the question, all you have to do is respond to it honestly and directly.

[pugboy]

habit,

is it ok to have a pm who is openly hypocritical and unethical and dodges the questions blatantly?

[88sins]

I seriously doubt he'll answer your question bruh

[alfa]

Expect a reply containing the terms baiting, red herring, we don't have the full context etc

[zoom rader]

Boi Habit7 is tuner biggest *deleted*

Runs from very easy questions, even his PNM lick arse buddies abandoned him

[pugboy]

it is so ironic for rowlee to have such interest in going after the ful corrupted system but yet he making calls in the same system

politicians have no concept of doing the right thing
and have bloggers putting their head on a block to defend them

i ain’t no gg fanboy either and he also stupidly taking the chain up from this ssa/ful talk and responding like a pompek behind a gate

[Chimera]

Whether yuh like Gary attitude or not u hadda admit things weren't as bad when he was there.

Big gangsters and criminals had a fear of him. They knew they would end up dead if they jump out deyself

[pugboy]

no doubt

Whether yuh like Gary attitude or not u hadda admit things weren't as bad when he was there.

Big gangsters and criminals had a fear of him. They knew they would end up dead if they jump out deyself

[Habit7]

If something is ethically questionable, but not necessarily outright illegal, in your mind, is it a good idea for a "leader" or high office holder to engage in such practices? Will such conduct enhance or diminish their credibility/reliability/trustworthiness?

Ethically questionable is subjective. If anybody were to restrict themselves from what is ethical questionable would they use electricity and ICE cars because of the carbon footprint? Would they eat meat? Would they drink alcohol? Ethics are so variable that nobody could go through their day without violating somebody else's ethics.

The laws of the country are more serious than anybody's ethics. So when faced with investigations that show that illegality was done, you respond with "but he do something unethical!" That is a ruse.

There isn't a leader who hasn't done something unethical, I have a problem with a leader doing something illegal.

[88sins]

If something is ethically questionable, but not necessarily outright illegal, in your mind, is it a good idea for a "leader" or high office holder to engage in such practices? Will such conduct enhance or diminish their credibility/reliability/trustworthiness?

Ethically questionable is subjective. If anybody were to restrict themselves from what is ethical questionable would they use electricity and ICE cars because of the carbon footprint? Would they eat meat? Would they drink alcohol? Ethics are so variable that nobody could go through their day without violating somebody else's ethics.

The laws of the country are more serious than anybody's ethics. So when faced with investigations that show that illegality was done, you respond with "but he do something unethical!" That is a ruse.

There isn't a leader who hasn't done something unethical, I have a problem with a leader doing something illegal.

Let's get something very clear here.
Ethics are not subjective. Ethics are, broadly speaking, a generally accepted set of rules and guidelines understood and accepted by a group of people in order to ensure that the actions of those in their field do not tarnish the reputation of the entire group.
There are codes of conduct and ethical standards for a great many careers, doctors, accountants, lawyers, engineers, research scientists, etc , and the people who work in their respective fields generally adhere to such codes and standards, in the understanding that these things keep the reputations of those pereons in these careers in.good standing and at a high standard, and clear of disrepute.

You seem to be confusing ethics with morality.


But even if you are, you can rest assured, politicians, and anybody aspiring to get into politics, generally possess neither ethics nor morality. They tend to be intentionally bankrupt of both, and history has supplied quite a lot of evidence to prove this beyond doubt.

[pugboy]

habit, when you in the grocery and a man jumps in front of you in the cashier line, i guess you are always fine with dat, likewise when you carry your sick child to see a doctor also
and when a next child get sea place over yours corruptly

we gone from a context spin to an ethics spin
carry on….