Business groups back home invasion bill

Shas­tri Boodan

Free­lance Con­trib­u­tor

Busi­ness or­gan­i­sa­tions have ex­pressed strong sup­port for the Home In­va­sion (Self-De­fence and De­fence of Prop­er­ty) Bill, 2025, with sev­er­al cham­bers say­ing the leg­is­la­tion could sig­nif­i­cant­ly im­prove se­cu­ri­ty for cit­i­zens and the busi­ness com­mu­ni­ty.

Guardian Me­dia spoke with busi­ness lead­ers on Fri­day.

Ki­ran Singh, pres­i­dent of the Greater San Fer­nan­do Area Cham­ber of Com­merce (GS­FCC), said the leg­is­la­tion is ex­pect­ed to have a pos­i­tive im­pact on busi­ness own­ers, many of whom feel vul­ner­a­ble.

“For years we have felt that we are the prey of ban­dits and the crim­i­nal el­e­ments in this coun­try. Crim­i­nals tend to think that busi­ness own­ers are un­pro­tect­ed. This can lev­el the play­ing field so we can de­fend our­selves up­on the il­le­gal en­try of crim­i­nals in­to our homes or busi­ness­es,” Singh said.

He added that a large per­cent­age of busi­ness own­ers cur­rent­ly have firearm ap­pli­ca­tions pend­ing, and he is ea­ger to see how the Com­mis­sion­er of Po­lice will man­age the ap­proval process.

Bal­dath Ma­haraj, pres­i­dent of the Ch­agua­nas Cham­ber of In­dus­try and Com­merce (CCIC), said “stand your ground” leg­is­la­tion re­moves the ad­van­tage from per­pe­tra­tors and gives cit­i­zens a bet­ter chance to pro­tect them­selves. He not­ed that, un­der cur­rent laws, vic­tims must wait un­til their lives are in im­mi­nent dan­ger be­fore tak­ing ac­tion.

“When the ac­tu­al de­tails of the leg­is­la­tion are out­lined, we will un­der­stand it a lit­tle bet­ter. But for now, those who have firearms find it very dif­fi­cult to use them, be­cause you have to an­swer to the po­lice even though your life may be un­der threat,” Ma­haraj said.

De­o­raj Ma­hase, pres­i­dent of the Cou­va Point Lisas Cham­ber of Com­merce (CPLCC), said the leg­is­la­tion would al­low busi­ness­es to op­er­ate with a high­er lev­el of se­cu­ri­ty. He stressed that the Bill would not open the door to ex­ploita­tion, as it would be sub­ject to re­view and over­sight. Ma­hase al­so not­ed that the process of ac­quir­ing a firearm re­mains rig­or­ous and time-con­sum­ing.