Comments and Suggested Inputs to the PNP Draft Implementing Rules and Regulations for RA 10591

Hereunder are our comments and suggested inputs for the Draft PNP Implementing Rules and Regulations for RA 10591. These comments and suggestions were arrived at a joint effort by PROGUN, Pinoyguns, Lock n Load, and allied organizations and supporters, after several months of discussion and consultation. Please note the following:

1. In spite of our request, we are not members of the technical working group of the PNP (TWG-PNP) for the drafting of the IRR, which we understand is being done under a closed-door policy. We disclaim that we have any direct participation in this process of discussing and drafting the IRR apart from these comments and our attendance at the PNP Open Forum at Camp Crame.

2. Nevertheless, we understand that TWG-PNP is accepting comments and suggestions from civilian stakeholders and organizations. It is in this light that we are submitting these comments and suggested inputs.

3. We have no assurance, and neither are we making any assurance, that our comments and suggestions will be considered or included in the final draft of the IRR. 

***************************************************************** 

Suggested inputs and comments to the PNP Draft Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 10591

 Section 4 - ITR requirement for licensing – 1) The ITR requirement should be deemed to include those who are gainfully employed or in business, or retired as evidenced by senior citizen’s card or retirement notice. Note that OFWs or retired persons are not required to file ITRs, by law.

 2) Mere pendency of a crime filed in court by the applicant should not be a ground for denial or cancellation of gun license since the Constitution provides for the presumption of Innocence of all persons charged with crimes. Also in order for the crime filed to be a basis of cancellation or denial or firearm license the offense committed must be in relation with the improper or illegal use of a firearm. Any other regular offenses charged of allegedly committed by the applicant or firearms holder, should not be used as basis for denial of application of a firearm, because frequently unscrupulous individuals file harassment cases, which in the end never prosper or end up proven in court.

 Section 7 – 1) The law provides that that a permit to carry outside of residence shall be issued whose life is under actual threat or his/her life is in imminent danger due to the nature of his/her profession, occupation or business. The definition of Imminent threat is: “the existence of any condition which could constitute a threat to the safety and life of oneself and that of his family or charges, which is likely to happen at anytime or anywhere.”

 2) PTCFOR should be person-specific, meaning that the holder has the option to carry whatever firearm is stated in his firearms license, provided that at any given time, the holder may carry only one licensed firearm registered to him.

 3) The term “or such other persons or professions who may be deemed under threat due to their current status, standing, or undertaking” should be added to the list of those under imminent threat.

 Section 9.  1) The law provides that the fees shall be reasonable. The sole interpretation of the term “reasonable” should mean that the fees for licensing and registration should not exceed current Fees being charged by PNP-FED, or the base rates for licenses that other government agencies who impose regulatory and licensing fees, charge. Increasing or imposing the licensing and registration fees to exorbitant amounts over and above what is being currently charged could be legally challenged as being confiscatory and unreasonable and unconstitutional. By law, licenses and fees must not be excessive so as to amount to confiscation of property without due process of law. Thus, For fees, we propose the following base rates:

 License type 1 – P1000

Type 2 – P2,000

Type 3 – P3,000

Type 4 – P4,000

Type 5 – P5,000

 The reason for these base rates, as quoted, is following the current maximum fees being charged which is about P5,000 for a PTCFOR, as well as the comparative base fees for licenses being charged by other government agencies which issue licenses and charge fees, which are deemed reasonable.

 For Registration fees we based our analogy with the current fees being charged by PNP-FED for registration of airguns and airsoft guns, which is P500 per gun. There is no basis or reason for the registration fees to go beyond the current fees for registration, as quoted, since registration firearms involves the very same act of encoding and entry into a computer as airguns and airsoft guns. So these registration fees should by analogy, be the same.

 2) Storage vault requirement – The vault requirement should include any enclosed or locked container. However, the vault need not be always locked and the firearms may be brought out of the vault for regular maintenance, cleaning, inventory, or use for security purposes.

 Section 12- 50 Round Limit – The term “licensed sport shooters” who can possess more than 50 rounds of ammunition should be deemed to include members of gun clubs and recognized shooting or tactical training organizations such as the Philippine National Shooting Association, PNSA, IDPA, and other accredited organizations. Presentation of roster of members and ID system shall be the responsibility of the organization/ club.

 Section 18 – 1) The permit to transport (“PTT”) must have a reasonable term of 3 months and not be event-specific or for events only. This is because practice and recreational shooting are normally undertaken in-between competitions and the vast majority of shooters are recreational shooters who go to the shooting range or gun clubs not to compete in events, but on an occasional,  non-regular, and recreational basis.

 2) The PTT must cover a reasonable area within the licensed gun’s owner’s residential Region or province (such as within NCR, Region 1 or Region 3, etc.) and not just from home to one’s gun club address. Most shooters are invited to attend and compete in other gun club shoots and ranges, some of which are not in the same city, out-of-town, or another province.

 3) The PTT may cover all accredited PNP shooting ranges, with a higher fee.

 Section 26 – In case of death or the licensed gun holder the regular law of succession under the Civil Code should apply. The heirs automatically inherit the property of the decedent. Therefore, the heirs should be allowed the option to sell the firearms of the deceased gun owner, instead of surrendering the firearms to the PNP within the one year period from death for settlement of Estate under the Rules of Court. The law of succession shall likewise apply to licensed light weapons as well, such that the heirs possess the legal right to either possess themselves or sell or transfer such firearms just as other property of the estate of the deceased.

 Section 39 - 1) Mere loss of a firearm which was not attendant with negligence of the owner, should not be a ground for cancellation of the firearms license.

 2) It should be provided that only upon loss of three firearms, that such act should be ground for cancellation of firearms license, cancellation of license for loss of one firearm, being too harsh a penalty. For losses of two firearms, the penalty should only be administrative fine. This is to allow the gun owner the opportunity to amend and reform.

Annual Visitation

19.4 The Annual Verification of Firearms shall be implemented wherein a Certificate of Verification shall be issued for the verified firearm as a requirement for the renewal of such firearm.

 

sir I believe that this is a matter that should also be included in the things to be changed in the gunlaw. most of the people I have talked to who I agree with deems that this is uncostitutional and unreasonable. Maybe we can bargain with the PNP that only non "sports shooters" will be subject to this. Since "sports shooters" can have as many ammo as they need there is no need for this. As for possible illegal alterations in the firearm, this matter will surface upon the re-registration of the fire arm. should the person have illegally altered the firearm then its renewal will be denied followed by the proper pealtiles. Also, should this not be negiotable how about making just penalties as this part of the IRR is prone to abuse.

We cannot amend the law

What is being drafted now by the PNP are the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the law. We cannot anymore amend or change what is stated in the law R.A.10591, which is an act of congress. What can be done now is to manipulate the IMPLEMENTATION of what is stated in the law, in a manner which is favorable to us gun owners. Nevertheless, if there is anything that is perceived to be unconstitutional (and I could think of a number of issues), there is always the option of filing a legal action in court to question the law.

annual visitation....

I wonder how they will impolement this annual visitation requirement for OFWs or gunowners who have to travel a lot.  

The issuance of PTCOR and

The issuance of PTCOR and firearm's license should be decentralized in the cities/provinces to be administered by the PNP-CSG.

 

Chief PNP possesses PTCFOR power

Under Section 7 of RA 10591, the Chief PNP or his duly authorized representative shall possess the power to issue PTCFORs to qualified persons. So this means that the issuance of the PTCFOR shall still be from Headquarters.

ptcfor

 

does his duly authorized representative means GHQ? or even regional personnels fall on the ambit of dully authorized representative?

Clarrification

3.1       Full Automatic or Fully Automatic refers to the firing mode and action of a firearm in which discharge of the entire magazine load with a single pull of its trigger is continuous until the triggering device is disengaged;

Therefor issuance of a "3 round burst capable" is legal to civilians especially in HPRs?

 

3 shot burst = full auto

That's a good question. IMHO, I believe that 3 shot burst is equivalent to full auto because because more than one bullet comes out per trigger pull.

Is there is a 3 shot burst rifle? Or is it SMG?

3 shot burst....

Some versions of the the hk g36...

3 round burst

as described a in their IRR a full automatic is a single press that can discharge a full loaded magazine where a 3 round burst cannot, you have to pull 10 inorder to discharge a full loaded magazine, thus it is not full automatic.

the 3 round burst was designed in the 80's as a "controlled fire" as full auto could not, (Vietnam experience) it is in a treashold of being a full auto but not a full auto, if we based it from the IRR standpoint therefore it is legal for a civilian to own a 3 round burst.

 

Types of weapon famous of a 3 round burst:

HK SMG, M16A2

Emergency Taking Out of Firearm Outside Residence Without PTCFOR

Dear Sir:<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

I think there should be a
provision clearly stipulated in our firearm laws that excuses a licensed gun
holder - without a carry permit - from being prosecuted when he takes out his
firearm outside his residence in the event of a sudden and unexpected grave threat/s;
or in the event of a life or death emergency situation where his immediate
action is crucial. Consider the following scenario:

 

1.   
There is a life or death situation: A friend or relative’s
distress call that he must immediately attend to. He or another person, however,
should inform PNP’s 917 of this emergency detailing the place and the current
situation including information on what the responder is wearing in order to
pre-warn the police from mistakenly identifying him as one of the perpetrators,
before he even attempts to take out his firearm and rush out to the aid of his
distress friend or relative.

 

Can he escape prosecution?

 

  1. There
    is a sudden and unexpected grave threat – again grave - to his person or
    relative. The person reported and filed a complaint with the police and
    applied for a carry permit. He, however believes that this would not be enough
    to deter his potential attacker from carrying out his threat and thus decided
    to carry his firearm since he believes that waiting for his carry permit
    to be approved by the PNP would not be the wisest thing to do.

 

If such be the case, can he escape prosecution?

 

3.   
A
relative or friend is being attacked at a spitting distance from his residence.
In this situation, calling 917 first before rushing to help is not practical.
Another person should do it. Again, information on how he is dressed should be
clearly given to the police.

 

Should
he be prosecuted?  

 

4.   
Any
similar situation that justifies the taking out of a licensed firearm without a
carry permit subject to the subsequent scrutiny of the courts.

 

 

Respectfully yours,

 

 

Mars Tagayun

Simple answer

A very complicated question, for which there is a simple answer: The law states that if you bring your firearm outside of your residence then you must have a permit to carry outside of residence permit (PTCFOR). If the situation occurs outside your residence, then you need to possess a PTCFOR for your gun in order to be considered as legal. An exception can be the case of Sonny Parsons wherein his house was just robbed and he was in hot pursuit of the criminals in which case he was legally allowed to bring his gun out in the street and engage the criminals.

interesting legal precedent

Hmmm the Parsons case is very interesting for us FA owners: 1. in dire circumstances you can bring your FA outside your residence without a PTCFOR. 2. you can procede from self-defense to attack mode without any criminal liability. From the news articles, Parsons went out of his residence and chased the criminals in the streets. I think this is no longer defending yourself, but you're now actively engaging targets who are already fleeing the scene. Even the stand your ground and castle doctrines stop short of chasing down the criminals. what i'm not sure is if there were charges filed against Parsons and were dismissed. Still googling it to no avail. Just my .02.

interesting legal precedent

Hmmm the Parsons case is very interesting for us FA owners: 1. in dire circumstances you can bring your FA outside your residence without a PTCFOR. 2. you can procede from self-defense to attack mode without any criminal liability. From the news articles, Parsons went out of his residence and chased the criminals in the streets. I think this is no longer defending yourself, but you're now actively engaging targets who are already fleeing the scene. Even the stand your ground and castle doctrines stop short of chasing down the criminals. what i'm not sure is if there were charges filed against Parsons and were dismissed. Still googling it to no avail. Just my .02.

in defense

I believe the right to life is a natural law that needs a natural and pressing response.....let the authorities justify the illegal use in such cases. They are always absent in times where defense of oneself and relatives is to be acted upon imediately.....