9 responses to “Alert! PNP to impose stricter rules on Licensing and Carrying of Firearms 18 August 2010”

1. Let us form “AEM”.  It stands for August Eighteen Movement.   In 1983, ATOM or the August Twenty-one Movement was formed after the Aquino-Galman murder. It helped raise the groundswell of indignation against the Marcos regime.  We might as well form a similar coalition to oppose the burdensome provisions of this new set of rules and regulations. 

    

   See annotations: in boldface.

    

   The PNP is set to sign and implement on 18 August 2010, stricter Rules on Licensing and Carrying of Firearms, and new stricter guidelines on availment of protective security for VIPs and citizens.

   A summary of these stricter changes are:

   Licensing and possession
   
   1. The neuro psychiatric test must be conducted by the PNP Health Service NP Personnel and PNP Accredited NP testing Centers and Evaluators. The drug test must be administered by the PNP Crime laboratory. The Gun safety seminar must be handled by the PNP or registered gun club duly accredited by the PNP.

   2. All licensed firearms shall be test fired for ballistics and their make, caliber, and serial number stenciled by the PNP crime laboratory every 4 years. Each application for renewal of firearms shall be accompanied by the certification that the firearm was test fired for ballistics and stenciled within the last 4 years.  

    

   The logic/added value of this is questionable.  Barrels do wear out, especially those used for target practice.  Therefore, there will be differences in the ballistic tests taken four years earlier.

   Bearing of Firearms Outside of Residence
   
   1. A person may apply for 1 PTCFOR each for each of such number of licensed privately-owned firearms he has, except long arms.

    

   
   2. A person may be allowed to carry firearm outside of his residence or official station subject to the following conditions:

   a) Only 1 short firearm covered by PTCFOR can be carried at any one time, by a person outside his residence

    

   Further clarification needed:  Suppose an individual owns three licensed handguns.  Does it mean he can apply a PTCFOR for each but carry only one outside of residence at any given time?  The provisions must be explicit, to avoid differences in interpretation.

    

   There are private individuals who own licensed long arms, be it low or high powered; shotguns or even submachine guns.   Licensed long arms are used for legitimate purposes, such as recreation, competition, hunting, when allowed; or protection, as needed.  What are the provisions to allow its use for legitimate purposes? 

   b) Members of the PNP, AFP, and other law enforcement agencies may carry their licensed privately-owned firearms, in furtherance of their official duties and functions, subject to the following conditions:

   1) When in agency prescribed uniform

   2) With corresponding MO/ LO issued by duly constituted authorities

   3) With corresponding computerized firearms license card; and

   4) While in the actual performance of official duties and functions

   c) Members of the PNP, AFP and other law enforcement agencies who wish to carry their licensed privately-owned firearms outside of residence, while in civilian attire and not in furtherance of their official functions and duties, should apply for a regular PTCFOR covering such firearm.

   3. Members of the PNP, AFP and other law enforcement agencies shall carry their government-issued firearms under the following conditions:

   a) When in agency-prescribed uniform

   b) With corresponding MR/ARE; and

   c) While in the actual performance of official duties and functions

   4. Members of the PNP, AFP and other law enforcement agencies must apply for a special permit, which shall be classified as PTCFOR-LEA, in order to be authorized to carry the corresponding government-issued firearm only outside of residence or of official station wearing civilian attire. The PTCFOR-LEA should always be accompanied by the corresponding MR/ARE.

   5. The entitlement of provincial governors, city mayors, municipal mayors and punong barangays to possess and carry firearms within their territorial jurisdictions as guaranteed by the Local Government Code of 1991 shall be respected.

   The following guidelines regarding the manner of carrying firearms shall be observed:

   1. For members of PNP, AFP, and other LEAs:

   a) When carried while in the agency-prescribed uniform, firearms shall be placed in a holster securely attached to the belt, except that military pilots in flying uniforms and crew of armored vehicle may carry their firearms in shoulder holsters;

   b) When the agency-prescribed uniform does not include holster, or for those authorized to carry firearms outside of residence or of official station while in civilian attire, the firearm shall be concealed unless actually used for a legitimate purpose. Displaying a firearm, when not used for a legitimate purpose is prohibited;

   c) The practice of flagrantly displaying a firearm, or tucking it in the waist or inserting it in the waistband while in uniform or in civilian attire is prohibited

   d) Only such firearms specifically described in corresponding MR/ARE or MO/LO, or PTCFOR-LEA shall be carried.

   2. For all other persons (civilians and members of PNP, AFP and other LEAs in civilian attire):

   a) The firearm must be concealed in a hand baggage such as clutch bag, belt bag, gun case or any similar kits;

   b) Displaying a firearm or tucking it at the waist or inserting the same in the waistband or holster is prohibited; and

    

   The wisdom of a) is questionable. A handgun is a quick-reaction weapon. Such limitation for carry would impede presentation by the user, therefore giving advantage to the aggressor who normally has the element of surprise. For b), this mode of carry is more practical for the reason stated. Perhaps a compromise would be a requirement that the firearm must be concealed and out of view at all times.
   
   c) The firearm must be secured inside a vehicle or motor cycle compartment.

    

   Clarification needed:   Does this mean that the firearm must be left inside a vehicle at all times or secured when left inside a vehicle?  When the firearm is inside the vehicle with the owner, is he allowed to keep it in a state of readiness to fend off aggression, or should the firearm be unloaded, separated from its ammunition?  Again, the provisions must be explicit.
   

   Duty of Holder to present authority

   It shall be the duty of any person who openly and in plain view bears of carries any firearm outside residence in civilian attire, to show the license and the corresponding PTCFOR before a law enforcer who requests presentation of such documents.
   
   

   Note: There used to be a cell phone number where the PTCFOR could be verified.  Restoring such service may be beneficial to all, to avoid questions on the validity of PTCFORs or even licenses at checkpoints. 

   Gun Free Zones

   a)  The PNP through its Police Regional Offices, Police Provincial Offices, City Police Directors Chiefs of Police shall strongly advocate the establishment of gun free zones.

   1) For this purpose Police Regional Directors, Provincial Directors, District Directors, and Chiefs of Police shall continuously work with their local government units to identify such critical areas within their respective localities, which may include school zones, places of worship, commercial and business districts and tourist spots, and proactively encourage the declaration of gun-free zones

   2) RDs, PDs and COPs shall, through their respective Peace and Order Councils, exert optimal effort towards enactment of pertinent local ordinances that will declare identifies areas as gun free zones.

   3) The CPNP shall issue a directive implementing a “strictly no firearms rule” in declared gun-free zones.

   4) Only members of the PNP,AFP and other LEAs performing official duties and functions in agency prescribed uniform are authorized to bear firearms in these zones subject to conditions provided in this Circular

   5) Regular PTCFORs will not be recognized and will have no effect within these gun-free zones.

    

   The so-called gun-free zones should be explicitly defined and agreed upon by all concerned and not just imposed arbitrarily by the PNP.  PTCFORs serve a purpose; to allow citizens the means to repel criminal aggression against their person by lawless elements.  Gun-free zones would defeat the purpose of the PTCFORs and give advantage to the lawless elements.

   Administrative Sanctions

   1) carrying of firearms outside of residence without PTCFOR is absolutely prohibited. Once apprehended, it shall result in the cancellation of the license

   2) bringing of firearms covered with PTCFOR to prohibited places shall also result in the cancellation of the license. A canceled license shall automatically invalidate the corresponding PTCFOR

   3) The report submitted by the apprehending unit or office shall serve as a basis by the Firearms and Explosives Office to initiate the cancellation of the license

   4) Once the license is canceled the licensee shall surrender the firearm immediately to the Firearms and Explosives Office or the nearest police station.

   5) Habituality or recidivism in the commission of the aforementioned prohibitions may also result in temporary or permanent disqualification to possess or carry firearms subject to existing PNP rules and regulations

   6) Upon good cause shown, and subject to the discretion of the CPNP or his duly authorized representative, the status of the ex-licensee may be restored or the license may be revived, or if already expired, a renewal thereof could be made subject to existing laws, rules and regulations.

    

   The “discretion of the CPNP or his duly authorized representative” is subject to arbitrary decisions or even abuse. It would be better if rules are made clear and specific.

   Definitely, the PNP will railroad the implementation of these provisions.   What are our legal remedies to challenge this?   One way is to push through with our proposed Firearms Bill and get our allies in the 15^th Congress to sponsor it.  We should strike a balance between right and privilege, freedom and control, etc.   A win-win situation.

    

   Reply

2. Ballistics testing every 4 years?! They don’t even have enough storage space for the existing slugs from the ballistics tests that they’ve done already… Also, the Neuro test (assuming they have the capacity to handle the volume within a reasonable turnaround time) and the gun safety seminar should be only done once per person, and not repeated for every license applied for whether new or a renewal. That would be ridiculous.

   Of course, we existing gun owners have already taken all the necessary tests and seminars. And of course, the PNP will have us take them again when the new rules are implemented. You know why? Because they have lost the records, or do not trust the records that they have. And they also want to make money again.

   So ang tanong na kailangan nila sagotin ay: Matinong usapan na ba ito if/when new rules are implemented? Can they guarantee gun owners that all our records and files will be complete from now on? Or will they change things again in the future and have us go through another process all over again? With the corresponding fees of course… (That seems to be an important part of new rules.)

   For the PTC”s, maybe they should consider a “One PTCFOR” set-up where the permit is issued to the person, and said person can use it in conjunction with any licensed handgun that he/she has. This is the case with driver’s licenses; one does not apply for a separate license for each vehicle that he/she has. Then again, that would impact the PNP’s revenue generation and they will be disinclined to accept that even if the idea makes perfect sense.

   I have a feeling that the new guidelines are meant to make licensing more expensive and therefore more “profitable” for the PNP. Yung drug tests nalang; statistics from the LTO’s drug testing data indicates that the number of applicants who tested positive is insignificant. 

   The worst thing about the new guidelines is that I don’t see how they will reduce the number of loose firearms. They are just making things harder for lawful gun owners who follow the rules. As usual, the PNP would rather LOOK LIKE they are doing something rather than ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH something in terms of reducing illegal firearms. Pa-pogi ika nga…

   Reply

3. The PNP cover letter for the signing ceremony of these circulars on 18 August 2010, states that these circulars are allegedly the products of the “sentiments of the stakeholders” in the last Firearms Summit on 4 June 2010. As is well known to everyone, PROGUN walked out of that Gun Summit.

   However, there was a follow-up technical working group for the drafting and concretization of the “sentiments” of the stakeholders. The participant allegedly on behalf of the gun owners in that technical working group was PERRY PUNLA of COUNTERMEASURES. From what we know, no other stakeholder or firearms organization or group had participated in this post-summit technical working group.

   Consequently, these new draft circulars are NOT the product of public consultation or output as claimed by the PNP cover letter. Rather, there was NO CONSULTATION among the genuine firearms community stakeholders, such as PROGUN, on this issue. In short, these Circulars on tightened gun control policies are the product of the PNP and their mouthpieces.
   
   NOTE THAT AMONG THE SIGNATORIES TO THE “OMNIBUS RESOLUTION” FOR APPROVAL OF THESE ANTI-GUN CIRCULARS IS DR. JENNIFER S. ORETA OF PHIL INTERNATIONAL ACTION NETWORK ON SMALL ARMS (IANSA).
   
   So we know now what is going on and why Gen “Euro” Verzosa is pushing for this anti-gun agenda.

   Reply

4. JESS “EURO” VERSOZA

   RESIGN NOW!!!!

   Reply

5. FLASH UPDATE : I GOT A CALL EARLIER TONIGHT FROM A MAJOR GUN DEALER. THEY ARE MEETING TONIGHT AND THEY WILL NOT SIGN THE PNP JOINT RESOLUTION TOMORROW ON STRICTER GUN CONTROL. INSTEAD THEY ARE DISCUSSING WHAT POSSIBLE LEGAL ACTION TO FILE AGAINST GEN. VERZOSA AND THE PNP.

   BUTI NGA!! THE REVOLUTION HAS BEGUN!!!  😆  😆

   Reply

6. I hope that other LEO’s won’t sign the resolution.  They will also be affected by the PNP’s strict guidelines. What is the logic of MO/LO while in uniform and PTCFOR LEA while in civilian attire?

   Reply

7. Sitrep: As of yesterday we heard unconfirmed reports that AFAD SIGNED the PNP Joint Resolution supporting the new PNP Circulars. FAMAP, through Bolo Tuason of Armscor, DID NOT SIGN the Joint Resolution.

   We have No word from A2S5, PPSA, PNSA, or the other gun groups regarding their stand on this matter.

   Reply

   1. It’s always been The Arms Corporation of the Philippines who truly supports Juan Dela Cruz. A True Filipino Company!!!

      Reply

      1. Who amongst the “stakeholders” signed the Joint Resulution of the PNP?

         Thank you Armscor for supporting our cause..

          

          

         Reply

Want to comment? Post a response on your blog and link back to this article.