Manny Villar's CHILD SAFETY FIREARMS ACT bill [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Manny Villar's CHILD SAFETY FIREARMS ACT bill


New_comer
09-10-2007, 07:25
FOURTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
First Regular Session
SENATE
Senate Bill No. 241

INTRODUCED BY HON. MANNY VILLAR

EXPLANATORY NOTE
P.D. 1866 which codifies laws on firearms, ammunition, or explosives does not contain provision to make unlawful for any person to manufacture or sell a firearm which does not have as an integral part a device which prevents a child from discharging the firearm by reason of strength, dexterity, cognitive skill, or other ability.

This bill seeks to reduce if not eliminate injuries and deaths caused by accidental firearm shootings by children by making safety devices in firearm a condition for their sale or importation.

FOURTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
First Regular Session JUN 30 P4 27
SENATE

Senate Bill No. 241
INTRODUCED BY HON. MANNY VILLAR
CHILD SAFETY FIREARMS ACT

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in
Congress assembled:
Section 1. Short Title - This Act may be cited at the “Child Safety Firearms Act.”
Section 2. Declaration of Policy - It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to reduce injuries and deaths caused by accidental firearm shootings by children. Toward this end, the state shall guarantee the production of child-proof safety firearms or devices.
Section 3. Definition of Terms - For purposes of this Act the term:
(1) “Person” includes any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnerships or entity.
(2) “Firearm” means (a) any weapon which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (b) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (c) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(d) any destructive device.
Section 4. Unlawful Acts - It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, sell, cause to sell or import a firearm that does not have as an integral part a device or devices that:
(1) prevent a child of less than 7 years of age from discharging the firearm by reason of the amount of strength, dexterity, cognitive skill, or other ability required to cause a discharge.
(2) prevent a firearm that has a removable magazine from discharging when the magazine has been removed; and
(3) in the case of a handgun other than a revolver clearly indicate whether the magazine or chamber contains a round of ammunition.
Section 5. Penalty - Any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine of not less than fifty thousand pesos (P50,OOO.OO) or imprisonment of not less than three (3)
months or both at the discretion of the court. If the offense is committed by a corporation, trust, firm, partnership or association or other entity, the penalty shall be imposed upon the guilty officer or officers of such corporation, trust, firm, partnership or association or entity.
Section 6. Separability clause - if any provision, or part hereof, is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the law or the provision not otherwise affected shall remain valid and subsisting.
Section 7. Repealing Clause - Any law presidential decree or issuance, executive order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule of regulation contrary to, or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified, or amended accordingly.
Section 8. Effectivity Clause - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,


How do you think this would affect our guns. Up front, I can see that my HK and 1911 cannot pass this standard, due to the absence of magazine disconnects. Only the BHP and the Bersa Thunder 380 has this :shocked:

9MX
09-10-2007, 07:33
Well, reading it as is, unlawful covers only the act of selling, cause of selling, manufacture, and importing. But not ownership, so I guess, we're safe:)

New_comer
09-10-2007, 07:40
Originally posted by 9MX
Well, reading it as is, unlawful covers only the act of selling, cause of selling, manufacture, and importing. But not ownership, so I guess, we're safe:) What if you'd need to unload and get something you've dreamed of? We can't even sell our wares!!!! :shocked:

I still want a P7M8, a P2K, P32, 24/7, 239, etcetera...

All non-conforming! :steamed: :brickwall: :burn:

What kind of a law is that? :crazy:

saki1611
09-10-2007, 07:41
Originally posted by New_comer
How do you think this would affect our guns. Up front, I can see that my HK and 1911 cannot pass this standard, due to the absence of magazine disconnects. Only the BHP and the Bersa Thunder 380 has this :shocked:

he has a point when it comes for the safety of kids, there are numbers, if not many, of gun owners that are so irresponsible with firearms. there are people who have guns at home yet they selfishly deny it to the kids in the house that make these kids more curious and leads them to danger. why not just make regulations that when buying gun it should go with a locking device, such as locks that are placed in the triggers rather than regulate guns that should be sold in the philippines. just my two cents...

saki1611
09-10-2007, 07:47
Originally posted by 9MX
Well, reading it as is, unlawful covers only the act of selling, cause of selling, manufacture, and importing. But not ownership, so I guess, we're safe:)

for the guns the we have already owned it might be safe. in case the propose law would turn into effect, our future buys will be only limited to some models for it would be illegal to gun distributors to sell fa's without the specific safety features.

batangueno
09-10-2007, 07:54
Originally posted by saki1611
for the guns the we have already owned it might be safe. in case the propose law would turn into effect, our future buys will be only limited to some models for it would be illegal to gun distributors to sell fa's without the specific safety features.
So time to buy firearms na before this law gets into effect. :supergrin:

I think for child safety, the law should focus on the owners and not the firearm. Firearm safety education still is the best way to prevent accidents.

anticentipede
09-10-2007, 07:57
Another stupid moron pretending to care about kids.

How disgusting.

Sen Villar should leave the selling of guns to gun shops.


If he really cares about kids, he should promote the death penalty for pedophiles.

He should also make it easier for people to own and carry firearms and other personnal defense weapons in public.

That way parents can protect their children.

ahtsay
09-10-2007, 07:57
Pare eventually we won't be able to buy these guns....look at number "2". E di lahat ng 1911 and 2011 hinde na pwede? :shocked: How do you "hammer down, holster" with guns that won't fire without the magazine inside? I have a P22, and I hate that safety feature. I don't think the gun is safer because it won't fire without the magazine. I think he just copied the Bill from somewhere in the US, most likely California. Its really useless, a 7 year old child can discharge any firearm, regardless of its complexity as long as it is loaded. Give him less than 3 mins and he will eventually, by trial and error, be able to discharge the firearm. It is the responsibility of the parents/adults to make sure guns do not end up in the hands of a child. It is impossible for guns to be designed as child proof, that is not the purpose of guns. The best child protection device is a locked container. However if your gun is used as a carry piece, then just make sure if you are home that the chamber is empty. I don't think a 7 year old will have the strength to rack the slide.

In my opinion, this is an anti-gun bill disguised as a child safety firearms act. This way, the bill gets more sentiment and support from people that are not familiar with firearms. :upeyes:

saki1611
09-10-2007, 07:58
Originally posted by batangueno
I think for child safety, the law should focus on the owners and not the firearm. Firearm safety education still is the best way to prevent accidents.

100% :thumbsup:

sa pag bili ng baril uli, yun ang problema ko...:sad:

batangueno
09-10-2007, 08:01
Villar will surely not get my vote this 2010. :steamed:

9MX
09-10-2007, 08:06
lets not get too personal on the senator, he is doing his job and like all of us, he won't be able to please everybody.

of course we all know that the ultimate safety device of a firearm is the owner. it all begins and ends with him or her

New_comer
09-10-2007, 08:21
BTW, where the heck is PROGUN and AFAD? :headscratch::steamed: :brickwall:

Why haven't they been on top of this? If not for my accidental Googling of info to respond to another thread, I wouldn't have chanced upon this... :rant: :rant: :rant:

Allegra
09-10-2007, 08:40
I'd prefer gun owner's be required to perform skills and gunhandling test before they can buy a gun

I've helped sa gun safetey seminar , the skills test is too easy

Django
09-10-2007, 08:49
What are the numbers/stats? How many people were injured/killed because a firearm did not have this childproof safety device?

If you ask me, this is another one of those "nice to have" legislations and should be categorized together with those "priority" bills our Senate has spent millions on to pass. Those bills changing the names of our streets.

We would be better served if they passed a law to childproof guns against those who are "batang isip". :animlol:

Or is it "isip bata"? :laughabove:

Allegra
09-10-2007, 09:27
Originally posted by Django
What are the numbers/stats? How many people were injured/killed because a firearm did not have this childproof safety device?

If you ask me, this is another one of those "nice to have" legislations and should be categorized together with those "priority" bills our Senate has spent millions on to pass. Those bills changing the names of our streets.

We would be better served if they passed a law to childproof guns against those who are "batang isip". :animlol:

Or is it "isip bata"? :laughabove:


Kaya pala ayaw ako bigyan ng pinsan ko ng ptt ,due to mental immaturity daw
Sabihin ko nga magbasa sya dito, ng lahat din kayo hindi mabigyan :)

Mang Danny
09-10-2007, 10:01
That proposed new law is a classic technique of anti gun people to slowly eat away at people's ability to own guns. Just imagine, magazine disconnect and loaded chamber indicator in one sweep. A similar law is in effect here in California, except that only new guns submitted for California approval need to be compliant. Models which have already been "drop tested" are exempt.

The ammo "microstamping law" have been ressurrected here. We are awaiting developments.:sad:

New_comer
09-10-2007, 10:22
Originally posted by ahtsay
Pare eventually we won't be able to buy these guns....look at number "2". E di lahat ng 1911 and 2011 hinde na pwede? :shocked: How do you "hammer down, holster" with guns that won't fire without the magazine inside? I have a P22, and I hate that safety feature. I don't think the gun is safer because it won't fire without the magazine. I think he just copied the Bill from somewhere in the US, most likely California. Its really useless, a 7 year old child can discharge any firearm, regardless of its complexity as long as it is loaded. Give him less than 3 mins and he will eventually, by trial and error, be able to discharge the firearm. It is the responsibility of the parents/adults to make sure guns do not end up in the hands of a child. It is impossible for guns to be designed as child proof, that is not the purpose of guns. The best child protection device is a locked container. However if your gun is used as a carry piece, then just make sure if you are home that the chamber is empty. I don't think a 7 year old will have the strength to rack the slide.

In my opinion, this is an anti-gun bill disguised as a child safety firearms act. This way, the bill gets more sentiment and support from people that are not familiar with firearms. :upeyes:
This is what I found regarding children and trigger pull:
Titre du document / Document title:
Children's and women's ability to fire handguns
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
NAURECKAS S. M. (1) ; GALANTER C. (1) ; NAURECKAS E. T. ; DONOVAN M. (1) ; CHRISTOFFEL K. K. (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Northwestern univ., children's memorial hosp., dep. pediatrics, Chicago IL, ETATS-UNIS
Pediatric Practice Research Group, INCONNU
Résumé / Abstract
Objectives : To evaluate whether strength differences between children and women might keep children from firing handguns and to determine how many young children can fire available handguns.

Design : One- and two-index finger trigger-pull strength was tested using a standard protocol. Data on trigger-pull settings of 64 commercially available handguns were obtained.

Setting and Participants : Convenience sample of well children and their mothers at four Chicago (I11)-area pediatric practices for health supervision visits, and of siblings of emergency department patients, during an 8-week period.

Interventions : None.

Main Outcome Measures : One- and two-index finger trigger-pull strength of mothers and children.

Results : Twenty-five percent of 3- to 4-year-olds, 70% of 5- to 6-year-olds, and 90% of 7- to 8-year-olds have a two-finger trigger-pull strength of at least 10 lb, the fifth percentile one-finger trigger-pull strength of adult women.

Forty (62.5%) of 64 handguns require trigger-pull strength of less than 5 lb ; 19 (30%) of 64 require 5 to 10 lb.

Conclusions : Significant overlap exists in the trigger-pull strength of young children and women, limiting the potential use of increased trigger-pull settings to discourage firearm discharge by children. Young children are strong enough to fire many handguns now in circulation.

Revue / Journal Title
Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine (Arch. pediatr. med.) ISSN 1072-4710 Archives of pediatrics and adolescent medicine
Source / Source
1995, vol. 149, no12, pp. 1318-1322 (19 ref.)
Langue / Language
Anglais
Editeur / Publisher
American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, ETATS-UNIS (1994) (Revue)
Mots-clés anglais / English Keywords
Force ; Gun (tool) ; Legislation ; Comparative study ; Female ; Child ; Mother ; Human ;
Mots-clés français / French Keywords
Force ; Pistolet ; Législation ; Etude comparative ; Femelle ; Enfant ; Mère ; Homme ;
Mots-clés espagnols / Spanish Keywords
Fuerza ; Pistola ; Legislación ; Estudio comparativo ; Hembra ; Niño ; Madre ; Hombre ;
Localisation / Location
INIST-CNRS, Cote INIST : 2055, 35400005918488.0020

Copyright 2006 INIST-CNRS. All rights reserved
Toute reproduction ou diffusion même partielle, par quelque procédé ou sur tout support que ce soit, ne pourra être faite sans l'accord préalable écrit de l'INIST-CNRS.
No part of these records may be reproduced of distributed, in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of INIST-CNRS.
Nº notice refdoc (ud4) : 2925577

Villar has now shown his true color, a tyrant in the making. I'm with batangueno here: I will never vote for him again! :steamed:

Allegra
09-10-2007, 10:57
Originally posted by New_comer
This is what I found regarding children and trigger pull:


Villar has now shown his true color, a tyrant in the making. I'm with batangueno here: I will never vote for him again! :steamed:



He's not anti gun , his nephews were very avid shooters and a lot of shooters supported him when he first ran for the senate

pipo
09-10-2007, 16:28
how much time do we have?????? got to make that order na. fast!!!:sad:

horge
09-10-2007, 16:28
I think it's a lot of unnecessary busywork.
From a practical (executive) standpoint, though...


It isn't THAT mechanically difficult to incorporate a
magazine disconnect safety into the 1911 pattern:
Run a spring-loaded disconnect strap in a channel in the front
of the magwell. The top of the disconnect will have a bend and
a stud that will allow (or block) rearward travel of the
trigger "bow", depending on whether a magazine pushes it up or not.
You won't need to alter the mags, whose bottom plate would push
the disconnect up when inserted. The disconnect's leaf spring
would be set flush into the front of the magwell lip.

***

Loaded chamber indicators have been around a long time,
just fatten up an external extractor so it sticks out from
the slide when the claw rests on a chambered case.
Make it bright red, topside.

***

I'm surprised he hasn't called for trigger locks, but then again,
I believe that was Sen. Pangilinan's pet project-in-the-works.

New_comer
09-10-2007, 17:28
Originally posted by Allegra
He's not anti gun , his nephews were very avid shooters and a lot of shooters supported him when he first ran for the senate The mere fact that he entertained the thought of introducing these *stupid* restrictions that would limit the variety of our choices and increase the likelihood of *gun failure* when you most need it, is proof positive that he doesn't share the view of his nephews.

I suggest that you convince your shooting buddies on what their uncle is trying to do. But I doubt he'll listen, now that we know he's anti-gun by nature. :devilish:

isuzu
09-10-2007, 18:49
Originally posted by 9MX
lets not get too personal on the senator, he is doing his job and like all of us, he won't be able to please everybody.

Before he can make a bill regarding firearms issue, IMO, the senator has to have a good understanding of guns, and he should be at least a gunowner.

I think the real issue here is with the gunowner (as what other BOGs say). How the gunowner stores his firearms and ammunition is a very big factor. Like us here in Canada, firearms at home should be rendered inoperable (trigger or cable lock, or the bolt removed). Failure to do this and God forbid, an accident happens, you could be charged and your licensed revoked (you have to surrender your gun(s) or donate them to firearms education facilities).

Another thing I suspect the senator is doing is subtly getting the votes of the anti-gun people. If he can't go directly to them, at least, he could go around them and still get their sympathy.

Django
09-10-2007, 19:19
New IPSC range commands here in the Phils. when this bill is passed:

1. De-activate integral safety device
2. Load and make ready
3. Stand-by
4. Beep.

:animlol:

PMMA97
09-10-2007, 19:32
I am sure na nagiisip na ang mga holdapers and the likes to make their firearms child proof. :supergrin:

CatsMeow
09-10-2007, 19:42
Whatever happened to personal responsibility?:shocked: The best safety is the one between your ears and behind your eyes, and mechanical devices are supposed to supplement, not to replace, the same.:)

I think the best way is to educate the child at an early age, somewhat like the NRA's Eddie Eagle program, for children will be children, even when they're 40.:supergrin:

i_am_infinity
09-10-2007, 19:45
Maybe we can come up with a letter and somehow find a way to Sen Villar's desk and appeal for the revision of that law. Calling BOG resident Lawyers and mga tiga AFAD :thumbsup:

Django
09-10-2007, 19:50
Sen. Villar has projected the image that he's pro-gun because his nephews are avid shooters and a lot of shooters voted for him.

Sen. Villar is subtly getting the sympathy and votes of anti-gun people because of this bill.

So he gets the votes of pro-gun and anti-gun folks?

Nice.

Taurus
09-10-2007, 21:51
“Section 4. Unlawful Acts - It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, sell, cause to sell or import a firearm that does not have as an integral part a device or devices that:
(1) prevent a child of less than 7 years of age from discharging the firearm by reason of the amount of strength, dexterity, cognitive skill, or other ability required to cause a discharge.
(2) prevent a firearm that has a removable magazine from discharging when the magazine has been removed; and
(3) in the case of a handgun other than a revolver clearly indicate whether the magazine or chamber contains a round of ammunition.”

In my opinion, the bill is objectionable for a number of reasons:

a) The part of the bill that requires a firearm to have and integral part that prevents "a child of less than 7 years of age from discharging the firearm by reason of the amount of strength, dexterity, cognitive skill, or other ability required to cause a discharge" is vague and makes no sense. Every firearm, even those with integral safeties, can be fired by a child. Given enough time, a child playing with a loaded gun will eventually be able to disengage any safety, pull back any hammer, and pull any trigger. At present, I know of no "integral part" that the bill refers to. The ridiculously comprehensive coverage to me effectively bans all firearms.

The term "any other ability required to cause a discharge" is even more vague. What the heck does it mean? Are we talking of mutant powers here? Penal statues that are vague have been struck down for violating the Constitution's due process clause. You can't be charged for an offense if the very elements of the offense are so vague no one knows if you are complying or violating the law.

Besides, the bill doesn't even really address the issues. While there is a prohibition as regards the "manufacture, s[ale], caus[ing] to sell or import" of firearms without these integral parts, there is no prohibition on the buyer from altering, replacing or even removing these so-called integral devices. The bill falls way short of its objective.

b) The bill also criminalizes the distribution of a firearm that does not "prevent a firearm that has a removable magazine from discharging when the magazine has been removed." This portion speaks of firearms in general; which means that both rifles and pistols will be banned from distribution. Also included are most automatic pistols, semi-automatic and bolt-action rifles with magazines. What is left, only the .380 Bersas and BHPs as per Newcomer.

c) In the case of the requirement that "a handgun other than a revolver [should] clearly indicate whether the magazine or chamber contains a round of ammunition" this portion is also absurd. There is no rationale for limiting the prohibition to handguns. Is a shotgun without a chambered-round indicator safer around children? Besides, the provision digresses from the objective of the law. The avowed policy of the law is to “reduce injuries and deaths caused by accidental firearm shootings by children”. Are children expected to know the significance of a chambered-round indicator? Would this provision be of any help if a negligent parent left a loaded Bersa lying around instead of a loaded 1911? Moreover, the exception of revolvers presupposes a revolver without a chambered-round indicator is safer around children than a rifle or an automatic pistol that is also without one. This is absurd.

All the mechanical precautions required by the bill notwithstanding, a child will not be any safer if he or she is able to access a loaded firearm left by a negligent adult. Just recently, I read of a child shooting his cousin with a revolver that he got under his father’s bed pillow. Even if the bill had been fully complied with, the accident would still have occurred.

I think the bill is way off the mark. You don’t hear much news of children being stabbed by other children because of a knife that was carelessly left lying around. Common sense tells every parent to keep the knives out of reach of children. No knife is safe in the hands of a child, and the same empathically goes with firearms. This same sense should be forced upon gunowners by severely penalizing any action involving firearms that could endanger a child.

In some American jurisdictions, there is a crime described as “reckless endangerment” which according to Wikipedia is a “conduct which creates a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another person. Reckless” conduct is conduct that exhibits a culpable disregard of foreseeable consequences to others from the act or omission involved. The accused need not intentionally cause a resulting harm or know that his conduct is substantially certain to cause that result. The ultimate question is whether, under all the circumstances, the accused’s conduct was of that heedless nature that made it actually or imminently dangerous to the rights or safety of others.”.

You want to make the children to be safer? Make the adults pay dearly for their reckless or negligent acts.

antediluvianist
09-10-2007, 22:31
There are cases of people having been shot to death by dogs. It doesn't take much to pull a trigger, not even for a DA revolver.

We must have dog-proof trigger devices.

9MX
09-10-2007, 23:08
Hmmm..given his recent actions or inactions on a lot of popular issues lately, Sen. Villar might find himself at the receiving end when his strategies back fire.


Going back to his bill, assuming its enacted into law, what would happen now to the our FA manufacturers' export business? Since its gonna be unlawful if the pistols are not made as per this bill

ahtsay
09-10-2007, 23:19
Originally posted by Django
New IPSC range commands here in the Phils. when this bill is passed:

1. De-activate integral safety device
2. Load and make ready
3. Stand-by
4. Beep.

:animlol:

Then after shooting...

1. Unload and show clear
2. Insert empty magazine
3. Hammer down
4. Remove empty magazine
5. Holster!

:upeyes:

I bet they'll start selling those solid magazines that cannot be loaded just for this purpose (to bring the hammer down during a match). Why can't politicians just leave everything status quo? Why do they have to pretend they're doing something when in reality they're not???

Mag ma majong nalang ako kung mangyari ito!:soap:

CatsMeow
09-10-2007, 23:27
The new S&W and Taurus revolvers do have those newfangled thingies that must be keyed to activate or deactivate them; heck of a to-do if you lose the key.:supergrin:

Short trigger and no mag safety...let this bill pass and kiss the Glocks goodbye!:shocked:

brawnless
09-10-2007, 23:54
Originally posted by CatsMeow
The new S&W and Taurus revolvers do have those newfangled thingies that must be keyed to activate or deactivate them; heck of a to-do if you lose the key.:supergrin:

Short trigger and no mag safety...let this bill pass and kiss the Glocks goodbye!:shocked:

there is an integral device w/ key and lock in place of the glock plug. so safe pa rin! :supergrin:

“Section 4. Unlawful Acts - It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, sell, cause to sell or import a firearm that does not have as an integral part a device or devices that:
(1) prevent a child of less than 7 years of age from discharging the firearm by reason of the amount of strength, dexterity, cognitive skill, or other ability required to cause a discharge.
(2) prevent a firearm that has a removable magazine from discharging when the magazine has been removed; and
(3) in the case of a handgun other than a revolver clearly indicate whether the magazine or chamber contains a round of ammunition.”

1. This sounds like a firearm with an INTEGRNAL LOCK / KEY set. ie. smith and wesson revolvers. Cognitive skill and dexterity would easily overcome "manual safeties". :upeyes:

CatsMeow
09-11-2007, 00:22
I did see this feature in one of those Glock publications. Can this be retrofitted to older Glocks so that the present inventory will still be saleable?:)

Sabagay the only kid who lives in my place here in Cebu shares my identity...:banana:

horge
09-11-2007, 00:33
Hi Mannix,

A great number of modern handguns of the past 15 years incorporate
an integral trigger lock and/or a magazine disconnect safety.
My prior post should suggest that Philippine manufacturers can find
a way to keep exporting.

Didn't Armscor toy around with using external extractors a year and
a half ago? Easy to go back to that in order to include an intergal
loaded chamber indicator.

The Bill is intrusive and pretends to be a solution to a problem that
does not seem to exist here. It is dangerous more for what might
follow in its wake, than for what it actually contains.


:)
h

grader
09-11-2007, 02:28
this is just another way of getting votes for the next election for whatever position it may be.

All politicians make laws that will always be in their best interests. Enough said, otherwise this will be a political forum not a gun forum.

brawnless
09-11-2007, 02:50
does this apply to the police and military as well? :supergrin:

stop all pending orders for 5.56, .38 special na lang muna! :banana:

CatsMeow
09-11-2007, 03:08
Originally posted by grader
this is just another way of getting votes for the next election for whatever position it may be.

All politicians make laws that will always be in their best interests. Enough said, otherwise this will be a political forum not a gun forum.

But we vote...:hugs:

On the subject of gun safeties, there was a recent story here in Cebu about a BG who managed to grab a cop's issue Beretta, but couldn't shoot the cop with it because the safety was on. BG ended up getting shot by the cop's colleague...:)

maskytrading
09-11-2007, 03:50
(QUOTE)Originally posted by Allegra....He's not anti gun , his nephews were very avid shooters and a lot of shooters supported him when he first ran for the senate


[QUOTE]Originally posted by New_comer
The mere fact that he entertained the thought of introducing these *stupid* restrictions that would limit the variety of our choices and increase the likelihood of *gun failure* when you most need it, is proof positive that he doesn't share the view of his nephews.
I suggest that you convince your shooting buddies on what their uncle is trying to do. But I doubt he'll listen, now that we know he's anti-gun by nature. :devilish:

Villar is not anti-gun as he is not for the banning of firearms ...he is just pro-gun regulation:upeyes:

st. matthew
09-11-2007, 06:40
guys,approved na ba itong bill na to?:shocked:

nakakatakot yan ah, baka isunod nya na dapat i-surrender ng mga gun owners ang mga firearms nila na walang lock or safety na gusto nya
:sad:

9MX
09-11-2007, 17:45
horge,

i was thinking that the competitiveness armscor and other pinoy fa exporter will be affected in the international market which doesn't require the internal lock

New_comer
09-11-2007, 18:29
Originally posted by maskytrading
Villar is not anti-gun as he is not for the banning of firearms ...he is just pro-gun regulation:upeyes:
Originally posted by Allegra
....He's not anti gun , his nephews were very avid shooters and a lot of shooters supported him when he first ran for the senate


A bill that renders 80-90% of all the guns in circulation unsuitable for private ownership is the beginning of a massive clean-up drive that would only lead to the total disarming of the populace. If this were passed, do you believe in your heart that he and his cohorts would stop right there? When will we say "Enough!"? When all kinds of locks have been mandated to be incorporated into the firearms that would practically make them next to useless when we most need them? Do you fancy shooting a gun with a 50-lb trigger while a BG is about to gut you like a fish? :upeyes:

Once he gets away with this, he could get away with anything! In the interest of children? Excuse me... I've understood the responsibility of owning firearms since I was a little boy, thanks to the education my father gave me as regards firearm ownership and its accompanying responsibilities. We don't need smart-ass senators to tell us what is or what is not right for us. That's why we're free men, not imbecilic slaves! Whoever believes that this Villar or his cohorts have a monopoly of righteousness and wisdom is a stupid fool! :brickwall: :upeyes:

After this, imagine how easy it would be to introduce new standards that would probably even make slingshots deadly weapons. :shocked: :brickwall:

CatsMeow
09-11-2007, 20:24
Originally posted by i_am_infinity
Maybe we can come up with a letter and somehow find a way to Sen Villar's desk and appeal for the revision of that law. Calling BOG resident Lawyers and mga tiga AFAD :thumbsup:

Hokay, since I'm a lawyer...here goes...


Dear Mr. Villar,

We are writing you to express our deep concern regarding Senate Bill No. 241 , more particularly Section 4 of which reads as follows:“Section 4. Unlawful Acts - It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, sell, cause to sell or import a firearm that does not have as an integral part a device or devices that:
(1) prevent a child of less than 7 years of age from discharging the firearm by reason of the amount of strength, dexterity, cognitive skill, or other ability required to cause a discharge.
(2) prevent a firearm that has a removable magazine from discharging when the magazine has been removed; and
(3) in the case of a handgun other than a revolver clearly indicate whether the magazine or chamber contains a round of ammunition.”

First of all, we would like to make it clear that we share your concern regarding our children, for we gunowners do have children of our own and we don't want to see them shot with the firearms we lawfully keep, anymore than you do.

We however believe that firearms safety is a matter of personal responsibility duly reinforced by the proper education, and that any mechanical devices on the firearm are intended to assist in said firearms safety, and not a substitute for proper gun handling and storage. For, after all, a firearm is an inanimate object which is incapable of going off by itself, except by outside human manipulation and intervention.

As such, the bill you are introducing is a poor substitute for proper gun handling and storage, and proper education, as it seeks to impose a mechanical solution to what should have already been in place as part of a gun owner's education.

Here are our objections to each of the aforementioned provisions in your bill:

"It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, sell, cause to sell or import a firearm that does not have as an integral part a device or devices that:
(1) prevent a child of less than 7 years of age from discharging the firearm by reason of the amount of strength, dexterity, cognitive skill, or other ability required to cause a discharge."

Virtually all the weapons in this country, up to and including the artillery used by the Armed Forces of the Philippines, can be discharged with a force twenty (20) pounds or less exerted on the trigger. A child weighing twice that can easily do it. {N.B. BoG pediatricians please confirm:))

Are you going to ban further acquisitions of weaponry by the AFP just because a child is capable of discharging them?

Also, most if not all pistols, revolvers, and long arms in the possession of civilians have trigger pulls less than fifteen (15) pounds, which a child, unless seriously malnourished or palsied, is quite capable of doing.

The end result of this would be the ban on further sales of weapons, from the smallest pistol up, unless these have triggers that are too heavy to be manipulated by a reasonably healthy child, but in turn would result in a serious degradation of accuracy and effectiveness so that they would be more effective as impact, rather than point, weapons. It would not do to end up shooting one's child rather than one's target or attacker just because the child-proof trigger made the shot go wild.

Also, in this day and age of PS2, Nintendo and online games, would you think a child does not have such cognitive skill and dexterity so that he is incapable of figuring out a firearm's safety?

In a British Army open house some years ago, an ultra-modern Challenger main battle tank had to go to the shop for repairs; the children allowed inside had caused so much damage to the equipment inside which were supposed to withstand the rigors of battle.

As such, this provision is clearly unworkable and you would do well not to give it any further consideration.

"(2) prevent a firearm that has a removable magazine from discharging when the magazine has been removed;"

How many firearms on the market have this safety, more commonly known as the "magazine disconnect"? We can count them on our fingers, more notably Smith and Wesson pistols, and Browning Hi-Powers. Virtually all long arms, including assault rifles presently existing or on the drawing board, don't have this.

This, again, is a mechanical solution to what should have already been ingrained in a gun owner's mind, that is, that a self-loading firearm is rendered incapable of firing only when the magazine is removed AND the chamber is checked to see if there is a round remaining.

Again you will be virtually killing all further small arms acquisitions by the AFP, and restrict any further firearms acquisitions by civilians only to those aforementioned manufacturers. None of the local manufacturers make firearms with this feature; so much for "buying Filipino".

"(3) in the case of a handgun other than a revolver clearly indicate whether the magazine or chamber contains a round of ammunition.”

Why bother with this provision? Most modern semiautomatic pistols already have this feature. Also, this is likewise a poor mechanical substitute for what should have been ingrained in a gun owner's mind, that is, the first rule of firearms safety: "ALL GUNS ARE LOADED". Thus if the slide is closed, always assume there's a round in the chamber until you determine otherwise!

In fine, Mr. Villar, we have raised our concerns regarding your bill because we have deemed it to be a superfluity at best and clearly unworkable and unfair at worst. All your concerns regarding children could easily be addressed, not by putting in some more features on a firearm, but by a simple padlocked gun case or a safe one can easily purchase at National Bookstore. Also, it has been proven that proper firearms education has saved more lives, children or adult, than a child-proof trigger.

It will be up for you, Mr. Villar, to consider or ignore this letter. But if you do the latter, rest assured that we will remember it come next election, for although we may be in the minority of the population, WE VOTE.

Thank you very much.

BoG

Please feel free to copy and edit the same.

Thanks!:hugs:

bunganga
09-12-2007, 02:40
I don't think a significant number of our politicians really hate guns. In fact I believe almost all of them love guns just as much as they love money and wealth.

It's just that they want this privelege just for them-vip-selves.

batangueno
09-12-2007, 04:49
CatsMeow :thumbsup:

casmot
09-12-2007, 05:54
:thumbsup: for CatsMeow

Mang Danny
09-12-2007, 10:46
Can you guys post Villar's email address? Siguro naman may email sila sa opisina. Kung wala, yung work address niya para mapadalhan siya ng san katutak na messages.

mikey177
09-12-2007, 20:17
From the Senate web site:

Senator Manny Villar

Senate Office:
Rm. 602 GSIS Bldg., Financial Center, Roxas Blvd., Pasay City
Trunk Lines: (632) 552-6601 to 80 loc. 6507 - 09 / 6511
Direct Line: (632) 552-6715
Fax No.: (632) 552-6734
Email: mb_villar at yahoo.com
Website: www.mannyvillar.com.ph

Extension Office:
311 Pacific Place Cond., Ortigas Pasig
Tel. Nos.: (632) 634-7042 / 37
Fax No.: (632) 634-7033

Edited to add: There is also a feedback form on Villar's personal web site --> http://www.mannyvillar.com.ph/contact.html

mikey177
09-12-2007, 20:28
I was browsing through the list of bills filed by Villar (http://www.mannyvillar.com.ph/bills.html) when I saw two items that aroused my interest:

SBN-1022 "AN ACT TO PROHIBIT FIREARMS ESPECIALLY USEFUL TO TERRORISTS"

and

SBN-1133 "AN ACT TO PREVENT CHILDREN'S ACCESS TO FIREARMS"

However, I couldn't find the text of these bills on either the Senate web site or Villar's. Does anyone know how we could get a soft copy of these? In particular, the "Act to Prohibit Firearms Especially Useful to Terrorists" has me intrigued.

PMMA97
09-12-2007, 20:59
Page 1
THIRTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE First Regular Session
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPNES SENATE

INTRODUCED BY HON. MANUEL B.VILLAR JR.
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Presidential Decree No. 1866 which codifies laws on firearm, or explosives does not contain a provision to make it unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver,possess, transfer, or receive firearms that are not detectable by metal detectors used by police and military authorities.The manufacture, importation and sale of such undetectable firearms contribute to the ever increasing crime rate in the country. If these undetectable firearms will not be prohibited,metal detectors, more particularly those being used in airports for public security and safely, will be of no purpose at all.
This bill seeks to reduce if not totally eliminate the crimes and the resulting deaths and injuries through the use of such undetectable firearms.

Page 2
THIRTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILLPPINES
First Regular Session SENATE
INTRODUCED BY HON. MANUEL B. VILLAR JR.

AN ACT TO PROHIBIT FIREARMS ESPECIALLY USEFUL TO TERRORISTS
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the “Undetectable Firearms Act.”
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to protect public security and safety by prohibiting certain firearms especially useful to terrorists.
Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. For purposes of this Act, the term:
(A) “Major component” means with respect to a firearm,
the barrel, the slide or cylinder,to the frame or receiver of the firearms;
(B)“Firearm”.does not include the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) “Security Exemplar” means an object, to be fabricated at the direction of the Secretary of the national Defense, that is-
(i)
constructed of, during the 12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(ii)
suitable for testing and calibrating metal detectors
Sec 4. Prohibitions. It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, posses, transfer, or receive any firearm-
(A) that, after the removal of grips, stocks and magazines, is not detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated an operated to detect the Security Exemplar;

Page 3
(B)any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the type of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does nor generated an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.

Sec. 5. Penalty. Any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine of not less than P50,OOO.OO or imprisonment of not less than three(3)months or both at the discretion of the court. If the offense is committed by a corporation, trust,firm,partnership or association or other entity, the penalty shall be imposed upon the guilty officer or officer of such corporation, trust,firm,partnership or association or entity.
Sec. 6. Separability Clause, If any provision or part tereof, is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the law or the provision not otherwise affected shall remain valid and subsisting.
Sec. 7. Repealing Clause. Any law, presidential decree, or issuance, executive order,letter of instruction, administrative order, rule and regulation not contrary to or inconsistent with,the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly.
Sec. 8 Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication
in at least two(2) newspaper of general circulation.

PMMA97
09-12-2007, 21:01
He also authored "An Act Requiring Availability of Handguns only to Persons With Demonstrated Knowledge and Skill in Their Safe Use, Maintenance and Storage"

But it's all Greek to me :supergrin:

mikey177
09-12-2007, 21:29
Thanks for posting the text of that other bill, PMMA97.

I guess all our guns are safe from its coverage, except if you're lucky enough to own one of those ceramic guns like the Glock 7 from Die Hard 2 :supergrin:

CatsMeow
09-12-2007, 21:45
Originally posted by PMMA97
Page 1
THIRTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE First Regular Session
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPNES SENATE

INTRODUCED BY HON. MANUEL B.VILLAR JR.
EXPLANATORY NOTE
Presidential Decree No. 1866 which codifies laws on firearm, or explosives does not contain a provision to make it unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver,possess, transfer, or receive firearms that are not detectable by metal detectors used by police and military authorities.The manufacture, importation and sale of such undetectable firearms contribute to the ever increasing crime rate in the country. If these undetectable firearms will not be prohibited,metal detectors, more particularly those being used in airports for public security and safely, will be of no purpose at all.
This bill seeks to reduce if not totally eliminate the crimes and the resulting deaths and injuries through the use of such undetectable firearms.

Page 2
THIRTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILLPPINES
First Regular Session SENATE
INTRODUCED BY HON. MANUEL B. VILLAR JR.

AN ACT TO PROHIBIT FIREARMS ESPECIALLY USEFUL TO TERRORISTS
Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Short Title. This Act may be cited as the “Undetectable Firearms Act.”
Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared the policy of the State to protect public security and safety by prohibiting certain firearms especially useful to terrorists.
Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. For purposes of this Act, the term:
(A) “Major component” means with respect to a firearm,
the barrel, the slide or cylinder,to the frame or receiver of the firearms;
(B)“Firearm”.does not include the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) “Security Exemplar” means an object, to be fabricated at the direction of the Secretary of the national Defense, that is-
(i)
constructed of, during the 12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act; and
(ii)
suitable for testing and calibrating metal detectors
Sec 4. Prohibitions. It shall be unlawful for any person to manufacture, import, sell, ship, deliver, posses, transfer, or receive any firearm-
(A) that, after the removal of grips, stocks and magazines, is not detectable as the Security Exemplar, by walk-through metal detectors calibrated an operated to detect the Security Exemplar;

Page 3
(B)any major component of which, when subjected to inspection by the type of x-ray machines commonly used at airports, does nor generated an image that accurately depicts the shape of the component.

Sec. 5. Penalty. Any violation of this Act shall be punished with a fine of not less than P50,OOO.OO or imprisonment of not less than three(3)months or both at the discretion of the court. If the offense is committed by a corporation, trust,firm,partnership or association or other entity, the penalty shall be imposed upon the guilty officer or officer of such corporation, trust,firm,partnership or association or entity.
Sec. 6. Separability Clause, If any provision or part tereof, is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the law or the provision not otherwise affected shall remain valid and subsisting.
Sec. 7. Repealing Clause. Any law, presidential decree, or issuance, executive order,letter of instruction, administrative order, rule and regulation not contrary to or inconsistent with,the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly.
Sec. 8 Effectivity Clause. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication
in at least two(2) newspaper of general circulation.

It makes me wonder if this was copied from one of those bills in the US Congress specifically targeting "plastic guns", which never made it...:odie:

Still, if one were minded to make the gun used in "In The Line of Fire":supergrin:

jimbullet
09-13-2007, 18:41
Lets see, maybe its time for more fees.

Aside from basic markmanship course, everyone maybe will be required for advance markmanship course and probably when your firearm is considered high powered, maybe there will be a highpowered shooting training course and all of these certificates must be submitted to FED to process your gun license....

Allegra
09-13-2007, 19:33
Originally posted by jimbullet
Lets see, maybe its time for more fees.

Aside from basic markmanship course, everyone maybe will be required for advance markmanship course and probably when your firearm is considered high powered, maybe there will be a highpowered shooting training course and all of these certificates must be submitted to FED to process your gun license....


1 marksmanship course nalang , make it very hard
That would get rid of the undesirables

CatsMeow
09-13-2007, 20:06
When I was applying for a PTC some years ago when I was stationed in Manila, one requirement was for some sort of qualification, first the theoretical gun-handling seminar, then the live-fire. Gun-handling was old-hat, but you wouldn't believe some gun owners taking the same who didn't know how to handle a firearm safely; routinely violated the first three rules!:shocked:

I did my live fire at the PBDionisio range in Quezon City (don't know how to find it again, it's so hidden). I signed up for three: revolver, pistol, and shotgun (the latter for the heck of it since I don't own one). Revolver, an ancient Arminius with wobbly plastic grips, old hat since my first carry gun was a Taurus snubby that barked and kicked more; pistol, a CZ-75, felt and shot great! Then the shotgun, two rounds of birdshot; my first time so I remembered both.:supergrin:

As such, I'm convinced that the only gun law that should be allowed should only provide that each gun-owner at the very least prove, with the appropriate certificate, that he can handle firearms safely, and more importantly, that he can shoot straight!:thumbsup: It wouldn't do to put somebody who can't drive, behind the wheel, no more than to put a gun in the hands of somebody who's such a boloman that he not only misses the target, but the backstop as well.:supergrin:

jimbullet
09-15-2007, 15:58
They also use the basic markmanship for those who wants to possess guns in their homes. I saw one who was already in his late 50's and very frail...Could not even put a single bullet into the A zone at 7 meters.

Extortion or not - he had to repeatedly shoot it and pay like 3 times for the ammo, they say.

isuzu
09-15-2007, 16:33
What would have been useful to a lot of us is for him to file a bill requiring vehicles to be equipped with Daytime Driving Lights.

And if he is really concerned with children's safety, he should have filed a bill requiring children 8 years old and below to be seated in either a booster or a child's seat.

A lot of Filipinos would have appreciated this.

Allegra
09-15-2007, 16:49
I'm thinking 5 shots on the A zone in eeeerrr....7sec would be enough? Plus gun handling and safety tests of course
Make the test more stringent

jimbullet
09-15-2007, 17:07
That would be ordinary for us IPSC and IDPA shooters, who regularly handle firearms, but for those who dont, and majority of those who simply possess firearms at home dont, will find it difficult if not close to impossible.

I dont mind making it more stringent, but just a thought for those who simply possess firearms. If you make it stringent for those non active shooters, it will prompt non renewals and defeat government drive to register unlicensed or even expired licenses.

My 2 cents..

Allegra
09-15-2007, 17:27
hehe I bet most IPSC shooters dito satin wouldnt even pass
Hindi naman agad. Give people a year or 2 to train

The same way that you dont see very many blackbelts bullying and beating people up , you dont see skilled shooters waving their gun around sa traffic altercations , or drunkenly shoot their guns in the air.....ok so maybe not the latter hehe

I always see it sa gunclub dito
Taga bundok na LGOs acting like cowboys in the range
But when natuto na , they suddenly act very responsibly , only shooting people who deserve it

antediluvianist
09-15-2007, 17:43
"It makes me wonder if this was copied from one of those bills in the US Congress "

If so, that would be pretty normal. There was a corporate governance-related bill introduced here that was 99.9%, word-for-word, the same as the text of an American law. The only difference was that somewhere a semicolon had been changed to a colon , but that was probably a typo.

It's an easy and lazy way for a congressman to introduce a bill (in an attempt to try to show that he is doing something.)

tagaykoyan
09-15-2007, 19:50
don't worry guys, i don't think the lower house would pass a counterpart bill. gun-toting sonofa%#@ congressmen wouldn't allow it, i'm sure:thumbsup:

New_comer
09-15-2007, 20:25
Originally posted by antediluvianist
"It makes me wonder if this was copied from one of those bills in the US Congress "

If so, that would be pretty normal. There was a corporate governance-related bill introduced here that was 99.9%, word-for-word, the same as the text of an American law. The only difference was that somewhere a semicolon had been changed to a colon , but that was probably a typo.

It's an easy and lazy way for a congressman to introduce a bill (in an attempt to try to show that he is doing something.)
Aren't Villar and other feeble minded lawmakers violating international intellectual copyright laws by doing that? :shocked:

I hope malaman ito ni Mike Enriquez para hiyain sila on-air, para matauhan. :supergrin:

CatsMeow
09-15-2007, 23:42
Originally posted by isuzu
What would have been useful to a lot of us is for him to file a bill requiring vehicles to be equipped with Daytime Driving Lights.

And if he is really concerned with children's safety, he should have filed a bill requiring children 8 years old and below to be seated in either a booster or a child's seat.

A lot of Filipinos would have appreciated this.

A lot of motorcyclists here in Cebu and Dumaguete leave their headlights on even during the daytime. Hard not to notice them, thus very safe on their part. On the other hand, a lot more motorcyclists don't even bother with any lights, even at night, which is most irresponsible.:upeyes:

The only Daytime Driving Lights I ever saw here were on Chevy and GMC Suburbans. Not even the Ford Expeditions have them.

I recall that bill regarding alleged non-metallic firearms aped by Villar was drafted by some US senator, Metzenbaum I think, who held up as an example the Glock. Somebody should tell him to emulate the Chinese, who copy only what actually works and the best!:thumbsup: