rifle ownership [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : rifle ownership


userfriendly
04-29-2008, 09:51
Ano caliber ng rifles or carbine na legal to own sa Pinas? .22 lr lang ba o pwede ang .22 magnum, 9mm, .38, .357 etc..
Yung no need for ammnesty.

3kings
04-29-2008, 15:36
Ano caliber ng rifles or carbine na legal to own sa Pinas? .22 lr lang ba o pwede ang .22 magnum, 9mm, .38, .357 etc..
Yung no need for ammnesty.

i think any rifle less than 50cal. so that includes among others the favorites 5.56, 7.62, etc.

amnesty by the way are for the loose f/a irregardless of caliber

Frontsight68
04-29-2008, 19:52
Strictly speaking its just rimfire rifles you could legally own in the Philippines

But it has been discretionary many times over in the past that it seems like it really depends on who is the Chief PNP and Chief FED and what their outlook on firearms are.

Frontsight

mikey177
04-29-2008, 21:34
What about rifles that fire pistol calibers like 9mm or .357 Magnum? Can these be legally purchased by civilians without need of having to wait for an amnesty period?

9MX
04-29-2008, 22:18
Strictly speaking its just rimfire rifles you could legally own in the Philippines

But it has been discretionary many times over in the past that it seems like it really depends on who is the Chief PNP and Chief FED and what their outlook on firearms are.

Frontsight

actually,erap ammended that law by way of an EO. as long as the rifle is not anti-crew (whatever that means) or anti-tank, you can own it.

BrassKnuckle
04-29-2008, 22:59
actually,erap ammended that law by way of an EO. as long as the rifle is not anti-crew (whatever that means) or anti-tank, you can own it.

Is this EO still in effect? If I remember right, select fire weapons were also not allowed for civilian ownership regardless of caliber.

Is there a provision that we can quote if a store insists that a particlar firearm is for law enforcement and military sales only?

9MX
04-29-2008, 23:58
Is this EO still in effect? If I remember right, select fire weapons were also not allowed for civilian ownership regardless of caliber.

Is there a provision that we can quote if a store insists that a particlar firearm is for law enforcement and military sales only?

Ibelieve it is still in effect. My Ar-15 is licensed and i have a valid PTT

What happened was GMA banned the issuing of PTCs and PTTs for HPRs after the roadrage shooting of a student in Makati and the assassination of Ex-Rep Henry Lanot in Pasig. What is ironic is that both incidents involved the use of a pistol.

darwin25
04-30-2008, 00:00
actually,erap ammended that law by way of an EO. as long as the rifle is not anti-crew (whatever that means) or anti-tank, you can own it.

as long as not crew-served yata or anti-tank yun nasa provision

9MX
04-30-2008, 02:33
as long as not crew-served yata or anti-tank yun nasa provision


you may be right, pero ano din ang ibig sabihin ng crew-served?

CatsMeow
04-30-2008, 03:32
A crew-served weapon requires at least a two-man crew to be effective. Thus, Rambo notwithstanding, an M60 light machine gun, or any belt-fed light machine gun for that matter, requires not solely the gunner, but also an assistant gunner / loader / ammo bearer to keep the gun fed with belts while the gunner concentrates on shooting. Hard to be effective if the gunner also has to load the M60 when the belt runs out. Besides, the gunner can only carry so much belted 7.62. And when barrel-changing time comes, the gunner needs an extra set of hands. Such guns need crews, hence crew-served.

Look at any machine gun nest and see that the gunner is never alone. There are usually two more guys with him.

I also saw in YouTube a British Bren light machine gun being fired. While it is magazine-fed, somebody has to keep it supplied with fresh mags.

As such, we can rule out light and heavy machine guns, as well as the automatic grenade launcher we see on top of our armored vehicles.

As an aside, while the UH-60 Blackhawk helicopter may be flown by only one pilot, it needs two, plus the crew chief, to be most effective.

jimbullet
04-30-2008, 03:33
I suppose one can own a 308 Win, which could be under club ownership.

9MX
04-30-2008, 04:13
catsmeow,

ty for the info!

gen1
04-30-2008, 05:06
it civvys can own them, how come they only allow leos at the booths of HPRs during the SM gunshows ?

pipo
04-30-2008, 06:51
I inquired at twin pines last year about their M14 and AK47. Said those were only for LEO, Military and LOcal governments????

9MX
04-30-2008, 07:45
it civvys can own them, how come they only allow leos at the booths of HPRs during the SM gunshows ?

i don't have an answer to that. but i have practiced with civilians with licensed ak-47s and m-14

Frontsight68
04-30-2008, 09:34
Because it really is very much discretionary regardless of whatever E.O. is in effect.

Congress will have to draft a new law for this situation to change. It is still the old law which is being used by the PNP as basis for their policies.

All the M14's or AK's that were allowed to be sold and licensed to civilians was thru a special consideration. Because when these high powered firearms first came in, the dealers were able to convince FED officials to allow civilians to purchase these, but when the leadership changed it was no longer allowed.

But if you have the right friends you can still get approval to buy these high powered firearms. Like I said, its discretionary.

Frontsight

3kings
04-30-2008, 15:19
But if you have the right friends you can still get approval to buy these high powered firearms. Like I said, its discretionary.

Frontsight

kaya nga im always friendly :wavey: dami friends the happier di ba?

Frontsight68
04-30-2008, 20:24
i know i know....maybe we can all be friends and make everyone very happy:cool:

horge
04-30-2008, 21:06
:)

Last I heard...
Subject to DG-PNP discretion, Filipino citizens meeting standard requirements
can own ANY firearm short of light machineguns (LMGs), recoilless rifles, or
crew-served weapons (CSW, think: howitzers, HMG's etc. which require a crew to operate)

The underlined part is key, and badly misunderstood by both the public and the PNP.
It is important to know that PNP-FED cannot issue a circular or ordinance, re-setting everything
to a nationwide limitation to (say) .22LR: Kasi, E.O. 194 s'2000 is still AFAIK current,
and it obliterates all caliber restrictions up to the limits stated in the first paragraph above.

Even if PNP "case-to-case" denies every single schmuck who comes in to reg/license a
new battle rifle (which efects a de facto nationwide limit) that's still different from them
trying to presscon or decree some new "from here on, and for everyone" limit on caliber,
before actual future applicants walk in to be "discretioned" to heck.

PNP has no power to amend current law,* and apparently once got smacked down for trying:
A couple of years ago, PNP-FED tried to restrict firearm ownership to 10 guns per person
for EVERYONE, announcing it on TV (T.S.I.P.) , etc... However, E.O. 164 s'1999
specifically allows up to 15 sidearms and 6 rifles per legit Filipino,** or even more,
subject to DG-PNP discretion. For the conflict with this E.O., the PNP's pretense at
"legislative amendment" for a 10-firearm limitation did not prosper.

"DG-PNP discretion" in the above EO is clearly to serve only only to increase, but never decrease
a Filipino's firearm privileges re: quantity of firearms permitted. PNP can deny someone outright,
regardless of firearm type/quantity, as is its madate as implementing aency, but not before that
person walks in through PNP-FED's doors to actually file an application.

Anyway...
Are those E.O.'s (164 and 194) still current? I think so, since without them, we could be back
to the Marcos era "only 1 handgun .38 cal and 1 rifle .22LR (or escopeta 12ga) each", which
in turn would dry up FED-PNP's revenue stream.

However...
Pres.GMA seems to have racked up quite a few internal ('secret') E.O.'s, given apparent
gaps in the record that OOP/OPS is obligated to maintain. It is thus difficult to state which
previous Presidential issuances have been amended or repealed.

h.

*PNP-FED can certainly advise firearm dealers not to even bother stocking HPR's over X caliber, because
PNP-FED has no intentions of ever allowing a single one of those babies through to reg/licensing; and this is why
a lot of gun stores often say this thing or that is illegal according to the PNP, but then cannot ever cite a legal document
to back up their position.

**pendent on gun club membership, which is taken to be cause indicatory of participation in competitive sport shooting,
the promotion which is the whole aim of EO 164. That other EO mentioned, EO 194, focuses individual and national security
and sees a better-armed citizenry as the answer.

isuzu
05-01-2008, 20:25
I hope that civilians would eventually be allowed to own pistol-caliber carbines/rifles, PROVIDED they are ONLY in Semi-Auto mode and the firing mechanism CANNOT be converted into Select-Fire and/or Full-Auto mode.

There are nice pistol-caliber carbines/rifles such as the discontinued Ruger PCRs, M-1 Carbines which are now made by Thompson, and lever-type rifles which are offered by Marlin.

horge
05-01-2008, 21:29
I hope that civilians would eventually be allowed to own pistol-caliber carbines/rifles, PROVIDED they are ONLY in Semi-Auto mode and the firing mechanism CANNOT be converted into Select-Fire and/or Full-Auto mode.

:)

Already permitted, with no apparent concern for ease-of-conversion.
Select-fire subguns are currently being amnesty-licensed.
Or ...are you wishing select-fire be banned once again?

Allegra
05-01-2008, 22:26
kaya nga im always friendly :wavey: dami friends the happier di ba?


Kaso , a forum where everybody agrees w/ one another becomes very boring :)
Nothing to discuss

CatsMeow
05-02-2008, 00:13
Just an example of we CAN'T own... but then ammo is expensive so I don't really mind.

Bren gun crew:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA9JP_DHVKM

BrassKnuckle
05-02-2008, 06:53
:)

Already permitted, with no apparent concern for ease-of-conversion.
Select-fire subguns are currently being amnesty-licensed.
Or ...are you wishing select-fire be banned once again?

If a person qualifies for firearm ownership that implies that he/she is a stable-minded non-drug-dependent law-abiding citizen. I don't see why allowing the same person to own a select-fire weapon can be a problem.

Will that selector switch turn him/her into a bad guy? :dunno:

horge
05-02-2008, 07:48
Exactly my point, BrassKnuckle :)

Admittedly, we are, both of us, on shaky ground because:

1. A battle rifle is far deadlier in the wrong hands, than a pistol.... AND (here's the kicker)...

2. The stipulated licensing process, mangled in actual practice, sometimes does NOTHING to
establish that an applicant IS a "stable-minded, non-drug-dependent, law-abiding citizen".

Rather than fix the process so that it properly screens applicants, which would mean fewer
approvals and thus less licensing revenue, the PNP has opted for effectively denying
ALL applicants these more-dangerous automatics, even though Executive Order 194 says
we Filipinos ought to be able to buy, license and keep 'em.

Reducing the revenue base aside, properly applying a good screening process would
also cut deeply into "fixer" revenue, which just HAS to have been profiting some
individuals within the PNP. If no one inside was playing crooked, how could "non-appearance"
license applications and renewals ever have prospered?

It's been all about money:
For the sake of more licensing revenue, PNP wants regular amnesties which effect a 180-degree
turnaround in the PNP policy of autorifle restriction: under these nearly semiannual amnesties,
you can actually get an AK-47, M4 or MP5 registered and licensed!!

I don't even want to get started on the mess that ballistic fingerprinting is, given the way
it is structured. Suffice to say that the law has to be observed by its enforcers. If they instead
serve and protect the god of maximum revenue, then a "culture of shifting expediency" is sustained.
Others woud call that lawlessness, corruption and gross ineptitude.

The PNP leadership has made good strides very recently to reduce some of the problems,
particularly by beginning to decentralize the licensing process, which I hope eventually closes
the "provincial-applicant" loophole that has been so abused by "non-appearance" fixers.

-=-=-

One unrelated point, addressed to Frontsight,
Congress has NOT been the traditional author of firearms laws, insofar as citizens'
rights/privileges to own firearms are concerned. That has instead traditionally
been the role, since as far back as 1767, of the Chief Executive.

NOT the Real Audiencia (though the Gobernador general was its head),
not the National Assembly, not Batasan, nor (again) the present-day Congress.

This is simply because there is no codified RKBA (right to keep and bear arms) here
in the Philippines. It's not in our Constitution and therefore firearms ownership has fallen to
Administrative purview, just like Drivers' Licenses, cedulas, or Building Permits.
Congress gets involved where penal prescriptions for firearm-related crimes
are concerned, because tweaking the national Penal Code is something Congress has
traditionally guarded as ITS turf.

In short --unless the Constitution is amended to include an RKBA, it isn't Congress
we should keep an eye on for new developments in firearm "law". It is rather, the
Office of the Chief Executive, which issues EO's and AO's on the matter, that needs
fuller monitoring.

h.

Frontsight68
05-02-2008, 10:15
Hi Horge

I beg to disagree. PD 1866 is a law and not an executive or adminitrative order. Although it was enacted by the Chief Executive (Marcos), it was done so under his authority to create new laws under martial law. This is still the backbone of all our firearms policies.

The Chief executive may change policies but laws must be enacted by congress regardless of whether the Constitution is silent on a specific issue like firearms ownership. Congress at anytime can amend this law and issue specific guidelines if it so desires. These guidelines can include anything and everything that Congress can think of including quantity, calibers, or what type each individual can own. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack in political will for this to progress.

Frontsight

horge
05-02-2008, 17:49
Hi Frontsight, :)

P.D. 1866 is a Presidential Decree that deals precisely as I said, with
penal prescriptions for crimes commited involving firearms.
Penal Code na ang pinakiki-alaman niyan, which is why, despite its Executive
authorship (understandable given the .gov system in 1983!), tweaking it is
properly Congress' territory today.

I assure you, P.D. 1866 is NOT "the backbone of all our firearms policies".

Neither P.D. 1866 (of 1983), nor its Congressionally authored tweak,
R.A. 8294 (of 1997) have ANYTHING to say about the core issue of
what firearm types or quantities ought to be allowed to civilians for
their personal use, do they?

Neither do those documents say ANYTHING about licensing/registration
of firearms, nor the manner in which such is to be carried out, nor who
is supposed to be running such a show, no?

Those matters, of what (and how many) firearms can be privately owned,
and the terms under which such firearm ownership is to be allowed,
have always been deemed an ADMINISTRATIVE issue. Again, this is in large
part because, like driving a car or building a house, it isn't really based on
anything explicitly exalted in our various Constitutions.

Kaya nga Administrative Branch conceit 'yan, and not Legislative.

Thus the bottom line, that the agency to watch for changes in firearm law
as it pertains to what we can own (thread topic) isn't Congress.
It is the Office of the President, and unfortunately, (because they don't take
to heart previous OOP issuances, based aparently on concern over income)
the implementing agency as well: the PNP-FED.


:)
Cheers,
h.

horge
05-02-2008, 18:30
As an aside... to those concerned about our future ownership of guns


If you want expanded, or at least undiminished privileges as a Firearm Owner,
then choose the next several Presidents very carefully.

If you want to see a Constitutional Right To Keep and Bear Arms, like
our Americans friends have (but are increasingly denied), then elect your
Congressmen and Senators carefully.

:)
h.

maskytrading
05-03-2008, 01:23
actually,erap ammended that law by way of an EO. as long as the rifle is not anti-crew (whatever that means) or anti-tank, you can own it.

Below is a lifted portion of EO 194 issued by Erap in 2K...which is imo quite clear and self-explanatory...
1.crew served-more than 1 person operates the firearm
2.light antitank weapon- 20MM cannon and up, 50BMG debatable because USAFs does not use a 50BMG against battle tanks...maybe against APCs only in the Gulf war
3.Light Machine Guns-whether it is 5.56 or 7.62 or 50BMG for as long it is belt fed
4.anti-tank/personnel recoiless rifles or bazookas- those weapons with two holes :supergrin:(front and back)

However, at the end of the day, it is still a question of luck and/or maybe connections; throw in some additional fees, also :whistling: to get your HPR duly licensed with either a PTT or PTC

IMO, this EO194 is still in effect.

[B] Section 2. Henceforth, all citizens of the Philippines may possess firearms of any type and/or caliber; Provided that such firearms are not classified as crew-served weapons (CSWs), light anti-tank weapons (LAWs), light machine guns (LMGs), anti-tank and anti-personnel recoilless rifles, bazookas, etc.; Provided further that such firearms are test-fired for ballistics, stenciled and properly licensed.

gen1
05-03-2008, 07:56
pwde ba sa PTC ang rifle ?

hindi ba medyo mahirap i-conceal carry ? :supergrin:

(hey is that an M4 iwb or are you just happy to see me) :supergrin:

horge
05-03-2008, 18:09
pwde ba sa PTC ang rifle ?
hindi ba medyo mahirap i-conceal carry ? :supergrin:
(hey is that an M4 iwb or are you just happy to see me) :supergrin:

Probably why EO194 excluded CSW's and recoilless rifles...
Like, just try IWBng those.

:supergrin:

isuzu
05-03-2008, 19:42
:)

Already permitted, with no apparent concern for ease-of-conversion.
Select-fire subguns are currently being amnesty-licensed.
Or ...are you wishing select-fire be banned once again?

Horge,

What I meant in my post for pistol-caliber rifles/carbines that would only be allowed as "semi-auto only" is for brand new ones that are being sold by dealers. :)

horge
05-04-2008, 01:50
Hi isuzu :)
I believe I understood you correctly

Under present law, those same dealers should be selling select fire subguns.
However, they aren't selling 'em, because they know FED's current and
discretionary attitude is to case-to-case reject any license/registration applications
for such firearms.

Same manner in which the uninfringe-able US RKBA is infringed upon, in actual regulation/implementation.

Now, since our law allows select-fire subguns, but said laws don't see implementation.
I was asking if you wanted the law adjusted down to match actual practice;
by banning subguns again, as in the past.

:)

isuzu
05-04-2008, 12:44
Got it, Horge. Pardon my ignorance. I didn't know that one could now own a select-fire subguns back home. I thought select-fire weapons were only licensed through amnesty.

Thanks for the info. :)

horge
05-04-2008, 16:51
Got it, Horge. Pardon my ignorance. I didn't know that one could now own a select-fire subguns back home. I thought select-fire weapons were only licensed through amnesty.

Thanks for the info. :)

No ignorance at all! :)
You're right that currently, it's only under amnesty tha select-fires can be
registered and licensed, but this has covered brand-new select-fires as well.
This situation is unfortunate for firearm enthusiasts.

Since 2000, the EO that allows us to own select-fires (no need for amnesty)
has been in the books. Unfortunately, FED has done its darnedest to delay
its observance of said EO, except seemingly whenever it means more money
for them.

Cheers, bossing!
h.

jerrytrini
05-04-2008, 17:06
How refreshing to read an exchange of views in civil and pleasant terms. Ang ibang threads personalan ang dating.

DVC

maskytrading
05-05-2008, 02:39
pwde ba sa PTC ang rifle ?
hindi ba medyo mahirap i-conceal carry ? :supergrin:
(hey is that an M4 iwb or are you just happy to see me) :supergrin:

Yes, FED does allow HPR PTCs on a case to case basis, from my experience the past week, imo, it is harder to get an HPR PTT(case to case, also) than an HPR PTC...having a PTC, I guess a longer clutch bag:supergrin:(as in rifle bag) is necessary if you want to tote your HPR around...I was in MCS a year or so ago...here comes a fellow with bodyguards lugging long clutch bags...he was quite accomodating as he ordered one bodyguard to show me what's inside...an AK47 type 56 with 75 round drum :wow:

userfriendly
05-05-2008, 05:03
So did i understand this correctly? :dunno:

We are allowed to own rifles of any caliber as long as they are not anti-tank, light machine guns or crew served weapons. However, since licensing is discretionary, its almost impossible to get them licensed. So gun stores stick to the old Marcos era rule that it has to be a .22 or a shotgun. And they just wont sell pistol caliber or HPRs unless you are in the military. And that they rather not carry them.

So in the end, the best way to get something bigger than a .22 or shotgun is through amnesty.


:faint:

horge
05-05-2008, 05:21
Guys, pakiusap lang :)

Let's not discuss illegal means of obtaining firearms on a thread
about firearms obtainable. It's too easy to mistake such a discussion
as eagerness on our part to BREAK the law.
We're responsible, law-abiding gun owners.


If you want an HPR/subgun, ask the gunstores early into amnesty time.
You might get lucky, and it really is quite legit if you score one that way.

The real question is whether you really want a subgun or HPR,
and are aware of the upkeep and heavy responsibility of owning one safely.
Baka naman takaw-mata lang... all that expense, only to have a
"safe queen", ina-agiw lang... haha.

h.

atmarcella
05-05-2008, 08:23
FED does allow HPR PTCs on a case to case basis

a friend has one. he had to cough up 25k for it.

(hey is that an M4 iwb or are you just happy to see me)


whahahahaha. im just happy to see you. hanggang tuhod ano. me dugong egoy ako. whahahahaha.

9MX
05-05-2008, 08:26
horge,

illegal means

i'd rather we put some latitude into it and assume there is no intent to illegaly acquire hprs and everything is exploratory. besides, we all know that acquiring a loose firearm is a walk in the park here, not that i endorse it.. it is amusing/irritating/ironic that we can't purchase hprs legally (actually we "can," this is the philippines, hehehe) and yet we can avail of the amnesty. AFAD is against FA amnesty for obvious reasons.

the govt wants to manage the profileration of illegal arms, we all get that. but there must be a sanitized way to achieve this.

mtho
05-05-2008, 20:50
So did i understand this correctly? :dunno:

We are allowed to own rifles of any caliber as long as they are not anti-tank, light machine guns or crew served weapons. However, since licensing is discretionary, its almost impossible to get them licensed. So gun stores stick to the old Marcos era rule that it has to be a .22 or a shotgun. And they just wont sell pistol caliber or HPRs unless you are in the military. And that they rather not carry them.

So in the end, the best way to get something bigger than a .22 or shotgun is through amnesty.


:faint:


I heard of somebody here who legally bought a HPR from a store legally without even going through red tape, he just made a deposit and submitted his requirements, paid the fees (which is about what we pay when we acquire a new fire arm and no extra ordinary expense) and quoted the erap EO.

I guess its legal to buy and have them if you can find a store who carries and stock them. i guess its not practical for stores to bring them in because unlikehandguns where there is a large market the rifle market is quite limited and most are kept rarely used.

9MX
05-06-2008, 02:07
How refreshing to read an exchange of views in civil and pleasant terms. Ang ibang threads personalan ang dating.

DVC

nagmamature na kami jt...but you're way ahead of us:supergrin:

Wp.22
05-06-2008, 03:46
a friend has one. he had to cough up 25k for it.




whahahahaha. im just happy to see you. hanggang tuhod ano. me dugong egoy ako. whahahahaha.


25k for PTC for HPR who can afford such amounts. Grabbbeee

maskytrading
05-06-2008, 05:16
I heard of somebody here who legally bought a HPR from a store legally without even going through red tape, he just made a deposit and submitted his requirements, paid the fees (which is about what we pay when we acquire a new fire arm and no extra ordinary expense) and quoted the erap EO.used.

Very true bro...that was me :supergrin:

Glock_19_9x19
05-07-2008, 04:02
Very interesting thread :) I've always wondered the legalities of owning an AR here in the RP..paibaiba kasi sinasabi ng mga gunstores when it comes to selling rifles..some say pwede sa civilians, others say bawal daw.

horge
05-07-2008, 16:55
nagmamature na kami :supergrin:

I nearly choked when I read that, bossing 'nix
:tongueout:

darwin25
05-07-2008, 19:44
Very true bro...that was me :supergrin:

Ako din

atmarcella
05-08-2008, 08:21
25k for PTC for HPR who can afford such amounts. Grabbbeee


intsik pot.

9MX
05-08-2008, 09:24
I nearly choked when I read that, bossing 'nix
:tongueout:


:rofl: