Nazario, Renz Christian D.

2011-25006

POLSC 152

License to Kill: Building a Better Gun Control Policy

Abstract

When it is said that people, not guns, kill people, what is meant is that it is the people who use guns that are

to blame regarding gun-related violence and mishaps, and not the guns themselves. A gun can be used

defensively instead of offensively, after all, and as such is perfectly capable of doing good rather than harm.

However, while a person is definitely the one at fault for causing harm to others by using a gun, if he did

not have a gun in the first then it should follow that there should not be any trouble at all.

So it would then follow that regulating the proliferation and distribution of firearms is the most preferable

solution to limit the increasingly alarming number of gun-related violence in the Philippines. As such, a

good gun control policy is needed to make sure that guns stay in the hands of responsible citizens who

would use them with caution and care, and the police officers who are the ones authorized by the

government and by the law to use them in the first place, and would use them to maintain peace and order.

Simultaneously this gun control policy shall also deal with keeping them out of reach of criminals who

would use them to perpetrate crimes and inflict harm to those in their path.

Keywords: firearms, regulation, control, violence, ownership

What is there to guns?

The main problem with guns and firearms is the determining the necessity for which they are to be used,

and by whom they are allowed to be used. Police officers are allowed and authorized to carry handguns

because of the nature of their work, and thus it is mandatory for them to carry firearms with which to defend

themselves and to use in apprehending criminals and such who they are allowed to use necessary force

against. On the other hand, a random citizen can live his life freely without ever owning a firearm, and in

no way will his life be in any more or less danger than the norm because of it. The only real draw of privately

owning a weapon is the added security it provides to the owner in case of an emergency. If someone were

to break into his house, perfectly capable of threatening his life and well-being and the lives and well-being

of those who happen to live with him, then a gun owner has a valid away of responding to those threats,

which will allow him to be capable of defending himself and his family from possible harm.

Thus, what a policy on gun control should be focusing on answering is the question of who is or is not

allowed to own a firearm. In any case, it should not focus its attention on the ways in which an individual

can be invalidated from being allowed to purchase and own a gun, or be punished for possessing a firearm

illegally. Instead it should focus more on the ways in which an individual can validate himself and be

allowed to possess a firearm. By focusing its provisions on the aspect of qualifications rather than the

manner in which an individual can be incriminated, a good gun control policy ensures that whoever

purchases a firearm is a good, responsible, law-abiding citizen who will only use it when a situation deems

its use to be necessary, thus setting an atmosphere where guns are kept in the hands of those who will be

able to use them for noncriminal acts. In short, a good gun control policy should focus more on keeping

guns in the hands of responsible citizens, rather than the “after the fact” way in which the current gun

control policies place heavy punishment on those illegally possess firearms and ammunition.

This work aims to build a better gun control policy than the one currently existing, which focuses rather

harshly on the multitude of ways an individual can be incriminated for possessing firearms or ammunition

illegally, and the punishments that accompany said violations. This work therefore argues that gun control

is named such because it gives importance to the concept of ‘controlling’ the trade of firearms, meaning, it

should focus on who is and is not allowed to possess a gun, instead of the violations one may break by

being in possession of a gun.

The existing laws focus too much on the violations that can be violated, in what ways possessing firearms

and ammunition can be deemed illegal, and the punishments that would be given to violators, which in light

of recent events in the news have been shown to be susceptible to manipulation and being taken advantage

of. Rather than thinking about what happens after, perhaps it would be better to think of what happens

before, or rather, giving more weight to the ‘control’ aspect of gun control. The thing about gun control is

that it is about lessening the availability of guns and firearms in the hands of people who are not qualified

to own them, which ideally will then lessen the number of violent crimes involving the use of guns and

firearms. So by trying to make the weapons scarce in the hands of those who would use them for criminal

acts, there would be less crimes involving them. The idea is very straightforward.

After all, an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, and the ability to deter the spread of guns

into the hands of those unqualified to wield them is a better skill to master than the ability to punish them

after they already have the weapon in their hands. This work will aim to explain why that is and how it will

go about doing it. In general, it will seek to amend the provisions found in the current laws for them to

focus more on the qualifications for possessing guns rather than the punishments for getting caught illegally

possessing guns or ammunition.

As a result, this work will go on as follows. First, the work will seek to explain the importance of a gun

control policy by equating violent crimes with the proliferation of firearms. By doing so, it would establish

the need to regulate the trade of firearms. It would also try to establish that while guns are responsible for

crimes, it is a result of guns being in the possession of individuals who possess those guns for the purpose

of using them in crimes, which will explain why there is a need to rethink what qualifies someone to own

a gun. In the hands of those qualified by law to own a gun, they are perfectly legitimately owned weapons

that at most will not even see the light of day and will only be used with impunity as a force for defense

and self-preservation. The work will then delve on the current laws regarding gun control, and the recent

controversies that have criticized and questioned them, therefore evaluating the current gun laws to see

where they are lacking and where they might have gone too far. Lastly, this work will attempt to supply

what the current gun laws lack and what they need to change in order to improve themselves.

What is it about guns?

The issue of handguns and regulating the trade of such is a hot topic among legislators around the world if

only for the fact that there is no neutral side to it. Everyone has an opinion on how the trade and sale of

guns should be treated and how they should go about treating the guns themselves—there are some who

want strict regulations in regards to gun ownership, there are others who want it to be more lax, while there

are also those who wish an all-out ban on firearms. The Philippines having an active gun culture is not

immune to that—in fact, the existence of a so-called gun culture is at the very crux of the debate on gun

control. Added to this is that for the longest time, the country did not even have a ‘comprehensive’ list of

provisions we would adhere to regarding the legitimate selling and buying firearms. Therefore, a good

question would be how one should go about understanding what gun control is?

As mentioned earlier, people have differing opinions on guns, and one will be hard-pressed to find an

individual who can say that they do not have an opinion on guns or are completely neutral regarding the

topic of firearms and the ownership of such arms. Some people believe that guns should be ‘child-proofed’

and be made in ways that they become inoperable to children. Some think guns should be registered—and

under the current laws in the Philippines, they are registered. Some believe that those who wish to purchase

guns should be given a thorough background check in order to ensure that they do not have some sort of

history that mixes guns and violence of whatever kind or flavor. Relating to that, many believe those who

were once convicted felons and are now free should not be allowed to purchase guns under any

circumstance, regardless of the reason why they have been released from incarceration (Cook and Ludwig,

2003).

Very few, however, according to Philip Cook, believe that there should be a ban on guns entirely and that

as a corollary to that, they should only be allowed in the hands of law enforcement, the very people who by

law are given the absolute monopoly for the legitimate use of violence in a state, along with the military.

What do these say about people? That despite the perceived disgust people have with guns and how much

they fret that the world is getting too violent with all these new weapons and firearms that can easily be

used to harm or even kill others on a whim, they do not entirely abhor them. these people acknowledge that

in many legitimate situations, guns have their uses, and especially in the hands of those responsible enough

to use them they can even be the reason people’s lives are saved, even though sometimes rather ironically,

it is from other gun wielders as well.

Meanwhile, Gary Kleck, in his paper entitled “Crime Control through the Private Use of Armed Force”

sought to see through statistical analysis how the private ownership of guns affects the number and amount

of crimes in the United States. The questions of the surveys he analyzed related to the number of times gun

owners have used guns, and the number of times they were used to prevent criminal acts from happening.

It is also notable that Kleck distinguishes that there exists a distinct difference between the would-be victim

displaying that he is in possession of a firearm, and actually firing said firearm in retaliation towards his

would-be assailant.

What did Kleck conclude from these findings? He concluded that firearms are very useful for deterring

crime. Criminals think twice before, for example, trying to rob a house that they know is owned by someone

in possession of a firearm that they can capably use to fire at the criminal. Though Kleck says that there is

no concrete data regarding the amount crimes lessened specifically by having individuals have guns in their

possession, what evidence is available is enough to be able to say that gun ownership among would-be

victims of criminal activities have as much of an effect on violent crime as do regular activities for the

prevention of crime conducted by those in the justice system (Kleck 1988, 17).

He even concludes his paper with the idea that a gun control policy which seeks to generally limit the trade

of guns among the general civilian population would only succeed in limiting the number of law-abiding

citizens possessing firearms with which to defend themselves (Kleck 1988, 18). After all, criminals would

not be hindered by stricter gun control laws as they could presumably procure their guns elsewhere outside

the law, and limiting the ability of law-abiding citizens to possess firearms would have little to no effect on

the amount of violent crime, as research shows that those without previous records of criminal violence

have very little incentive to start engaging in such whether or not they are in possession of a gun, and

therefore incidents where these people do suddenly engage in conducting violent crimes are almost

nonexistent.

As one can see, the issue of gun control is important in that there is a very real need for it in order to help

curb the proliferation of violent crime, as most crimes have become ridiculously easy to do with the use of

something so efficient a weapon as a handgun. Meanwhile, those who wish to protect themselves with the

same weapons are at a loss as they are being limited in their capacity to own said weapons and use them

simply to defend themselves. So, as many times as it takes, it must be repeatedly noted that gun control is

a matter of keeping firearms away from those who would use them to commit crimes, and keep them in the

hands of those who would use them only to defend themselves from those same who would have no qualms

to use them in crimes that may result in harming or even outright killing others.

What has been done regarding these issues?

During May of last year, 2014, President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III signed Republic Act 10591, the

short title of which is given as the “Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act”. Before

this, surprisingly there is next to no record of there having existed a specific list of provisions regarding

gun control, if one is to disregard President Ferdinand Marcos’ Proclamation No. 1081 during Martial Law,

which simply banned the possession of firearms and confiscated them if someone was found in possession

of them. So, in essence, this is the first time the Philippines has had a comprehensive gun control law.

The Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act details what are needed by an individual in

order for him to be able to purchase firearms. A prospective gun owner must first procure a license to be

able to purchase a firearm, one that he must renew every two years. Meanwhile, he must also individually

register each firearm he possesses, and their registration must be renewed every four years, or else he would

risk having them confiscated. A “permit to carry” license may also be issued out to individuals who have

reason to wish to carry their guns with them, such as an immediate threat to their lives due to their

profession, occupation, or business.

In more detail, in order to qualify for the license to own a gun, a prospective owner must be a Filipino

citizen at last twenty-one years of age, has “gainful work, occupation or business or has filed an Income

Tax Return (ITR) for the preceding year as proof of income, profession, business or occupation” (RA 10591

2014). In addition to these, an applicant must be able to submit the following certifications from the proper

authorities authorized to issue them, as listed in R.A. 10591:

a) The applicant has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude:

b) The applicant has passed the psychiatric test administered by a PNP-accredited psychologist or

psychiatrist;

c) The applicant has passed the drug test conducted by an accredited and authorized drug testing

laboratory or clinic;

d) The applicant has passed a gun safety seminar which is administered by the PNP or a registered

and authorized gun club;

e) The applicant has filed in writing the application to possess a registered firearm which shall state

the personal circumstances of the applicant;

f) The applicant must present a police clearance from the city or municipality police office; and

g) The applicant has not been convicted or is currently an accused in a pending criminal case before

any court of law for a crime that is punishable with a penalty of more than two (2) years.

Gun traders are also required to apply for licenses in order to practice their trade, as are gun manufacturers

and gunsmiths who tinker and repair guns.

Failure to renew these licenses will cause the gun owner to lose ownership of his firearms and will allow

the police to seize them, and the event of such happening shall disqualify the gun owner from applying for

any gun license.

So far, it seems that the law is adequate in the manner of gun control.

Except that it is lacking with regards to the actual guns. The Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition

Regulation Act only briefly defines what firearms are in its definition of terms and only momentarily takes

time to classify them into “Class-A” light weapons which includes almost all modern firearms operable by

a single individual and are less than 7.62 MM in caliber lumped together, while “Class-B” light weapons

are heavy weapons that exceed 7.62 caliber and need two or more people to operate such as heavy machine

guns, handheld underbarrel and mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft guns, portable anti-tank

guns, recoilless rifles, portable launchers of anti-tank missile and rocket systems, portable launchers of anti-

aircraft missile systems, and mortars of a caliber of less than 100MM, which needless to say are weapons

that cannot be purchased in a gun store.

In contrast, the United Kingdom’s “Guide on Firearms Licensing Law” distinctly defines each type of

firearm and lists down the qualities that, for example, makes for the kind of pistol that a licensed gun owner

is allowed to have. It also specifically defines the kinds of firearms and ammunition that licensed gun

owners are prohibited to have, and even have a section on airsoft guns, guns that can be best described as

imitation firearms of the recreational variety.

The current Philippine gun laws prohibit the possession of ammunition as well without a license, which has

been proven problematic in light of the recent ‘laglag bala’ or bullet planting controversy, in which airport

terminal officers allegedly planted a bullet or bullets into the bags and luggage of unsuspecting passengers,

which they then use a means of extorting money from the victims in order for them to avoid having a

criminal case filed against them and risk possible imprisonment equating to prision mayor, which is six

years and one day to twelve years of imprisonment. It is problematic because despite a section of The

Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act specifically warning against this type of

behavior and threatening with the maximum penalty of prision mayor, or reclusion perpetua against

government officers, anyone who seeks to do so, bullet planting is very exploitatively easy to do in the

manner airport officials are alleged to do it, since they are in charge of checking the bags and luggage of

passengers. In addition, Filipino culture itself has an interesting, superstitious affixation towards bullets as

anting-anting, or talismans used to ward off evil spirits and the like, and therefore place them in their

luggage as charms willingly without malicious intent.

What is the proposed solution?

The proposal is simple. The United Kingdom’s “Guide on Firearms Licensing Law” is a good model to use

in trying to amend the current gun laws in the Philippines. It classifies firearms accordingly, something our

law lacks, and specifies the type of firearms and ammunition allowed for possession by having a license,

and the ones that are not regardless of license. A good example of this is that makes a distinction between

a firearm, for example a handgun, which fits the criteria they use to define the types of handguns allowed

to be possessed legitimately, and a handgun which has been extensively modified to fit the existing criteria

but nonetheless did not fit the criteria before and are therefore illegal, like for example a handgun fitted

with a smooth-bore barrel when it did not have one before.

This is a good way for the police or other governing bodies to monitor the kind of weapons possessed by

each individual person, and therefore giving them a detailed catalogue of any and all privately owned

firearms, their type, make, and so on.

Their laws also require that a prospective gun owner must have a means of safely storing their firearms,

such as a vault. This is mandatory in acquiring a license for shotguns, which is a different license from

other firearms. This is good idea as a potential gun owner, although he may pass the requirements needed

of him in order to possess a gun, may at home be reckless in the manner by which he stores his firearm,

which could lead to a number of accidents such as accidental misfiring.

On the other hand, while the new laws we have are stricter when it comes to giving licenses to prospective

gun owners, it also rather severely punishes those without licenses and are in possession of illegally

acquired firearms and ammunition. While normally a positive thing as it incentivizes law-abiding citizens

to acquire licenses if they wish to possess firearms, it has proven problematic as stated before due to the

punishments equated to possessing ammunition, as one bullet can easily land someone six years and one

day to twelve years in prison. Not to mention the detail about Filipinos and their superstitions regarding

bullets.

As such, there should be a special provision regarding the possession of ammunition, in that possessing

ammunition, especially in small quantities and without reason to suspect that an actual gun is involved with

said ammunition, should not lead to prision mayor. A small fine should suffice.

How to make it work?

In order for the proposal to work, requires a complete, in-depth knowledge of firearms to be able to

categorize them efficiently and effectively. Our requirements for acquiring licenses are already very

extensive and strict, so why not extend this to the firearms themselves? The law should specify the type of

handguns allowed and prohibited, their specific make, caliber, type, and so on, the parts that make them

legal and illegal, and the ammunition they are legally allowed to use, and have those who wish to acquire

guns be familiar with them. By being detailed and organized like so with every type of firearm allowed, it

is not only the police that will benefit, but the gun owners as well. Those who are qualified to own a gun

but may only have done so in the name of safety and security will now be compelled to learn more about

the gun he will be buying, how to take care of it, how to store it properly, and so on, which will make him

a more responsible and aware owner.

The only limitations that can be seen here is that acquiring a gun now becomes a longer, more difficult

process as one will now need to learn more about handguns and the ammunition they require in order to

possess them. However, knowing is half the battle, and in this it can be ensured that law-abiding citizens

come off more knowledgeable and responsible regarding their use of firearms.

Conclusion

Gun control laws are becoming more necessary as violent crimes become more prominent and widespread.

In order to combat these issues, the laws themselves need to be more extensive and compelling. They should

be made stricter and more inclusive of what a prospective gun owner needs to learn in order to be able to

handle his firearm more carefully and more responsibly. A gun can be a positive tool for maintaining peace

and order, and keeping ourselves and our loved ones safe, which is why it is important to make sure that

they only fall into the right hands: those of responsible, qualified, law-abiding citizens of this country. This

proposal and is amendments, though few, are critical and make certain that each individual is learned and

trained in the use of their weapon, and that governing bodies responsible for them can ascertain that they

do.

References:

Aquino, Benigno Simeon III. 2014. Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act. Manila.

Celinska, Katarzyna. 2007. "Individualism and Collectivism in America: The Case of Gun Ownership

and Attitudes toward Gun Control". Sociological Perspectives 50(2): 229-247.

Cook, Philip. 1981. "The Effect of Gun Availability on Violent Crime Patterns". The Annals of the

American Academy of Political and Social Science 455(Gun Control): 63-79.

Cook, Philip. 1981. "Guns and Crime: The Perils of Long Division". Journal of Policy Analysis and

Management 1(1): 120-125.

Cook, Philip, and James Leitzel. 1996. "Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy": An Economic Analysis of the

Attack on Gun Control". Law and Contemporary Problems 59(1): 91-118.

Cook, Philip, and Jens Ludwig. 2003. "Fact-Free Gun Policy?". University of Pennsylvania Law

Review 151(4): 1329-1340.

Cornish, Paul. 2008. "Gun Control". The World Today 64(10): 30-31.

DeFrances, Carol, and Steven Smith. 1994. "Federal-State Relations in Gun Control: The 1993 Brady

Handgun Violence Prevention Act". Publius 24(3): 69-82.

Erskine, Hazel. 1972. "The Polls: Gun Control". The Public Opinion Quarterly 36(3): 455-469.

Fremling, Gertrud, and John Lott. 2003. "The Surprising Finding That "Cultural Worldviews" Don't

Explain People's Views on Gun Control". University of Pennsylvania Law Review 151(4): 1341-1348.

Funk, T. Markus. 1995. "Gun Control and Economic Discrimination: The Melting-Point Case-In-

Point". The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) 85(3): 764-806.

Green, Damian. 2015. Guide on Firearms Licensing Law. Home Office.

Kahane, Leo. 1999. "The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws: A Comment on the Work by Kwon,

Scott, Safranski and Bae and Their Debate with Kovandzic". The American Journal of Economics and

Sociology 58(3): 523- 528.

Kleck, Gary. 1988. "Crime Control through the Private Use of Armed Force". Social Problems 35(1):

1-21.

Kleck, Gary. 1986. "Policy Lessons from Recent Gun Control Research". Law and Contemporary

Problems 49(1): 35-62.

Kovandzic, Tomislav. 1998. "Comment On The Recent Work Of Kwon, Scott, Safranski, And Bae:

No, Your Evidence Doesn't Prove What You Think It Does!". The American Journal of Economics and

Sociology 57(3): 363- 368.

Kwon, Ik-Whan, and Daniel Baack. 2005. "The Effectiveness Of Legislation Controlling Gun Usage:

A Holistic Measure Of Gun Control Legislation". The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

64(2): 533-547.

Kwon, Ik-Whan, Bradley Scott, Scott Safranski, and Muen Bae. 1998. "Rejoinder to Tomislav V.

Kovandzic's Comment on Our Article "The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws: Multivariate Statistical

Analysis". The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 57(3): 369- 372.

Kwon, Ik-Whan, Bradley Scott, Scott Safranski, and Muen Bae. 1997. "The Effectiveness of Gun

Control Laws: Multivariate Statistical Analysis". The American Journal of Economics and

Sociology 56(1): 41-50.

LaFollette, Hugh. 2000. "Gun Control". Ethics 110(2): 263-281.

Langbein, Laura, and Mark Lotwis. 1990. "The Political Efficacy of Lobbying and Money: Gun Control

in the U. S. House, 1986". Legislative Studies Quarterly 15(3): 413-440.

Miron, Jeffrey. 2001. "Violence, Guns, and Drugs: A Cross‐Country Analysis". Journal of Law and

Economics 44(S2): 615-633.

Moore, Mark. 1983. "The Bird in Hand: A Feasible Strategy for Gun Control". Journal of Policy

Analysis and Management 2(2): 185-195.

Moore, Mark. 1981. "Keeping Handguns from Criminal Offenders". The Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science 455(Gun Control): 92-109.

Murray, Douglas. 1975. "Handguns, Gun Control Laws and Firearm Violence". Social Problems 23(1):

81-93.

Paradis, Gilles. 2010. "Gun Control Redux". Canadian Journal of Public Health / Revue Canadienne

de Santé Publique 101(3): 192.

Parker, Jeffrey. 2001. "Guns, Crime, and Academics: Some Reflections on the Gun Control

Debate". Journal of Law and Economics 44(S2): 715-723.

Prutzman, Deborah. 1976. "Prior Convictions and the Gun Control Act Of 1968". Columbia Law

Review 76(2): 326-349.

Schuman, Howard, and Stanley Presser. 1977. "Attitude Measurement and the Gun Control

Paradox". The Public Opinion Quarterly 41(4): 427-438.

Schuman, Howard, and Stanley Presser. 1981. "The Attitude-Action Connection and the Issue of Gun

Control". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 455(Gun Control): 40-

47.

Seitz, Steven Thomas. 1972. "Firearms, Homicides, and Gun Control Effectiveness". Law & Society

Review 6(4): 595-614.

Smith, Tom. 1980. "The 75% Solution: An Analysis of the Structure of Attitudes on Gun Control, 1959-

1977". The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) 71(3): 300-316.

Smith, Tom. 2002. "Public Opinion about Gun Policies". The Future of Children 12(2): 154-163.

Vizzard, William. 1995. "The Impact of Agenda Conflict on Policy Formulation and Implementation:

The Case of Gun Control". Public Administration Review 55(4): 341-347.

Wallack, Lawrence, Liana Winett, and Linda Nettekoven. 2003. "The Million Mom March: Engaging

the Public on Gun Policy". Journal of Public Health Policy 24(3/4): 355-379.

Wolpert, Robin, and James Gimpel. 1998. "Self-Interest, Symbolic Politics, and Public Attitudes

toward Gun Control". Political Behavior 20(3): 241-262.

Wright, James. 1981. "Public Opinion and Gun Control: A Comparison of Results from Two Recent

National Surveys". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 455(Gun

Control): 24-39.

Zimring, Franklin. 1975. "Firearms and Federal Law: The Gun Control Act of 1968". The Journal of

Legal Studies 4(1): 133-198.