close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Where is it written...

Discussion in 'Band of Glockers' started by PMMA97, Jul 30, 2005.

  1. PMMA97

    PMMA97 MNSAmessdetail

    1,743
    0
    Nov 25, 2003
    Subic Bay, Philippines
    ..on Philippine Law that we have the "right to arms" or at least defend ourselves from hostile acts? Thanks guys.
     
  2. asian_glockster

    asian_glockster Hook Up!!!!!!!!

    414
    0
    Nov 25, 2004
    nasa Luzon
    if i'm not mistaken, it is written in a supreme court decision wherein Atty. Frank Chavez questioned the government regarding the cancellation of PTC's during the time of Gen. Ebdane.
     


  3. PMMA97

    PMMA97 MNSAmessdetail

    1,743
    0
    Nov 25, 2003
    Subic Bay, Philippines
    I'm just curious because I was reading the '87 Bill of Rights and there is no such thing not unlike the U.S. second ammendment.
     
  4. Taurus

    Taurus

    435
    0
    Jan 10, 2003
    Area 51
    If I recall my legal history correctly, the 1935 Philippine Constitution adopted all of the rights embodied in the US Constitution except for two: the right to bear arms and the right to a jury trial. Subsequent Constitutions likewise do not embody these rights. The Supreme Court in a Decision it rendered in respect to the Petition filed by Atty. Chavez upheld the authority of the State to regulate the posession and ownership of firearms; and did not uphold an individual's right to bear arms.
     
  5. asian_glockster

    asian_glockster Hook Up!!!!!!!!

    414
    0
    Nov 25, 2004
    nasa Luzon

    I stand corrected;f
     
  6. 9MX

    9MX Rei!

    5,952
    0
    Sep 29, 2003
    Shooting
    Yep, virtually replying that FA ownership is a privilege and not a right;g

    I think our government wants to promote Arnis;f
     
  7. well...barangay tanods will be very disappointed knowing this.:(
    balik pamalo na naman kasi sila, samantalang most of them are carrying paltik revolvers with the barangay captain's consent.;g ;e ;) ;) (buti pa sila kahit walang PTC walang problema sa pagdadala ng baril)
     
  8. PMMA97

    PMMA97 MNSAmessdetail

    1,743
    0
    Nov 25, 2003
    Subic Bay, Philippines
    Supreme Court backs gun ban
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    20 June 2004

    By Philip C. Tubeza

    The Supreme Court has thrown out a legal challenge to the nationwide gun ban that President Macapagal-Arroyo declared in January 2003.

    In a unanimous decision, the tribunal dismissed the petition of Francisco Chavez, a former solicitor general, which claimed that the right to bear arms was a constitutionally protected right.

    "The right to bear arms is a mere statutory privilege, not a constitutional right. It is a mere statutory creation," said the ruling penned by Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez.

    Inalienable right

    Being a mere statutory creation, the right to bear arms cannot be considered an inalienable or absolute right," the court added.

    The President declared a nationwide ban on the carrying of guns and ordered PNP chief Director Hermogenes Ebdane Jr. to cancel all existing permits to carry firearms outside the residence (PTCFOR) and to suspend the issuance of such permits.

    Ebdane then issued a set of guidelines to implement the ban.

    Citing United States jurisprudence, Chavez said the ban and the ensuing guidelines violated the people's right to carry firearms and protect themselves and their property.

    He claimed that the President had no authority to impose the ban which illegally amended the country's gun laws.

    The SC disagreed

    "Owing to the proliferation of crimes, particularly those committed by the New People's Army, which tends to disturb the peace of the community, President Arroyo deemed it best to impose a nationwide gun ban. Undeniably, the motivating factor in the issuance of the assailed guidelines is the interest of the public in general," the court said.

    It noted that the guidelines did not entirely prohibit the possession of firearms.

    "What they proscribe is merely the carrying of firearms outside of residence. Those who wish to carry their firearms outside of their residence may re-apply for a new PTCFOR. This we believe is a reasonable regulation," the SC said.

    The tribunal said a PTCFOR does not constitute a "properly right protected under our Constitution."

    Personal privilege

    "Consequently, a PTCFOR, just like ordinary licenses in other regulated fields, may be revoked anytime. It does not confer an absolute right, but only a personal privilege to be exercised under existing restrictions," the SC said.

    And even if the PTCFOR were to be considered a "property right," it cannot be considered as absolute "as to be placed beyond the reach of the State's police power," the high court said.

    "All property in the state is held subject to its general regulations, necessary to the common good and general welfare," the SC said.

    It noted that even the US Supreme Court had ruled that the right to bear arms under the US Constitution referred to the "collective right" of those comprising local militias, or citizens enrolled for military discipline.

    "It does not pertain to the individual right of (a) citizen to bear arms," the SC said.
     
  9. Mang Danny

    Mang Danny

    470
    0
    Jan 11, 2005
    The NRA would disagree.