BANGKOK: Thailand allows eligible civilians to apply for firearm ownership, but its licensing system draws clear legal distinctions between buying a gun, possessing and using it, and carrying it in public.
Those distinctions have returned to the centre of public debate following two shootings in Nonthaburi within days of each other: an attack involving a student at a school on Aug 7 and a separate shooting involving a former MP and the head of the Nonthaburi Provincial Administrative Organisation on Aug 10.
The incidents have intensified scrutiny not only of who may legally acquire a firearm, but also of how Thailand manages millions of weapons already held in homes, monitors licence holders and tackles a large pool of unregistered guns.
Under Thailand’s firearm licensing framework, permission to purchase, possess and carry a gun is divided among separate licences.
A P.3 licence authorises the purchase of a firearm, while a P.4 licence covers possession and use. A P.12 permit relates separately to carrying a firearm.
A person who legally acquires and possesses a gun under the first two categories does not automatically have the right to carry it freely in public. Legal ownership and legal carrying are treated as separate matters.
Ordinary citizens may apply for permission to possess and use firearms, provided they meet the qualifications required by law and pass the relevant checks. Approval is not automatic, however, and applications are subject to consideration by the responsible registrar.
The licensing process involves checking the applicant’s qualifications and background before a decision is made. Receiving permission to purchase a firearm is only one stage, with possession, use and carrying each governed separately.
A possession licence also does not give its holder unrestricted authority to use a firearm. Any use remains subject to other laws, including criminal provisions covering threats, assaults and other offences.
Whether a weapon involved in an incident can be described as legal must therefore be determined on a case-by-case basis. Investigators must establish the source and registration of the firearm, the identity of the licensed owner, who actually used it, and the place and circumstances in which it was carried or discharged.
The scale of civilian firearm ownership makes regulation considerably more complicated.
A 2017 estimate by the Small Arms Survey, cited by both reports, put the number of civilian-held firearms in Thailand at between 10.3 million and 10.4 million.
Of those, approximately 6.2 million were believed to be legally registered, while more than four million were estimated to be outside the registration system. That equated to about 15 firearms for every 100 people, or roughly one gun for every seven members of the population.
The estimate placed Thailand first in South-East Asia in terms of civilian firearm holdings and 13th worldwide by total number.
The figures are based on a 2017 estimate rather than a live national count, but they illustrate the scale of the policy challenge.
Firearm control cannot be addressed solely through decisions on new applications when millions of registered weapons are already held by civilians and millions more are believed to remain outside the formal system.
The presence of more than four million estimated unregistered firearms also means that tighter licensing alone would not cover the entire problem. Authorities must contend with both legally acquired weapons that may be misused and firearms that cannot easily be traced through the licensing database.
Nation TV traced part of the growth in Thailand’s legal firearm stock to changes involving welfare firearm programmes.
Before 2007, the country maintained tighter quotas on firearm retailers and supplies. Although welfare firearm schemes existed, weapons obtained through them generally could not be transferred to another person except as an inheritance.
The restrictions kept such weapons largely within limited groups, including government officials, and reduced the opportunity for them to enter the wider resale market.
A significant change occurred between 2008 and 2011, when import quotas for welfare firearms were relaxed. The permanent restriction on transfers was replaced by a rule prohibiting the transfer of a firearm during the first five years of ownership.
According to the Nation TV report, the change allowed hundreds of thousands of welfare firearms to enter the system. Once the five-year period expired, some could be transferred to members of the general public, encouraging resale and speculation.
The existing approach continued between 2017 and 2022. More than 5.2 million P.4 possession records were transferred into a digital system during that period, while accumulated registered holdings may have reached approximately 6.22 million.
Major shootings during those years prompted growing questions about loopholes in the welfare firearm system and the adequacy of mental-health screening for firearm holders, the report said.
The issue is therefore not simply whether welfare firearms were initially acquired legally. The broader concern is whether rules allowing later transfers helped weapons move from controlled programmes into wider civilian circulation without sufficiently strong long-term oversight.
The government has responded to the latest violence by tightening restrictions on the carrying of firearms.
Under Prime Minister and Interior Minister Anutin Charnvirakul, the Interior Ministry has ordered a one-year suspension of the issuance of P.12 carry permits.
The government has also instructed relevant agencies that officials and civil servants must not carry firearms in public when they are not performing duties that require them to be armed.
Further legal changes have been proposed to tighten the issuing of P.3 purchase permits and reduce the practice of carrying or displaying firearms as symbols of status.
The immediate measures are focused particularly on public carrying, reflecting the legal principle that possessing a registered firearm does not create a general right to take it into public places.
However, the suspension of new P.12 permits does not by itself resolve the broader issue of millions of firearms already stored in private homes.
The government must also confront questions over the screening of new applicants, checks on existing owners, enforcement against unauthorised carrying and the movement of firearms from their registered holders to other users.
The two reports suggest that Thailand’s firearm problem extends beyond the wording of its licensing rules.
On paper, the system distinguishes among purchasing, possession and carrying, while making approval subject to official examination. In practice, the presence of a legally registered gun in a household may still create access risks if it is taken or used by someone other than the licensed owner.
The large unregistered stock presents an additional challenge because such firearms may be more difficult to trace, monitor or connect to an authorised holder.
Recent shootings have therefore revived calls for the government to review the screening of licence applicants, oversight of firearm holders and enforcement of public-carry restrictions.
The central legal question is no longer merely whether ordinary people are permitted to own guns. It is whether the regulatory system can effectively control access throughout a firearm’s life cycle, from purchase and registration to possession, transfer, carrying and eventual use.
The one-year pause on new P.12 licences represents an immediate attempt to reduce the number of firearms carried in public, while proposed changes to P.3 rules could make new purchases more difficult.
The longer-term test will be how the government manages the estimated 6.2 million registered firearms already in circulation, addresses more than four million estimated unregistered weapons and closes policy gaps that previously allowed firearms to spread more widely through the civilian market. - The Nation/ANN
