Panama has private firearm ownership. As a resident or citizen you can get one too. If you can purchase the gun you can carry it concealed on your person in your car etc.

By the way I am an ex law enforcement officer (something I did in my younger days). When I walk down the street or am driving if I concentrate on it I can still read the streets, it used to be automatic but after a while it just goes away unless you consciously turn it on again. I see the drug dealers, the street thieves, the junkies, dumpsters appear as ladders, etc things regular untrained people will not pay any mind to. This is common to any local law enforcement officer who ever worked the streets in the USA. When I try to read the streets here I come up blank there just isn’t anything to read unless I am driving through one of the extremely poor neighborhoods where you shouldn’t be and then I see the old street signs the lookout playing what they call chickie for the dealer or whoever, the hooker etc. on down the line. So yes there are bad neighborhoods and I think it would be fictional to imagine a country today that does not have them but I can think of no reason why any Expat would ever go there and in reality while these neighborhoods are bad I think the bad neighborhoods in USA are much worse. For instance I doubt Panama ever had a single drive by shooting where machine guns sprayed innocent bystanders, houses etc. yet these are common events in the USA.

Guns. Yes Panama has private firearm ownership. As a resident or citizen you can get one too. If you can purchase the gun you can carry it concealed on your person in your car etc. This is a typical scenario in several countries. In the USA a handgun to me was like Karl Malden and the American Express Card – never leave home without it, and while home rest assured one was always very close by. In Panama it is nice to not have to carry a gun – not needed. If you want a gun you can readily have one in Panama. Remember Panama is under Roman Law. If you shoot or kill a person even a home intruder or a person in a traffic accident you can be incarcerated by the police during which they investigate the death. I am told there is a usual 7 day limit on this. There is also the crime of passion exception to murder. If you came to find your spouse engaging in sex with another and you killed them both it would be a walk under crime of passion but you may have to go to jail for a few days while the investigation took place. Remember you are not in Kansas anymore. Having an unregistered gun will result in a trip to the jail. Panama is not a full auto jurisdiction (machine guns)- no private ownership of full autos. I believe things like semi-auto AR-15’s are available. I understand that there are lots of full auto AK’s floating around due to Colombians smuggling them in but that too can mean big trouble with the police – ill advised and unnecessary. Silencers, and things like any other weapon, are not available for private ownership.

Drugs – They are here but not obvious. If you are a recreational drug user I would strongly suggest you look for another country to live in, they do not take this lightly especially if you are an Expat. Depending on quantities and circumstances you may get booted out of country and fined, you may get a warning or you may do some time in jail. They would probably not put you away for 20 years or execute you like some countries but if you had enough and were dealing you would probably be miserable for a few years. Find a country more tolerant of drug users, this is not your place.

Hotels that Expats use are going to have security and be relatively safe but do make sure the hotel is recommended (see our Hotel section). Most of these hotels will have in room safes. Only the expensive larger hotels will have hotel safe deposits boxes. Once we saw a guy at one of the best hotels put a load of cash in the hotel safe and the staff deposited it in the bank with their deposit and the guy had to wait until the bank reopened after a holiday to get his money back. From the tone of the argument it was a lot of money and the hotel manager seemed to know the customer was not in any position to complain to anyone and he would of course get his money back and basically told the customer to shut up and wait. I do believe he got all his money back and learned a lesson.

You can also hire a driver with a car for somewhat less than $100 a day which is best done when going out of Panama City.

Arrange to be met at the airport by a driver. Safer and same price as a cab. He’ll meet you with a sign with your name (use an alias if security conscious) and take you right to your hotel. See our services section for a reliable driver.

Taxis are safe as a rule. Cab fares go from $1.00 to $3.00 around Panama City. If you are coming for a few weeks bring a stack of one dollar bills and quarters. Taxis have no meters and never have change. Even if they do have change they will wait to see if you want your change. Try to act like you know what is going on, ask at the hotel desk what your fare should be to your intended destination. Hail a taxi away from the front of your hotel so you won’t give the impression of being a tourist. Give your destination in your best Spanish with best accent or have your front desk write it out in Spanish for you just in case the driver can’t understand your accent.

You can also hire a driver with a car for somewhat less than $100 a day which is best done when going out of Panama City. Rental cars are readily available. Check our recommendations for a smooth experience. If you have a problem you can always complain to us and we can exert pressure that is well respected to say the least.

Always travel with a powerful flashlight with fresh batteries – generic advice applicable anywhere not just for Panama. What if there is a power failure, fire, etc and you need to get out?

Cash. You don’t need a lot there are numerous ATM machines around. Ones in malls often have a security guard lurking around them. Remember Panama money is US dollars. If your currency is otherwise you will need to convert and not all that many banks do that and there are no street street money changers here. Make sure you can use the ATM machines here and maybe carry some cash if the ATM’s will not work for you. You can use Visa/MC all over the country.

For more information, please visit:

http://www.panamaexpertos.com

http://www.panamaexpertos.com/info.php?page=content/crime_and_safety&pagenumber=2

http://www.panamaexpertos.com/info.php?page=content/crime_and_safety

City budgets nationwide are based on revenues from sales and property taxes. With the value of real estate falling like a rock property taxes are on the decrease. The economy is flat with only minimal growth meaning sales taxes are flat lined. That is only the half of it.

On the expense side GAS PRICES HAVE SKYROCKETED and

HEALTH CARE BENEFITS ARE OUT OF CONTROL. This is forcing city managers, city councils, and budget officials to look at making cuts to just break even.

In Colorado Springs they were already $8.3 million in the hole with less than half the year gone.

What does it mean to you and me?

The answer is not simple and it is not very nice. To try and simplify it, the cities across the country may have to start cutting back on services including police and fire departments. This places the security and safety of all of us at greater risk.

With the growth and emergence of more gangs in literally every city in the country it is not an understatement to say we are at war for the safety our own lives and those of our families not to mention the security of our homes.

There are parts of cities in every city where the struggle is being lost. It just isn’t safe there.

The police are just being overwhelmed by the bad guys. They do a tremendous job but they can’t be everywhere 24/7. Throw in some budget cuts and resources so desperately needed to do the job are at risk.

Citizens need to take a hard look at where this is headed and be prepared to learn how to defend themselves, their families and their homes. Self defense products like stun guns, pepper sprays, personal alarms and tasers, once the province of science fiction movies, have become more mainstream and almost a necessity.

Jack Krohn is the #1 author of Home Security Articles in the country. He owns SECURITY SOLUTIONS a one stop resource that provides solutions and answers for all your self defense and home security problems.

In general while in Panama the average Expat is unlikely to run afoul of the law. In Panama business has not been criminalized as it has in the USA, UK, Australia and many other countries. The vast majority of the law enforcement people in Panama devote their time and energies to real crime, drug traffic enforcement and crime prevention. There is not a whole lot of victimless crime prosecution in Panama. Prostitution is legal and the prostitutes are medically inspected weekly for STD. I have yet to see street walking prostitutes (except in really poor neighborhoods) so I assume most if not all of them are working in the many gentlemans clubs or are working as paid escorts or as outcall massage girls. So it is there but not all that obvious, unlike numerous American cities where it is in your face with drug addicted street walkers male and female.

Many people say be careful while wearing jewelry since a child can get a running start and grab a bracelet or necklace and keep running. Did we ever see it happen, No. Did we ever meet anyone it happened to, No. Lot’s of people say they know it happens but seems you never meet any of these victims. Could it happen? I guess it could. Do we think it is likely to happen? No. I suppose if one was out late and had been drinking and was walking around looking like he was partying someone may interpret this as a crime of opportunity and take a shot at it. I would suggest when going shopping on foot to not wear a lot of flashy jewelry. Remember Panama as a nation has much less violent crime in a year (a mere fraction) than what New York City has in one day. Panama is far safer than North America. Violent crime in Panama is relatively unheard of. The assaults that happen here are overwhelmingly going to be amongst people well known to each other like husband and wife, criminal gang members, etc. Armed robberies are vely unheard of. Rapes are again not a likely occurrence but I would not advise any young woman to go running around without other people at night. This advice would apply in USA except having a friend or two along in the USA might just mean you all become victims. Panama is way way more safe than even the safe cities in the USA.

Panama as a nation has much less violent crime in a year (a mere fraction) than what New York City has in one day. Panama is far safer than North America. Violent crime in Panama is relatively unheard of.

Bars on windows are common in Panama. Again children can become thieves of opportunity. There are a lot of really poor people in this country and an open window could tempt a child to become a thief and enter to take a tv, cash, radio etc. Some dwellings also have an extra door, like a storm door; made of ornate iron. When the USA was here anyone who was in military or was an American working for them was required to put these iron doors on in front of the regular door so this is why you see a lot of these doors. Most apartment buildings have security guards 24/7 who are sharp and vigilant. Some are armed, some are not. They usually station one guard in the lobby to buzz up visitors after you clear them, to sign for packages and deliveries and there is usually at least one other guard watching the garage area. Some have guards roving the grounds. Rest assured the apartment buildings most Expats are likely to gravitate towards are going to have security far beyond what you would need to feel really safe and the type of security you’d get if you lived in a high rise building in say Central park South in Manhattan paying upwards of $10,000 a month rent (minus the elevator operators). Rest assured no one is going to be lurking for you in the lobby or the garage, you are not going to enter the elevator on the lobby floor and wind up going down to the basement for a nightmare, no one is going to come to your apartment door unannounced, no strangers are roaming around the halls, etc. Just accept the private security as a way of life down here and not as an indicator or high crime.

For the more security conscious monitored alarm systems are available and yes the police will come when the alarm company calls them but I think this is overkill. You can get a safe for valuables and bolt it into floor/walls inside of a closet with a solid core wood door with a dead bolt installed. A safe may be a nice touch if a lot of strangers are in your house and you have a lot of valuables you do not want to keep in a bank safe deposit box. Multilink (trade name) doors are very interesting, first saw something like them in Israel over 10 years ago. You have a steel door maybe with decorative wood over it. In the door is a high security lock nicely mounted so it can’t be easily pulled out. The door frame is reinforced with an all steel liner. When you a turn a key deadbolts come out and into the frame on all four sides of the door making a real secure closure. It would take a lot of battering with a battering ram and to get in, probably easier to go through the wall. You can put up a fence with razor ribbon. You could get some big dogs. Best of all hire your own live in bodyguard/driver/errand guy. Cost would be at about $5.00 per day if you let him live in, feed him etc. He’ll have a gun license and carry a pistol. You can use him as a driver too. Let him live in the maids room and hire a day maid instead. Remember this paragraph is for the ultra security minded folks (not paranoids), not for most people. In law enforcement they say if you ever used it you needed it, so if you carried a gun 24/7 for 45 years and one day actually used it well then you needed it all that time. A decent line of logic considering the stakes involved.

For more information, please visit:

http://www.panamaexpertos.com

http://www.panamaexpertos.com/info.php?page=content/crime_and_safety

http://www.panamaexpertos.com/info.php?page=content/cost_of_living

At the heart of democracy is the idea that citizens are equal before the law. In elections, every citizen gets only one vote. When citizens are charged with crimes or believe their rights have been violated, they expect equal treatment in the courts whether they are rich or poor, religious or atheist, politicians or political activists.

Every democratic society must strive to grant equal protection to its citizens. Yet one significant community of citizens is the focus of many laws but has no formal way to shape those laws: youth. Children and adolescents are a vital part of every nation. They are subject to society’s rules, but they are treated differently under the law precisely because of their age. They cannot vote, nor do they have many of the privileges and responsibilities of older citizens. Instead, laws are passed to help and protect them or to protect the larger society. One of these laws is the youth curfew.

ANALYSIS ON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CURFEW LAWS[1]

Curfew laws have been challenged on a variety of constitutional grounds. Although some may argue juveniles do not have constitutional rights, the Supreme Court in many cases has ruled that people have constitutional rights regardless of age. Often these cases have involved issues of students’ rights in schools. Tinker v. Des Moines School District in 1969 ruled that students had the right to freedom of speech in schools.[2] This case involved how school officials had forbidden a group of students from carrying out their symbolic protest of the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands. The constitutional rights of young people have been affirmed in many other cases, such as their religious freedom in schools, where religious activity is allowed as long as it is student led. In the case Missouri v. Danforth in 1976, it was directly stated that people have full constitutional rights regardless of age. In the court’s opinion:

Constitutional rights do not mature and come into being magically only when one attains the state-defined age of majority.[3]

Although young people are subject to a large number of restrictions based upon age, the judicial system has a long precedent for people having full constitutional rights regardless of age.

The Supreme Court has long recognized that the rights of freedom of speech and assembly go hand in hand. In order to voice opinion, it is sometimes necessary to gather protests, and the only way to accomplish this is if there is freedom to gather in public as long as it is peaceful. The fourteenth amendment also guarantees that state and local governments cannot take away first amendment rights. Many curfew laws, however, have exceptions written in them that allow offenders to be exempt if they are involved in a political protest. The importance of the use of public property such as streets and parks for conducting political speech has been protected by freedom of assembly under the first amendment since Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496 in 1939. This case involved a group of people denied permits from the police for holding a meeting in a building in Jersey City for allegedly being communist. The city ordinance required anyone conducting a speech advocating obstruction of government to obtain a permit through the police station before getting a lease to any hall or building for conducting the speech.[4] However, in Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 554 , 464 (1965), it was ruled states may impose reasonable regulations upon assembly. In the opinion of the court:

One would not be justified in ignoring the familiar red light because this was thought to be a means of social protest. Nor could one, contrary to traffic regulations, insist upon a street meeting in the middle of Times Square at the rush hour as a form of freedom of speech or assembly.

However, the regulatory measures must be narrowly defined to reach only the legitimate objectives of the state regulation. While the Supreme Court’s interpretation of freedom of speech is broad, its interpretation of freedom of assembly appears to be narrow.

Curfew laws directly remove the right to assemble in public, and many times even on private, property. The constitutionality of youth curfew laws has yet to be tested in the Supreme Court. Lower courts are divided over the issue, many ruling unconstitutional, and many ruling constitutional. The Supreme Court has only ever had one case to do with a curfew law in history, Kiyoshi Hirabayashi v. United States in 1943. This case was concerning the curfew imposed upon Japanese during World War II. It was upheld because the court felt constitutional rights were less applicable in times of war.

General curfews have often been imposed as a response to an emergency, such as riots, and they usually were implemented only a few days to a few weeks. The key difference is that they are intended from the start to be temporary, whereas youth curfews are intended to be permanent. A general curfew, which applied to all citizens to respond to a temporary emergency, was appealed to the Supreme Court in Janet Stotland v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[6] They refused to hear the case. However, Justice Douglas dissented arguing that curfew laws may be necessary when the security of the state is threatened, but they raised serious questions about the right of assembly. He stated he was concerned about the possible abuse of curfew laws in clearing the public of “undesirable people,” such as minorities, and he argued a curfew law should be temporary and narrowly defined.

The judicial system often applies a test to see if a law is narrowly defined enough and does not give the authorities too much power. Many lower courts that ruled a youth curfew law unconstitutional later ruled it constitutional after many exceptions were added into the law. Although curfew laws violate constitutional rights, the courts ruling in favor of curfew laws state they have a “compelling state interest” of reducing juvenile crime and victimization. Few people care about the rights of other people, and usually they only care about their own. Many adults seem not care about the rights of young people at all, by making their mere presence illegal. A survey conducted by Wichita State University asking cities nationwide a variety of questions concerning curfew laws found no city that didn’t have a curfew law specifying constitutional issues as a reason for not having it[7]. For these reasons, the only aspect about curfew laws that may really matter is if they are necessary, and if they do in fact accomplish their stated goals of reducing juvenile crime and victimization thus having a “compelling state interest.”

Nationwide, the majority of cities with curfew laws claim they are great successes in reducing crime. In a survey done by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, it was found that the officials in 88% of the cities with curfew laws believed that they helped reduce juvenile crime.[8] However, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, the survey “did not include a statistical analysis of the effect curfews have had on crime”.[9] In addition, I was only able to find one study of the effectiveness of curfew laws that did a statistical hypothesis test that the level of curfew enforcement is negatively correlated with the level of other crime. It was the only one to use the basic procedures of using controlled data and testing for statistical significance. Curfews have been around for a long time, and the crime statistics to study them are readily available. The fact that virtually no research has been done, while so many people are claiming curfew laws are great successes, seems very irresponsible, and should lend itself to skepticism. Although statistics are often used to deceive, they’re often the only way of measuring the real world, if done properly. Law enforcement agencies that say they “observe” a decline in juvenile crime should explain exactly how they observe it. Law enforcement officials report whatever crime measure conveniently shows crime has decreased. For example, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention did a study of curfew laws in 1996[10] and used crime victimization in some cities, arrest figures in others, and arrest figures for only selected crimes in still others. It made no controlled comparisons, and so it is useless for research purposes.[11]

Youth Curfews: Protection or Punishment?

Youth curfew laws make it illegal for young people, usually under age 16 or 17, to be on the streets during certain times, typically from 11:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. These laws are part of a larger group of “status offenses.” A status offense is something that is illegal when a young person does it but legal when done by an adult. Depending on the country, other examples can be smoking or drinking in public, running away from home, or not being in school during a normal school day.

The United States is the current leader in legislating and enforcing curfew laws. These laws are usually passed and enforced by state or local governments. During the 1990s, thousands of American cities and towns, including nearly three-fourths of all cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants, enacted youth curfew laws. These laws were part of a response to the increase in juvenile crime that occurred in the United States between 1988 and 1992. During those four years, juvenile homicide increased 55 percent. Forcible rape increased 27 percent, and aggravated assault jumped 80 percent. Young people under 16 were responsible for 62 percent of violent juvenile offenses, but statistics also showed that teenagers were the most frequent targets of juvenile violence. Curfew laws enacted in the 1990s were aimed at reducing juvenile crime and preventing youth victimization.

Several European democracies have imposed different versions of youth curfews. In Britain, a 1998 law allowed local councils to impose curfews for all children under ten. A Scottish program mandates police officers to stop young people on the streets at night and divert them towards youth activities available at clubs set up by the local council. Serbia has debated extending wartime curfew policies for young people only. Curfews also have been introduced in Australia. In the city of Perth, Australian lawmakers recently imposed a curfew for a year; they report that the curfew has reduced crime and antisocial behavior. Curfew laws in the United States have been challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). ACLU lawyers argue that the curfew law violates young people’s rights under the U.S. Constitution, including freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, freedom from unreasonable detainment, fair treatment under the law, and the right to travel.

Not surprisingly, different challenges to local curfew laws in the United States have yielded different results. A federal court declared that the curfew law in the city of Dallas, Texas, was unconstitutional. The city appealed this decision to a higher court, and that court ruled that the Dallas curfew was constitutional because it had the potential to reduce juvenile crime and victimization. The higher court also ruled that certain exceptions in the curfew law provided young people and their parents with enough freedom to move about after curfew hours. Many other communities followed Dallas’s example and established curfew laws. In 2001, however, curfew laws were successfully challenged in the states of Alaska, New Jersey, New York, and elsewhere. In those cases, curfew laws were found to violate the constitutional rights of young people and their parents.

Balancing Rights and Safety

Most arguments about youth curfews address two main ideas: (1) the safety of youth and society and (2) the rights of youth and adults.

1. The Safety of Young People and Society.

Advocates claim that youth curfews can help protect vulnerable children. Most parents, they say, are responsible, but many cannot supervise their children, who may then fall victim to street crime and accidents. Curfews, they say, can protect under supervised children and help parents face up to their responsibilities. Supporters also claim that youth curfews can challenge negative youth attitudes in areas where defying the law is considered desirable and gang membership is a status symbol. Curfews encourage young people to spend more time with their families and in more positive activities, such as sports and youth clubs.

People opposed to curfews argue that curfews limit the rights of parents to bring up their children as they choose. Requiring adults to accompany their children to outside activities is unreasonable and prejudicial because many adults don’t believe they need to—or are unable to—transport their children around the community.

Advocates of youth curfews also believe that these laws provide communities with fair and positive means to reduce juvenile violence. Juvenile crime is a serious problem that often involves drugs and violence. Gangs can terrorize communities and create a social climate in which criminal activity becomes the norm. Youth curfews deal with these problems by keeping young people off the street and preventing them from congregating in the hours of darkness.

Opponents of youth curfews are not convinced that such programs actually work. They point to studies that show no direct link exists between juvenile crime rates and the enforcement of youth curfews. Instead, these studies show other factors (for example, population shifts and economic changes) have more impact on youth crime than do curfews. Additionally, these studies found that most juvenile crime takes place between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m.—after students are released from school and before working parents return home—rather than during curfew hours.

Youth curfews, say their advocates, can support zero-tolerance policing. This strategy is based on the theory that low-level crimes such as graffiti-tagging, window breaking, and drug dealing (all common juvenile offenses) can encourage development of a lawless environment where more serious crimes can flourish. Opponents suggest that imposing youth curfews has great potential for abuse and may turn generally law-abiding young people into criminals. They note that more American children are charged with curfew offenses than with any other crime. They also point out that statistics from U.S. communities suggest that the police arrest more non-white than white youth for curfew violations. They also say that curfews affect the poor more harshly: because youth in poor neighborhoods have fewer places to play or “hang out” safely, their only option is staying on the streets. Once burdened by a criminal record, many of these young people cross a psychological boundary, perceiving themselves as outlaws. A criminal record reduces the employment opportunities for youth and scars their futures. Enforcement of youth curfews can lead to deterioration in police-youth relations.

2. The Rights of Young and Older Citizens.

Opponents of youth curfews say that these policies infringe upon the individual rights and liberties of young people. Children, they say, have the right to freedom of movement and assembly. Curfews hurt these rights. Young people, particularly teenagers, have legitimate reasons to be out at night without adults. Many hold after school jobs. Others participate in group activities at churches, youth clubs, or sports arenas.

Young citizens cannot learn how to be responsible unless they have opportunities to act responsibly. Opponents of curfews also note that this kind of law treats all young people as potential law breakers. While only 0.2 percent of youth in the United States commit serious offenses, youth curfews limit the remaining 99.8 percent of young people who seek to engage in legitimate activities during nighttime hours. Moreover, curfew laws tend to discriminate by age, despite the fact that young people commit fewer crimes than adults.

Supporters of youth curfews agree that such programs take the law-abiding majority of young people off the streets. They see this restriction, however, as a protection and an advantage: it protects law-abiding youth from law-breakers, and it gives the police the advantage of focusing their resources on only those few young people actively breaking the law. Balancing the rights and safety needs of youth and adults remains a challenge.

CONCLUSION

In early 2009 the Chief Minister of Perlis (Malaysia) announced his intention to enforce youth curfew. It was intended to reduce crime rates and prevent youths from getting involved with immoral activities. However, his intention has been heavily criticized. Some agreed with him, including the Pemuda UMNO Perlis, but most disagreed.

The biggest challenge to enforcement of youth curfew is the Federal Constitution. It has been stated in many cases[13] and in the Federal Constitution itself that any subsidiary laws which contradict the Federal Constitution, the later shall prevail[14]. Hence, until the Federal Constitution is amended, there is no guarantee for enforcement of youth curfew laws to be practicable in Malaysia.

*original document has footnotes. Please e-mail me at mahyuddindaud86@yahoo.com if you would like to have a copy of this document.