Gun law or where Strategy should begin


First the gun laws

Обложка статьи: Вначале закон об оружии. На фоне пистолет

The presented Strategy does not solve the problem of protecting the country’s citizens during the period of “constitutional uncertainty”, when the possibility of repeating the situation that took place on the streets of Belarus in 2020 will be excluded. Recall, then peaceful, unarmed protesters were confronted by an armed horde of law enforcement officers. And it’s no secret that the one who controls the power structures of the state controls the power in it, which means that the only way to avoid this is to nullify the priority of the possession of force of arms in the political life of society.

Therefore, we believe that the presented Strategy should first of all contain a mechanism for ensuring internal security of citizens in the transition period, which should protect citizens from the arbitrariness of the state!

The Decree “On Arms”

Based on the above, it is extremely important to issue the Decree “On Weapons” as the first Decree of the transitional government (before the adoption of the relevant law). Every mentally healthy citizen who has reached the age of 18, has no criminal record (for violent and property crimes), and has not been prosecuted for certain administrative offenses, should have the right to keep and bear non-automatic weapons. This means that trade in these weapons and ammunition and their free circulation is allowed.

Think about it, would the riot police have been able to abuse people who have weapons in such a way, would they have organized all this nonsense in August 2020, if they had realized what kind of response they could get?! Would someone have given the order to shoot Alexander Taraikovsky and Gennady Shutov? As well as the order to use weapons and special means to disperse citizens who are ready to fight back? We think that most of the law enforcers would not have taken to the streets at all, realizing how many people there are, in what condition they are and how armed they are! After all, understanding the inevitability of a retaliatory strike always leads to the fact that force is excluded from the dialog.

n addition, in a situation of regime change, there is a high probability of invasion by Russia. As the practice used in the defense of Ukrainian cities (Kharkiv, Kiev) has shown, the Russians are not ready for street battles and total resistance from the people when weapons are transferred to the population. This means that the Decree should provide for the possibility, in case of threat of occupation, to distribute small arms and armor-piercing weapons from state (army) warehouses to citizens from territorial self-defense units.

Such a decree, and subsequently a law, should already be developed on the basis of law enforcement practice of the Czech Republic, Poland and Lithuania (as the countries closest to us, not only in their mentality, history, but also in spirit). 

Defense of one’s rights and freedoms.

Normal people should not be afraid of the free circulation of weapons. Bandits of all stripes in case of need have no problem finding weapons, and only good citizens always remain unarmed one-on-one with danger. It is dangerous when weapons fall into the hands of children or mentally unstable persons, but this is not a question of its circulation, but of storage and control, which again, based on the practice of our neighbors, is quite controllable and feasible! The main thing is to realize and accept a number of axioms – a bandit will always find a weapon, the state punitive machine is afraid only of a man with a weapon, protection of oneself, property, one’s rights and freedoms is a matter of national interest!

Bottom line

Let us summarize what the adoption of this Decree will achieve:

1. even the idea that someone could usurp power in a country where the population is armed, much less use force to suppress the discontent of such citizens, is excluded. The right to rebellion will be virtually guaranteed without its use, simply by the state’s understanding that for any force there will always be a counterforce to maintain the status quo;

2. To make good citizens feel protected against any threat and will be a guarantor of inviolability of private property, personality, their political rights and freedoms. After all, no person planning a crime will buy a weapon officially, as all its characteristics, including ballistic ones, are removed before the sale, and it will certainly be installed;

3. to avoid the threat of occupation, as only the infliction of unacceptable damage is able to stop aggression, and to go to war with the whole country, where almost every family will have a weapon, and its owner, almost certainly, has undergone military training (compulsory service, etc.) – is to initially put themselves in front of the threat of colossal, and therefore unacceptable losses.

We foresee some reproaches with examples of murders in US schools or the recent situation in a park in Prague, that we do not have a culture of handling weapons and so on, but as said above – this is not a question of free circulation of weapons, but a question of enforcement of laws, control over its observance. And no one had a culture of handling weapons from the beginning, everyone learned from scratch. Incidents with weapons happen from the fact that the owner leaves the weapon available to children or mentally ill people, does not observe elementary safety rules. At the same time, we would like to draw attention to the fact that the same cases occur in countries that do not have free circulation of weapons, such as Russia, China, etc.

Once again we remind the obvious fact – a criminal will always find access to illegal weapons, and only you and I are always left alone and unarmed in the face of an armed criminal or a representative of the regime!