Viorel Cerneutanu
The proposed changes immediately caused an uproar because of one of the clauses: persons holding public office would be able to possess firearms without the need to undergo a psychiatric evaluation and appropriate training courses. The level of public outrage was so high that this provision was immediately deleted.
However, there were still many initiatives in the document, even exceeding the removed amendments by their negative impact on this segment of public life.
As Viorel Cerneutanu, head of the Inspectorate General of Police (IGP), said at a public hearing held on June 20, the proposed amendments are intended to bring Moldovan legislation in line with EU standards and directives.
However, as is often the case, some of the proposed amendments not only do not comply with the European legislation, but directly contradict it.
Currently, four categories of people have the right to own firearms in Moldova – sportsmen, hunters, collectors (they can own long-barreled weapons) and persons who have acquired them for self-defense (we are talking about short-barreled weapons – pistols or revolvers).
So, the most curious of the amendments proposes to deprive the fourth category of the right to own weapons. And to retain this opportunity only for current and former law enforcement officers.
As Mr. Cerneutanu explained, it was invented because for the last five years in Moldova not a single case of self-defense with the use of firearms has been registered. Although a recent case is known, when a gang attacked the manager of a gas station in Staceni, he locked himself in his office and fought them off with a pistol. The use of weapons was recognized as legal.
At the same time, the head of the ISU specified that 12.5 thousand Moldovan citizens fall under the definition of “owners of weapons for self-defense”.
They are offered (if the amendments are adopted) until 2027 to hand over their short-barreled weapons to the police for free. Or sell them to former police officers or SIS officers through gun stores on a commission basis. Otherwise, the weapons will be confiscated through a search procedure.
Interestingly, the Police Action Report 2024, published on the ISU website, shows that the 12,500 self-defense gun owners mentioned above committed only 217 self-defense-related offenses last year, down 18% from the year before.
“By analogy, the author could file a bill tomorrow that would require all car owners to immediately surrender their cars to the state for free because they cause accidents every year in which people get hurt. However, cars, in fact, pose a much greater danger compared to weapons, because, according to statistics, many more people suffer in traffic accidents than in incidents involving weapons,” user Radu Botezatu wrote in comments to the bill on the particip.gov.md website.
We asked civil activist Anton Kiselev, a holder of diplomas from the Ministry of Internal Affairs for 2020 and 2021 “for active participation in modifying the legislation on weapons”, to comment on the proposed amendments.
“This amendment, as well as some others, contradicts the European Directive 2021/555, which regulates the circulation of firearms among the civilian population,” says Anton Kiselev.
Also the Eurodirective does not directly correspond to the proposed amendments on the terms of renewal of the right to its possession. Now every five years (as in Europe) it is necessary to submit documents on the technical condition of the weapon, as well as a medical certificate – its owner. This EU norm must be applied by all commonwealth states. But we propose to reduce it to 3 years and oblige all owners to take retraining courses (advanced training) within these terms. Naturally, paid.
Also, the expert does not really understand the proposed changes to the categories. Now they are as follows: A) weapons completely prohibited for civilian ownership (this includes fully automatic models and many other things that are used only in the army); B) category of firearms for civilians; C) weapons that do not require a permit, only declaration (crossbows, noise, signaling, etc.); D) without restrictions (stun guns, gas cans).
So, in category B) it is proposed to add long-barreled firearms with a cartridge capacity of not more than three ammunition. Why – it is unclear.
Chairman of the Federation of Applied Shooting Viktor Statnik noted another point, included in the initial versions of the bill. For transportation of weapons to the shooting range each time the owner will have to obtain a permit from the competent authorities. They issue it within 30 calendar days and it is valid for 10 days.
“If people want to go shooting on the weekend, plans may be disrupted because of the late receipt of such a permit,” said Viktor Statnik. – Now this provision is advisory in nature, they want to make it mandatory.
Statnik is sure that if the amendments are adopted as proposed, it will have a strong negative impact on the work of gun stores (flooded with weapons accepted for commission), shooting ranges, which will reduce the number of customers, and sports organizations. Turnover will decrease, including at the expense of ammunition, and fewer taxes will be paid to the treasury.
“The presence of weapons in free circulation shows that we live in a free, democratic country. A ban on the possession of weapons by citizens is a sign of dictatorship,” concluded Viktor Statnik.
