:strip_icc()/s03.video.glbimg.com/x720/7302026.jpg)
[ad_1]
The Right of Possession is the authorization to keep a firearm at home or at work (provided that the owner of the firearm is the legal guardian of l & # 39; establishment).
To walk with the rifle in the street, it is necessary to have until the port whose rules are more stringent and have not been dealt with in the decree .
Bolsonaro signs a decree that eases the possession of firearms in Brazil "title =" Bolsonaro signs a decree that eases the possession of firearms in Brazil "
See below the points for and against the decree, quoted by politicians and specialists:
See, below, what they said policy
Alberto Fraga (DEM-DF), MP – "This question of actual demonstrated need was the" jump of the cat "found by the PT at the time […] .And we have three impediment requirements, which are the series of shots, no criminal record nor psychological badessment.The fourth requirement, the simplest, the proof of necessity, is only your will. […] Upon receipt of the application, the federal police do not check the declaration.The declaration of the citizen, after fulfilling the three conditions of impediment, is good Alessandro Molon (PSB-RJ), MP and one of the vice-leaders of PSB in the House of Representatives – "Facilitating access to arms is a serious mistake for several reasons. First because, as scientific studies show, more weapons are synonymous with more deaths, not the other way around. Secondly, because the public power has the possibility of entrusting the citizen to his own destiny, instead of guaranteeing public security, as is the obligation of the state. Third, because the majority of the population is against it, as shown in the latest Datafolha survey. Fourth, because it is based on a lie: the 2005 referendum was not filled. "
Alex Manente (PPS-SP), Member of Parliament, PPS Leader in the House – " I think the Bolsonaro reproduces what he promised in your campaign, but it's a subject that deserves to be debated in Parliament itself. I think that there is indeed a risk of resistance from the Congress to the decree, even if it is already valid. I think we have more concerns than this, so much so that recent research has shown that the majority of the population is not in favor of more flexible possession. "
Elmar Nascimento (DEM-BA) – " The decree goes against the promises it [Bolsonaro] made during the campaign. So it's not a surprise, but I do not think it should be a priority. The top priority must be the economic agenda. And recent research has shown that this issue of gun ownership does not appeal to the public as much. Moreover, when things are done by decree, they create great insecurity. We do not know how that will be reflected in Congress. It would be much wiser for the Speaker to send a bill or at least an interim measure to Congress so that it can be considered by the Legislative Assembly. "
Ivan Valente (PSOL-SP) The leaders of the PSOL in the House – " On the first day of the legislature, we will introduce a bill to put an end to the presidential decree on unconstitutionality and the exorbitance of regulatory power. The decree has defeated the Disarmament Statute. With this decree, they made an outside move to change the status in several points, practically freeing the possession of weapons, but also pointing to the flexibility of the size. This shows that the government does not have a public security policy. This is a propaganda measure, without any efficiency, because statistics show that it will only increase violence and insecurity. It will be a general bang-bang. "
Paulo Pimenta (PT-RS), MP, PT leader in the House – " This decree speaks of residents. If a house is inhabited by four people over the age of 25 who meet the established criteria, that house may have 16 weapons. […] It is an institutional irresponsibility. If, within 60 days, we come to the conclusion that it was a mistake, how are we going to collect these weapons, which will be scattered throughout the country? We will present a draft legislative decree to Congress [para sustar os efeitos do decreto] and we will enter with Adin [ação direta de inconstitucionalidade] in the Supreme Court because this decree exceeds the limits of the law, exceeds the limits of the law. The decree extrapolates powers conferred by legislation to the executive power to regulate what the law provides. It encroaches on the jurisdiction of the legislature. "
Sergio Souza (MDB-PR), deputy, one of the deputy leaders of the MDB in the House – " Under certain conditions, I am in favor of the release of possession of weapons at fire. Today, the perpetrator enters a house or a rural property with the firm belief that there will be no weapon there. There was only the disarmament of good people. If the thug knows that he can have a weapon in a house, it will prevent him. The Statute of Disarmament does not prohibit the possession of a weapon, and the regulation must be made by decree. If you want to go ahead, change the rules, such as the template, you have to go through Congress. "
Association of Reserve Officers of the Brazilian Prime Minister (President Elias Miller da Silva, Colonel of the São Paulo Military Police Reserve) – " We understand that this decree removed the subjectivism that was between the hands of the FP delegate to authorize the purchase of the weapon, when the person requested personal needs. In paragraph 1 of Article 12 of the Decree, it is said that, if it is presumed that the application and the documents of the person making the request are really necessary, it is still incumbent on the person who is responsible for it. IP to check it. In the referendum on disarmament, 60 million people voted in 2005 for the "yes" for the right to buy a firearm, repealing a law banning the purchase. The referendum was a direct result of popular sovereignty, but the PT government failed to respect popular sovereignty, reinstating the ban and leaving the purchase at the discretion of the FP delegate, who stated that the purchase was necessary or not. We must link this decree to the referendum on the status of disarmament and universal suffrage which ended with the election of Bolsonaro. It's democracy. Once again, the people legitimized this proposal (to facilitate the purchase of weapons) by choosing Bolsonaro. In the United States, the citizen is allowed to have a firearm at home, as a guarantee of democracy. Meanwhile, in countries like Venezuela, only the army has weapons, unlike the population. The power of the weapon is not in the weapon, but in what can be done with the weapon. She is like a knife at home, which can also kill. What concerns us is not the registered legal weapon that the person owns at home, but illegal weapons that enter the border freely, as well as restricted and prohibited gauges. Yes, these weapons circulate freely. The weapons in the hands of the people will be registered, they will stay at home and if the person breaks the law and has the record only for possession and possession in the streets, it will be stopped under penalty of 2 to 4 years of # 39; imprisonment. The question is not the weapon, it is the culture. People have the right to have a rifle, even to rebel against tyranny, even more against a criminal who enters their home. You defend yourself with the alarm, for example with a knife, with a weapon, with what you have. "
Association of squares of the armed forces (Sergeant José Nogueira, member of the board of directors) -" We, the military, are in favor of the decree because he had left there are several years. The arms control was against what the people voted in the disarmament referendum. We applaud and we support the change of Bolsonaro. I believe we will standardize and obtain the permits that everyone was looking for previously and that they did not have permission. We had many negative purchase requests from the army. We now believe that the purchase authorization will be easier and more flexible because the legislation has not yet been closely linked, which prevented many military from being able to buy. "
Amiam (Aniam) – " Aniam understands that the President of the Republic, Jair Bolsonaro, was very happy, within the limits of the decree, the measures put in place, which have allowed to fulfill the promises of his election campaign. The changes focused on what really prevented citizens from owning a firearm for the protection of the person, the family and property, thus ending the discretionary power to badyze registration applications. And firearms and defining situations of actual necessity. Contrary to rumors that there is a limit to the number of weapons that can be acquired, the decree has not in fact limited, allowing up to four weapons per real need and not excluding acquisition in a quantity exceeding this limit, provided that the facts are presented and the circumstances justifying it, according to the legislation in force. Aniam also considers that the automatic renewal of firearms registration certificates, issued prior to the date of publication of the decree, is important for the legalization of these weapons. As the flag of the current government, Aniam believes that other positive changes of this type should be made in the future to guarantee the right of Brazilian citizens to self-defense. "
Brazilian Forum for Public Security (FBSP) – " O The Brazilian Public Security Forum, based on national and international studies on the causes of homicides and other violent crimes, deplores the publication by the government Federal decree facilitating the possession of firearms. It's a gamble on violence, because there's enough solid evidence in the public safety debate that the more you're armed, the more crime you have. Initially, we regret that President Jair Bolsonaro chose to avoid debating the issue in Congress and in society when he decided to proceed with the amendment by decree. The absence of contradiction is still impoverishing the debate. The government's priority should be to improve its own gun control instruments. Suffice it to say that 94.9% of the weapons seized in 2017 were not registered in the federal police system (SINARM) and 13,782 legal weapons were lost, lost or stolen, or 11.5% weapons seized by the police the same year. . It's as if a month of police work had been lost. We also find that the supposed criterion adopted to facilitate possession, ie in states where the rate of homicide is greater than 10 per 100,000 inhabitants, simply allows each Brazilian citizen to possess firearm. It is a "no criterion". It is a way of circumventing the spirit of the Disarmament Statute. A decree could never be higher than a law. And the law states that there must be a criterion. The presidential decree marks a very big political gamble on the so-called individual defense, contrary to public security collective policies. Unfortunately, this weakens the idea of an articulation between different spheres of government and power, which is the only way to defeat the battle of public security, ie to generate effective policies to reduce crime and violence. "
Brazilian FBSP Forum (Samira Bueno, Executive Director) – " The status of disarmament can be improved. One of the criticisms was that they argued that it was very difficult to be in possession of firearms because it depended on subjective criteria. It was up to the delegate to approve or not the necessity of owning a firearm. This criticism was well founded. He might think of more objective criteria for defining the need for a firearm to mark the decision of the delegates to carry out this badysis. The decree has the effect of considerably increasing the possession of the land. (…) The person will write a letter of his own fist saying that she must have a gun. So, you have not solved the problem. It remains subjective. No matter who says that he needs a gun and you distribute it to him. So you extend the chances of having a gun. [decreto] understands that any resident of states whose rate is greater than 10 deaths per 100,000 population is considered a state in need. It is essentially the entire population, since all states have a rate above 10. (…) This is not a criterion, because if you say it is greater than 10 per 100,000, you talk about the entire population, because it includes: all states. "
Brazilian Institute of Criminal Sciences, Ibccrim (Thiago Bottino, Chief Coordinator of Studies and Legislative Projects of Ibccrim and Professor of Criminal Law at the Getúlio Vargas Foundation of Rio – FGV-RJ) have four weapons: previously you had this limit of six weapons per citizen, but you had the requirement of actual necessity, which is subjective, had no standard, but was badyzed on a case-by-case basis and Possession of the first or the second weapon could be denied to you With this decree, taking into account the homicide index in the area of residence of the person, any citizen can today ask a weapon with the justification of residing in Brazil.Before having to prove why you needed a firearm, you just need today to prove that you are Brazilian and that you have an address On the criteria of possessing an arm e: When the decree facilitates the purchase of a weapon, it suffices to say that you live in Rio, in São Paulo or in any city of the country, that you own a commercial establishment. require a weapon. These are totally abstract criteria, what you do is put a lot of guns on the streets. An Ipea survey conducted in 2013 shows that each 1% increase in the number of weapons available increases the homicide rate by 2%. It is very serious. None of the driver's licenses are valid for 10 years. How will you grant the validity of the possession of a firearm for 10 years? It must be regular. It is more difficult today to have a driver's license than to have a firearm. Today, the criteria are abstract, it is dangerous because they must be real, effective, dynamic. "
Igarapé Institute (Ilona Szabó, Executive Director) – " The decree was an old request, but honestly, I think is a bit of a distraction. The own member of the government base, delegate [deputado] Waldir, stated that neither the possession nor the carrying of arms would bring more security to society. What we are trying to discuss is: "Government, what are the measures that will bring security to society?" Because that's what people expect: a safer country … When you think about the measures we talk about as possession and postage, it ends up being a subcontracting. Because in a democratic state of law, the main responsibility of a leader is to protect the citizens. They tell us: "The ball is with you, now you have it. I subcontracted and you ended up. Whether for possession or postage. Go ahead and do justice to your own hands. It's the worst of scenarios. (…) We can not distract ourselves, we will actually seek and gather the measures that will bring us more security. That's what the Brazilian wants and the government has been elected with this flag. As they badumed that these proposals would not bring more security, we will charge. Where are the proposals that will bring greater security to the population? (…) The world, before having the democratic state of law, worked as well. Our current experience shows, according to our research, that the situation will only worsen. At the end of the day, we can not find a plan that can put in place a public safety plan for our country in a sustainable way. (…) In our opinion, we are not opposed to the possession of weapons for citizens who meet the requirements of the law. But we know that at home more firearms carry more risk of childhood accidents, suicides, more chances of stolen weapons than of self-defense. We should discuss these risks. "
Sou da Paz Institute – " The Sou da Paz Institute regrets the decision taken by the Presidency of the Republic to amend Decree No. 5.123 / 2004, which regulates the known law. Disarmament Status (Law No. 10.826 / 2003) and is part of the National Firearms and Ammunition Control Policy. Although a recent study (Datafolha, published December 31, 2018) shows the rejection of 61% of the Brazilian population that facilitates access to firearms, President Jair Bolsonaro has decreed flexibility requirements allowing to more weapons to enter circulation throughout the national territory. The majority of the population is the desire to invest seriously and strategically in public security, a responsibility that the government deviates into by creating the illusion that armed citizens would be protected, and the use of the A self-defense weapon badumes that it is immediately at hand. that the citizen has an unrealistic level of training in everyday life. In addition, with the proposed rules, the federal government gave up control of registered firearms, increasing the registration period to 10 years and, in practice, eliminating the badysis done by the federal police for the granting of the license. It is worrying that the legal concept of effective necessity, established by Law 10.826 / 2003, is interpreted by the decree based on the index of homicides recorded in the searches carried out in 2016, that is to say in an instant. By freezing the actual needs for 2016 data, the decree responds to a reality this year and in practice removes this legal requirement for all license applications throughout the national territory, no state having registered less than 10 deaths. violent deaths per 100,000 population that year. Another highlight is the increased recording time of the firearm. The decree increases the deadline for renewal of the file to 10 years, which means that it obliges psychologists to ensure that people remain in all their mental faculties for the next 10 years. Similarly, no one can guarantee that they will be able to use a weapon responsibly without hitting anyone during the same period. If to drive a car, we renew the driving license every 5 years, it makes no sense to extend the term to 10 years. Article 2 of the Decree is also serious in that it determines the automatic renewal of all documents already issued without any verification to determine whether they continue to meet the same requirements as when they purchased their weapons during Last 15 years. Finally and most importantly, we warn that one of the likely effects of the decree signed today will be the increase in the number of violent deaths for mundane reasons, as the case of the shooter of the cathedral of Campinas who, although he did not use recorded weapons, had access to weapons and caused a tragedy that could be avoided without the high number of weapons in circulation. In addition, the circulation of firearms will increase the supply of weapons to criminals. The investigations conducted by the ICC of the National Congress and the Legislative Assembly of Rio de Janeiro, as well as those conducted by the Sou da Paz Institute in partnership with the State Prosecutor's Office of São Paulo, show that most firearms used for criminal purposes are domestically produced and at one point were legitimately marketed to licensed citizens, who later had their weapon hijacked or subtracted and moved into the illegal market. "
Sou da Paz Institute (Natália Pollachi, project coordinator) – " The definition of effective necessity encompbades all states, even São Paulo, which was above the index in 2016 It is a static measure of 2016 that today does not apply. This reverses the logic of necessity, since São Paulo today would not enter this range. The thermometer is not real because Brazil has different realities and each region has different rates [de homicídio]. The code snippet on people living with a child or a mentally handicapped person is totally harmless as it is only a statement of the person. And the place where to put the gun can be a wardrobe, not a safe. Who will scrutinize? The decree does not say that it must be locked in the safe. (…) By extending the validity of renewal of the register [da posse de arma] the government weakens the obligation of research. When the person has to go there every 5 years, the police update the data. All this will be done every 10 years, not every 5 years. We will have no news if the weapon was stolen, for example. (…) Now, the certification is renewed years later without checking if the requirements are maintained. We do not know the psychological conditions, the antecedents and the criminal processes. This is an amnesty for someone who has had something at one time. "
Movimento Viva Brasil (Bene Barbosa, President) -" It is very difficult to badess at this time whether the decree is more positive or more negative regarding access to weapons by ordinary citizens . What is very clear is that if this decree came from the Temer government, which had no agenda, the reception would be completely different. As it emanated from the Bolsonaro government, very attached to this theme and really part of the campaign, [o decreto] ended up generating a certain disappointment. The impression that people have – the people who follow this subject more closely – is that it could have done more, and it was done little. We must now wait until there are other changes, if there are any interim measures to this effect, if other decrees, such as those governing the lives of shooters, collectors and hunters, will change. But it is still too early to predict the outcome. Although I consider, as I said, a decree very timid and well below expectations, I consider it positive. At least, it's a breakthrough, a start for the changes that must occur in legislation, in Congress, where they deal with other bills. "
USP Violence Studies Center, NEV (Bruno Paes Manso, NEV journalist and researcher) -" Status and the way it was applied was a good thing for the public security forces. What has been discussed so far was how limited it was. The fact that there is no objective criterion could be corrected, [mas] does not mean that these objective criteria should be created to facilitate access [à posse de arma]. The fact is that you can create these objective criteria, without trivializing or favoring the sale on the Brazilian arms market. "
Federal District Police Union, Sindipol-DF (Flávio Werneck, Sindipol President and Public Security) – " The Decree on the Status of Disarmament, issued today, has a positive bias because it specifies the existing and necessary legal requirements for the possession of a weapon, namely the right of the weapon for your personal defense and that of your family at home or in your commercial establishment. First, by removing the subjective characteristics of the legislation, as interpreted by the federal police delegate as to the absolute necessity of owning the weapon. This violation of discretionary monopoly decreases the possibility of corruption in the body, as well as the feeling that one has to be friends or have some influence within the public body to obtain the deferred right. What can also be observed is that the presidential decree has chosen a relevant objective criterion, namely that of the UN clbadification for places of great violence. To have the right to own a firearm, the citizen must live in a city where there are ten homicides per hundred thousand inhabitants. The criterion allowing each trader to own a weapon is not equally objective because it is very broad. In addition to not delimiting the locality, this element raises doubts because it says nothing about the business establishment that is not land-based with fixed address, as is very common today in the era digital. Parce qu'ils sont virtuels, ces magasins en ligne ne sont pas soumis à la violence urbaine, donc hors du critère de la défense personnelle et patrimoniale. Sans parler du commerçant fictif, qui a l'enregistrement CNPJ, mais n'est pas actif. Ces failles peuvent laisser une marge de manœuvre pour un interrogatoire devant un tribunal. Il est également important de souligner que les autres exigences juridiques objectives du Statut du désarmement restent valables: être âgé de plus de 25 ans; transmettre la psychologie; avoir la maîtrise et la trajectoire du feu; avoir des moyens financiers pour acheter l'arme; et ne pas être sale. En ce qui concerne les objectifs du décret, qui est de donner la sécurité au citoyen, la mesure est inoffensive. Ce décret est tertiaire dans la discussion des politiques publiques de lutte contre la violence dans le pays. La réglementation à elle seule ne réduira pas les taux de criminalité au besoin. Pour avoir un programme de sécurité publique efficace, il est nécessaire de développer une planification à court, moyen et long terme. À court terme: créer les moyens et les renseignements nécessaires pour attaquer les organisations criminelles et les crimes de petite et moyenne envergure, qui touchent directement la population. À moyen et long terme, avec le trépied qui présuppose l'employabilité du Brésilien, une éducation de qualité, un logement décent avec les structures nécessaires. Sans ces conditions préalables, il n’ya pas d’endroit dans le monde pour savoir que les taux de violence ont diminué. "
