Homo Armatus: a Firearms Law is Not Enough

The war has made weapons part of Ukrainian reality, and the state has a duty to address this. Even before 24 February 2022, experts estimated that civilians may have held between three and eight million illegal firearms. The number has since increased, with some weapons reaching civilians as a result of hostilities. Following the launch of the state firearms register in July 2023, citizens voluntarily declared around 22,000 firearms and the police seized a further 20,000. These measures, however, are only isolated responses to the circulation of weapons in Ukraine, a problem that will become more acute after the war. The central question is not whether weapons will be present in Ukrainian society, but whether the state can build a coherent and effective security architecture governed by law.

This is not only a domestic task, but also part of Ukraine’s EU integration commitments. On 14 July 2026, negotiations were opened with Ukraine on Cluster 6, ‘External Relations’, which covers foreign policy, security and defence. For a country at war, this is one of the most strategically important areas, as Ukraine’s resilience and defence capability depend directly on it.

Under this cluster, the EU expects Ukraine to adopt a national strategy and action plan to combat illicit trafficking in and possession of firearms, ammunition and explosives, with clear deadlines, funding and a clear division of responsibilities among public authorities. Adopting the relevant documents alone will not be enough: Ukraine must demonstrate tangible progress in implementing them. In other words, the EU expects a new system capable of effectively controlling weapons and the risks associated with them.

Ukraine cannot limit the question to whether weapons should be permitted or prohibited. The principal challenge is how to bring their presence under effective control, so that one person’s right to protection does not conflict with another’s right to life and the freedom to own weapons does not become immunity from rules and responsibility.

This must form the basis of a new state policy. A law on civilian firearms is necessary, but it is only the first step.

It is commonly claimed that civilian weapons are prohibited in Ukraine. This is not entirely accurate. Civilians may legally own hunting firearms (both smooth-bore and rifled), less-lethal weapons, bladed weapons such as hunting knives, stilettos and daggers and gas pistols. No special permit is required to own airguns or certain types of small-calibre weapons (up to 4 mm) chambered for Flobert rounds. These rules are established by an order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

For the duration of martial law, legislation also allows civilians to be issued firearms or retain firearms they have found in order to repel and deter Russia’s armed aggression. The exceptions are rifled weapons exceeding 12.7 mm in calibre, smooth-bore weapons of 23 mm or more, weapons assigned to military personnel or law enforcement officers and weapons used to commit a criminal offence.

The debate focuses almost entirely on whether civilians should be permitted to acquire and carry short-barrelled firearms, namely pistols and revolvers.

A total ban and completely uncontrolled access to weapons are both extremes. A complete restriction of this right may deter law-abiding citizens, but criminals, who by definition break the law, will seek ways to circumvent or manipulate the rules.

Supporters of a total ban generally argue that violent crime will inevitably rise in proportion to the number of weapons held by civilians. There are, however, no comprehensive studies establishing a direct relationship between these figures. Nor is there a common methodology that would allow these questions to be studied regularly and the results compared over time. There are therefore no sound grounds for claiming that the number of civilian-held weapons either worsens the crime situation in the country or makes public spaces safer.

During the war and in the post-war period, a total ban would naturally drive firearms further underground and increase illicit trafficking. Law enforcement agencies would then find it more difficult to control weapons and ensure public safety.

The state’s task is to build a system of rules under which the right to own weapons does not threaten public order or deprive others of a sense of security. Civilian firearms legislation must be balanced and any expansion of related rights should be introduced gradually, taking account of the country’s current security situation.

In addition to the requirements under Cluster 6 described above, control over the circulation of firearms is part of Ukraine’s commitments under Chapter 24, ‘Justice, Freedom and Security’, of Cluster 1, ‘Fundamentals of the Accession Process’. Ukraine must improve the legal framework governing the circulation of firearms, cooperation among law enforcement agencies and international cooperation in this area. Criminal liability for illicit arms trafficking must also be brought fully into line with the EU acquis and international law. The acquis (in full, acquis communautaire) comprises all binding EU rules, laws, principles, decisions, case law and obligations applicable to Member States and candidate countries — editor’s note.

Adopting laws alone will not be enough. Ukraine must demonstrate tangible progress in implementing them. The EU expects a new security architecture that fits organically into the wider European security space. These processes will therefore remain under close and continuous scrutiny by European partners throughout Ukraine’s EU accession negotiations.

In the European Union, the general rules governing civilians’ acquisition and possession of firearms are laid down in Directive (EU) 2021/555. It defines categories of firearms that may lawfully be acquired, carried and used, including for hunting or sport, and establishes rules on marking, control over their circulation and movement between EU Member States.

The Directive requires a register through which firearms can be identified and traced. Each state must also establish a system regulating firearms manufacturers, dealers and gunsmiths, including checks of their personal and professional integrity.

A person may obtain a licence to acquire and possess a firearm if they have good cause, have reached the required age and do not pose a danger to themselves or others. Checking a person only once when a permit is issued is not sufficient. Under European rules, the licence must be reviewed at least every five years. The system therefore contains safeguards that not only grant access to firearms, but also respond promptly when an owner no longer meets the established criteria.

The Directive also allows EU Member States to introduce stricter rules than those it sets.

Firearms legislation across Europe ranges from relatively liberal regimes to strict restrictions. Weapons are generally permitted for hunting or sporting purposes. Common standards apply, particularly to categories prohibited for civilian use and weapons whose acquisition or carrying requires a special licence.

Croatia, for example, permits concealed carry with a special authorisation. Austria permits concealed or open carry but carrying a weapon must not cause public alarm. Civilian carry is effectively prohibited in Norway, where only limited numbers of firearms may be acquired for hunting or sport. Only a few countries, including Finland, Czechia and Poland, expressly recognise firearms in legislation as a means of personal security.

There is no universal formula for regulating firearms and fully protecting society from the risks they create. Each state develops its own mechanisms and procedures in light of its national context. In every case, the objective is to develop a shared security architecture across Europe, not merely to grant a right to own weapons.

Ukraine has debated and attempted to adopt a firearms law for decades, but has still failed to reach a consensus. At least 20 draft laws on the subject have been registered in the Verkhovna Rada over the past 30 years. Each initiative prompted intense debate that ultimately failed to produce a legislative solution.

Under the Rule of Law Roadmap, a law regulating firearms and strengthening liability for violations in this area must be adopted by the fourth quarter of 2026.

Draft law No. 5708, which is currently under discussion, was adopted at first reading shortly before the full-scale invasion. It partly reflects European requirements, but requires further revision to make the system more effective and eliminate risks and loopholes through which unscrupulous applicants could obtain the right to own weapons. The draft law also fails to provide clear answers on certain procedures for obtaining a firearms owner’s certificate, the rules for carrying weapons and the designation of areas where firearms may not be carried.

The law will create only a general framework, which will not function without institutions, resources and daily practice. Its adoption must be followed by a lengthy implementation process: developing infrastructure and a system of cooperation among public authorities, the firearms industry and firearms owners, conducting public information campaigns, strengthening the state’s capacity to trace weapons, identify risks in time and prevent violent crime.

The permit procedure and subsequent control must be designed to prevent corruption loopholes. Work is also needed to shape public attitudes through information campaigns and training in the safe and responsible handling of firearms.

Firearms owners and those seeking to acquire a weapon must regard it not only as a means of protection, but also as a source of heightened risk. Training, clear procedures, regular monitoring and the inevitability of sanctions for violations must become integral elements of responsible firearms ownership.

The regulation of civilian firearms does not exist in a vacuum: weapons have already become part of life in Ukraine. Without a resilient security architecture, however, any decision to expand the right to own and carry them would be premature.

A firearms law would form the first level of that architecture. The second would consist of systemic changes in society that allow freedom and the right to protection to coexist with control and responsibility.

Ukraine must first improve and codify the existing rules without undermining the foundations of public safety. Once the system has been established and tested, the country can return to the debate on liberalising the carrying of handguns.

The well-known firearms manufacturer Samuel Colt is credited with saying that ‘the most important part of any firearm is its owner’s head’. A responsible attitude to weapons must become the foundation of Ukraine’s new reality.