Czech Republic Passes Constitutional Amendment: Right to Self Defense with Arms

Weingarten shows CZ pistol with arm brace for the American market at 2015 Shot Show

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- In 2015, after the series of Paris Jihadi Terrorist attacks, the bureaucrats in the European Union found an opportunity to further restrict the ownership of firearms in European countries. They created extremely restrictive new protocols which further restricted the ownership of common arms.

The Czech Republic had some of the least restrictive firearm laws in the European Union. To the Czech people, the ability to own firearms, and use them for protection, was a significant measure of freedom, which they did not have when they were part of the Soviet Empire.

The move for the amendment started in 2015, after the terrorist attacks in Paris.  By the middle of 2016, Czech President, Miloš Zeman was suggesting citizens should be armed “over the long term” and carry pistols in public, to defend against terrorist attacks.

The move to amend the Constitution, and add protection for the right to defense of self and others, with arms, has continued, with some variation. From expats.cz:

The complementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms arises from a petition signed by 102,000, including many senior politicians.

The final version appears to be relatively short. From laprensalatina.com:

The amendment states that “the right to defend one’s life or the life of others, even with the use of weapons, is guaranteed.”

The lower house of the Czech Parliament passed the amendment on 28 June with a 139 to 9 majority.

On 21 July 2021, the Senate passed the amendment, with 54 of 74 senators voting for it.

 “The proposal is not only symbolic in nature but can also serve as insurance for the future,” said Senator Martin Červíček on behalf of the submitters.

Červíček pointed to the tendency of some EU countries to ban carrying any objects that could be used as a weapon. According to Červíček, the disarmament of the population will not bring greater security, as criminals will obtain weapons illegally.

The amendment will take effect sometime from 1 August to 1 September 2021.

From praguemorning.cz:

Czech lawmakers approved an amendment that will enshrine the right to use a weapon in self-defense in the Czech constitution – a new right that will be included in the country’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.

Many people have suggested the amendment does not have any teeth, because the European Union rules override it. At a Youtube site, a Czech citizen explains how they expect the strategy to be expanded. From a comment by František Krbec at  Happy gun news:

Maybe you ask why this additional constitution law helps us to secure our civil gun ownership against EU restrictions, because EU restrictions are more powerful than basic laws of EU countries – this constitutional right is just first step. The second step, which will follow and already is in our parliament and senate for discussion is, that the our government – especially our Ministry of Interior affairs in, collaboration with Ministry of Defense, make a project which is called “defined state backups” and that means that all gun owners can sign to a special training with guns covered by state armed forces. This course should deepen the civil gun owners skills to defend lives before special police forces arrives. It is our reaction on terrorism and the cases with active shooter in schools, public areas, etc. We know that the police cannot be everywhere. That means that all the gun owners which undertake this training and make a promise, will become let’s say part of interior security. The interior security is one of a fields where EU has no rights and then we can say – OK, you cannot tell us which kind of guns or size of magazines we can have, because this is strictly in our competition for our internal safety.

This shows a sophisticated way to maintain a right to arms and self-defense for the people of the Czech Republic. When you provide a means for all citizens who are willing, to become part of the state defense agencies, which includes the right to arms, you have short-circuited many of the state-sponsored restrictions.

This correspondent has often considered a similar provision that could be used in the United States, to push back against federal power.

State legislatures could define any person with a carry permit to be a member of the state militia, on duty; they could make it an option available with a few hours of training; they could proclaim those federal NFA laws do not apply to state militia members on duty. It is a powerful tool the states have not yet used.

In Western Civilization, it was considered an obvious, natural part of existence, that people had a right to defend themselves. Part of that natural right was the right to weapons to defend themselves with.

The right to self-defense with weapons was significantly eroded, starting with England in 1920. The new gun laws did not allow self-defense as a legitimate reason for owning arms. Much of Europe followed. In Canada and Australia, and now, New Zealand, when a person applies to obtain a permit to own firearms, self-defense is not allowed as a legitimate reason.

The Czech Republic has recaptured the essence of that right with this amendment. While not as strong as the American Second Amendment, it is the strongest protection in the European Union.


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten

Subscribe
Notify of
17 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Wass
Wass
1 month ago

Actually, the Czech Republic’s new law is clearer and stronger, for civilian gun ownership, than our vaunted Second Amendment. It cannot get any better or more precise. Legislators here, enamored with long winded proposals, can take note.

gregs
gregs
1 month ago

well, if i am going to move, i know where i am going.
doesn’t that guy in the picture look like uncle Jed on the beverly hillbilly’s?

Laddyboy
Laddyboy
1 month ago

In Canada and Australia, and now, New Zealand, when a person applies to obtain a permit to own firearms, self-defense is not allowed as a legitimate reason.
This is the POLITICANS’ WET DREAM to collect $$$$$$$ and OPRESS a FREE People.
The DemoKKKrat communist party is SCREAMING for this NEGATIVE FIASCO! May they NEVER ACHIEVE!

JimmyS
JimmyS
1 month ago

More unlawful bureaucratic involvement in the exercise of the 2nd Amendment is not going to move one iota toward strengthening it. Quite the contrary. It already forbids the government any power to regulate, control, or restrict the ownership, possession, and use of arms. That is what a RIGHT is, as opposed to a government-granted or -regulated privilege. Weapons of war are a right. Voting is a privilege, all bullshit rhetoric aside. Can we stop pretending that all the 2nd Amendment infringements to date have any validity, like rational, adult people would, and then discuss how we go about dealing with… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by JimmyS
J Gibbons
J Gibbons
1 month ago
Reply to  JimmyS

While JimmyS is right on the definition of a natural law right, it matters little in practical exercise. Governments can choose to limit whatever they want and allow whatever they want. Using the mechanisms of the government against itself is the genius of what the Czech’s are doing. It is a brilliant strategy that should be used more here in so-called red states to use the rules of law against the government so hell bent on using the rule of law to restrict.

Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago
Reply to  J Gibbons

JimmyZ claims that believing you’re free makes it so. Calls folks cowards who don’t carry everywhere like he supposedly does, as if he carries through TSA checks, into courts, cop palaces, etc, which only enforcers can do. Agent provocateur psyop?

Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r
swmft
swmft
1 month ago
Reply to  J Gibbons

The idea of preempting government with its own rules is great , if our military would do its job would not be necessary, arrest people who violate constitution and try them in military court , if they want to renounce citizenship and leave let them

Ryben Flynn
Ryben Flynn
1 month ago
Reply to  JimmyS

Voting was always a right from the beginning of the United state and many other Countries. There were laws to say who could vote and laws to expand that right. Originally only land owners in the U.S. could vote, then it was only men above a certain age and then women given the right to vote by a Constitutional Amendment. (Which may have been a mistake, seeing as how well that has worked out with a few of those who hold political Office in the Government) If you research the subject, you will discover that women are the root cause… Read more »

swmft
swmft
1 month ago
Reply to  Ryben Flynn

you left out the women’s temperance union which brought about the rise of organized crime and the gun laws that arose from that
Athens had the right idea people who wanted to tell others what to do and how to live were thrown out exiled we need to do that

Last edited 1 month ago by swmft
Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago
Reply to  swmft

And the P-whipped “men” who went along with it.

Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago

State legislatures could define any person with a carry permit to be a member of the state militia, on duty; they could make it an option available with a few hours of training; they could proclaim those federal NFA laws do not apply to state militia members on duty. It is a powerful tool the states have not yet used.”

Excellent idea.

Finnky
Finnky
1 month ago
Reply to  Russn8r

To some extent we have a pathway for common citizens to gain national concealed carry in form of LEOSA. At least where I live one can go to police academy and then volunteer 20 hours a month (I think) as auxiliary with sheriff’s department. This puts volunteers in position to closely monitor “the only ones”, as well as protecting rights which should not need protecting. No one can complain that you are less trained than police, and you are partially protected from state law in all 50 states. If I recall correctly (doubtful) congress failed to update the act to… Read more »

Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago
Reply to  Finnky

Who has time to go through police academy and then ‘volunteer’ 20 hours a month? Not many.

Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r
Neanderthal75
Neanderthal75
1 month ago
Reply to  Russn8r

Still a viable option and the weigh in for those people who do, which would be a lot of retired folks.

Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago
Reply to  Neanderthal75

Newsflash: Retired folks also have other things to do with their remaining time. Not a viable substitute for Dean’s proposal.

Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r
JimmyS
JimmyS
1 month ago
Reply to  Russn8r

To a slave-minded individual, it would seem like an excellent idea, apparently. To those of us who are free, it seems contrary to stated purposes, at the least.

Russn8r
Russn8r
1 month ago
Reply to  JimmyS

LoL