[ad_1]
On November 26, 2013, between 11 and 25 in the morning, in a sector of Girón (Santander), a man was carrying a 28-gauge shotgun, without make or model, of spell-making, and for which he had no no permission. The citizen, as he himself told the authorities, had the weapon for sporting purposes.
A day later the Prosecutor’s Office charged him with the crime of carrying firearms, but then a Bucaramanga judge acquitted him because he considered that the length of the barrel of the shotgun allowed it to be classified as sporty. The case went to the Bucaramanga Court, which decided to overturn the acquittal and sentence him to 9 years in prison.
The Supreme Court of Justice received this process in cassation in its Criminal Chamber. In the file, the convicted man’s lawyer told the high court that in the case it had not been taken into account that, according to what he argued, carrying sports weapons is not a crime, even if you do not have an authorization. In his opinion, that does not change even if the weapon is handcrafted or spells it.
In evaluating your case, the The Criminal Chamber did not agree with him and upheld the sentence. In addition, he took advantage of the case to clarify in which situations the carrying of a weapon is allowed.
These were the clarifications of the high court.
The state has a monopoly on arms
The first thing the Supreme Court remembered is that it is the State that has a monopoly on firearms and this is an issue that “does not admit discussion.”
For this reason, the Court says, for several decades the Constitutional Court made it clear that “the needs for self-protection that people may have or the practice of sports or recreational activities do not justify the free access of firearms.”
And there are several reasons for these restrictions to remain, according to the Criminal Chamber: the first has to do with the fact that, according to statistics, the carrying of firearms “promotes violence, it aggravates the consequences of social confrontations and introduces a factor of inequality in relations between individuals. ”
Even, allowing a free movement of arms could lead to “strengthening economic, political or social powers”, says the Court.
It is for these circumstances that, according to the corporation, the State is the one that has the duty to protect the life of the people and, therefore, the possession and bearing of arms is limited under the premise that the lack of protection is greater “when people have weapons”.
To carry or have any weapon requires an official permit
According to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, the 1991 Constitution extended the monopoly of the State of arms, since the previous constitution established that the State only had control of weapons of war.
From the letter of 91, Civilian possession of weapons – be they sports or defense – is exceptional and requires official permission.
The only exceptions – weapons that do not require a permit to carry them – says the Court, are fisto shotguns in rural areas.
In all other cases, the permit to carry arms must be processed with the state authorities. That permission is exceptional because, according to the high court, it can only take place when “all other legitimate defense possibilities that the legal system provides for citizens have been ruled out.”
In the case of defense weapons, these are processed before any of the 23 chiefs of staff of each military brigade, if the permit is regional, or before the Department of Arms Trade Control, if it is national.
Before these authorities it is necessary to prove with documents the urgency or condition of insecurity that justifies carrying a gun. This implies having to attach complaints to the authorities, investigations, that he has been the victim of threats, kidnapping, among others.
The requirements for a weapon to be considered sporting
The Supreme Court of Justice assured that the regulation of sports weapons is extensive they must meet the specifications necessary to practice the shooting modalities allowed by the International Shooting Federation, and the usual ones for the practice of hunting sport.
In those cases, the Court says, a permit to possess arms for athletes must be counted, and in addition membership in a shooting and hunting club must be proven, that is affiliated with the Federation. This possession of weapons, moreover, can be permanently monitored by military authorities.
For this reason, the Court recalls that the classification of a weapon as sports does not only depend on its physical characteristics, but mainly on the destination that it will be given, for which permission and affiliation to a sports entity must be obtained. Furthermore, the weapon cannot be used for any other purpose.
Although the Supreme Court of Justice made these clarifications on weapons that are considered sports, it is important to remember that Since February of this year, the ruling of the Constitutional Court that prohibited sport hunting entered into force in the country. in Colombia, considering that this activity “generates unnecessary suffering for animals, which is not justified by mere recreation.”
The carrying of spell weapons is also prohibited
Artisanal weapons, modified, without marking, registration, or spells, they are also prohibited, precisely because it is the State that has a monopoly on arms.
The Court assures that Article 366 of the Penal Code penalizes the manufacture, trafficking and carrying of arms, ammunition of restricted use, exclusive use of the Armed Forces, “regardless of their origin and form of manufacture.”
Thus, according to the Court, the prohibition of these artisanal war elements prevents there from being an official permission to produce, market, buy, have or carry them.
DRAFT JUSTICE
In Twiiter @JusticeET
[ad_2]
