There is a general climate of restrictions in the concession and in the renewal of firearms license for the shotgun, and even more for self-defense. It often happens (I read it in the messages I receive on FB and on the Canale site, but also in the trade newspapers and in the mail of the readers of the provincial newspapers) that some hunter does not renew the license to some hunter. Because? For an old mole, which they may have only just noticed now. I give an example. At my hunts in the Tuscia of Viterbo I always meet an old friend. This year, for the first time, he was without a gun but he was still going to the post office. And what are you doing to him, al cignale? Do you swear at him? You know, he replies, they haven't renewed my license. What did you do? Nothing. It turns out that when I was 20 they caught me in a mushroom picker. They gave me the report, I paid the fine and it all ended there. For forty-five years I have continued to go to hunting, with the regularly renewed firearms license, for six years in six years. This year they denied me the renewal which, as they told me, is not a citizen's right but is granted at the discretion of the commissioner. I wonder why I was not renewed. It wasn't easy to get the answer. Then he ran away saying: for that old mushroom thing. I miss I remembered it anymore. I say: but I paid and then I always went hunting. Bad. The story only reached us today. And you? I put in the lawyer, but I hope little. Another exemplary case: the Bolzano police headquarters refused the renewal to a guy who was surprised by the Forestry Service twenty years ago and cut a fir tree to take it home and turn it into a Christmas tree. Here too, verbal, fine paid, twenty years of trouble-free hunting. These are extreme cases, but not uncommon!
So, let's start shedding some light on the regulatory jungle. The issue (or rather, the concession) of the firearms license is regulated in Italy by the old Consolidated Law on Public Security n.773 / 1931 where in articles 11 and 43 the possible reasons for impeding the issue or renewal of this document are specified. According to article 11, these police authorizations must be denied to anyone who has been sentenced to three years for a non-culpable crime and has not obtained rehabilitation; to the warned, to the forced, to the habitual offenders; to those who have reported convictions for violations of public order, violence, theft, robbery, extortion, kidnapping, or for violence and resistance to the public force. But, beware: in addition to these criminals, the license can also be denied "to those who cannot prove their good conduct". Here, then, where the discretion of the commissioner comes into play here. Article 43 repeats more or less the same things, but adds the deserters in time of war and those who have committed the crime of abusive carrying of arms. But this article also reiterates that the license must be denied "to those who cannot prove their good conduct and do not trust not to abuse weapons". Here we go again. And who decides? Always the commissioner. If I do not show him my good conduct or if it seems to him that I might not make good use of the weapons, he will not allow me to issue or renew the document. That is why, to form this opinion, an old report is enough for collecting mushrooms in a bandit or for bringing the Christmas tree to the children. I may be the best man in the world, with a clean record and God-fearing, but if the commissioner finds out about these old-fashioned little sins, after all, I'm screwed.
The different sections of the Council of State, at different times, have tried to put some order, but have increased the confusion with judgments in contrast with each other, which represented two different currents of thought: one, very restrictive, which does not hold account of the rehabilitation and the other that increasingly affirms the role of the discretion of the commissioner. All this produces legal insecurity. For this reason, in 2014 the Ministry of the Interior asked the Council of State for a clarifying opinion, which arrived with the number 3257/14: the police headquarters must follow the most restrictive interpretation. That's why two years ago many firearms were not renewed! Obviously, many of the people affected by the measure have taken legal action. In 2015 the Council of State, with sentence no. 1072, he dealt with the question again, again entrusting the good heart of the commissioner with the task of deciding in doubtful cases. But in the event of rehabilitation, the automatism relating to the non-concession ceases. This does not mean that the sentence, however remote and surpassed by rehabilitation, loses its relevance in an absolute sense "but, if anything, it can be placed on the basis of a discretionary evaluation". From whom? of the commissioner. In fact, however, the police stations continue to adhere to the previous opinion - This is why they continue not to accept requests for renewal.
A simple law would solve this problem which dates back to 1931. It would clarify and restore to all of us, hitherto treated as subjects in this and other situations, the dignity of citizens. I find it grotesque that on more than one occasion the Council of State has contradicted itself. But I find it equally grotesque that, at best, we should hope for the good impression we may have made on the commissioner. This is not democracy, either in one case or the other. A good law can be expressed clearly, without slamming the citizen between restrictive attitudes and the discretion of a commissioner. If the carrying of arms is a right, we need to know with certainty to whom and why it will be denied. Again, a right cannot be a kind concession due to the mood or personal opinions of a government official.
Let's try to give those interested who have been refused renewal some instructions for use. You can put everything in the hands of a lawyer. But the costs are high: between 5 and 8 euros, including legal and court costs. It is possible to appeal to the police headquarters within ten days of the communication that reads “the opportunity not to accept the request is being evaluated”, and to rely on the discretion and good heart of the commissioner.
But this finger; in which eye do I stick it?
Bruno Modugno
BUT THEN GO TO FA ...