Fund raising for gun rights in Ukraine. I know the guys behind this. They’re solid. I’ve contributed to their organization before.
New operational and portable rifle “Hopak”, developed by JSC “Plant“Mayak”, was represented during the XII International Trade Fair “Arms and Security 2015” on September 22-25. The new development is to pass state test before it will go into service of the Ukrainian army.
Rifle caliber – 7,62×39, its weight is less than 5 kg, firing rate – 30 rounds per minute. ‘Hopak” can be equipped with special silencer, if necessary.
New UKROBORONPROM leadership managed to increase production of military equipment by 36 times, compared to the previous period.
Here’s what I learned today: Occasionally exceptions are made, but for most foreigners, the only non rubber bullet gun you can buy in Ukraine is one what shoots 4mm Flaubert cartridges. Yulia, on the other hand, can buy anything, though she need to do some paperwork first. :-D
17-Caliber Cartridge Origins
The idea of a subcaliber actually began during the first half of the 19th century. A Swiss gunsmith by the name of Flobert, who was living in France at the time, designed a small rimfire cartridge using only the priming compound as the propellant. Originally in 6mm caliber, the little case was “wildcatted” to 4mm. A .172 caliber projectile is 4.32 millimeters. These sometimes elegant little rifles made up for the 4mm rimfire cartridge were known as Schutzens and used primarily for indoor parlor entertainment at ranges up to 10 meters. They also were known to be very accurate for the period.
It’s only a first step. It adds “self defense” to existing reasons why someone can carry a gun. Most importantly, words do not mean much in Russia.
Four new words in the law caused a flurry of messages on the legalization of carrying firearms and the use of it in self-defense.
Russia has adopted amendments to the Law “On the rules of turnover civilian and service weapons and ammunition in the territory of the Russian Federation.” According to the report, now a civilian weapon, including hunting, can be worn for self-defense.
The news caused a heated discussion and was seen as a first step towards legalizing civil “firearms”, but the Interior Ministry insists that the law is merely formalizes wearing traumatic pistols.
Prior to the amendment Act was: “Carrying weapons on the basis of issued internal affairs bodies of licenses or permits for the possession and carrying of specific types, types and models of weapons … the citizens of the Russian Federation – in hunting, sporting events, training and education firing. ”
That is until today the owners of licenses for weapons could use it exclusively in hunting or at the range. Today, however, it became known that in subparagraph “d” of the phrase “and in self-defense.” Added by the way, not immediately.
The amendments have been made yet on November 8 but a postscript became known only after 10 days.
Four new words caused a flurry of messages on the legalization of carrying firearms and the use of it in self-defense.
Like, now everyone will receive the license is free to come with a gun on the streets of the city and its use in the case of threat to life.
The Interior Ministry, however, assured that the amendment was misunderstood, and it is not about guns, but only about a traumatic weapons, the use of which for the purpose of self-defense and so long permitted.
“The question in this paragraph is solely the decision of wearing a traumatic weapons, – explained in the police. – Previously, this right of the population in this law was not written. ”
According to the version of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, clarification was made in the “Rules” in order to avoid inconsistencies with other legislation.
Indeed, if we refer to paragraph 17 of the amendment, it becomes clear that the wording of paragraph 62 of the “Rules of turnover civilian and service weapons and ammunition in the territory of the Russian Federation” has changed. We are not talking about all kinds of firearms, but only of its “specific forms and types.”
However, words that permission to apply for self-defense concerns exclusively traumatic weapons, the amendment does not.
Moreover, the chairman of the NGO “gun rights” Maria Butin said that it is not just about “travmatiki.”
“According to my information, it is not just about” travmatiki “, but it is about guns – said Maria Butin.
– The only catch is that there is – it’s wearing. Here is the next problem. With the term “wearing” in general, there are very great difficulties. Therefore, probably under the “relation” in this case they mean wearing gun shrouded without cartridge in the chamber, as well as during transportation. But directly it is not specified anywhere. ”
Butin notes that, despite the ambiguity of the decision, it it still goes on all types of weapons.
“By itself, the document is illiterate. Nevertheless, we are talking about guns, it does not update on the “travmatiki” – sure Maria Butin.
In obscure amendment had to deal lawyers. Igor Trunov familiar with the scope of “weapon” legislation, said the amendment and does not change the status quo.
“All civil weapons, except hunting, is based on the goal of self-defense. These amendments do not change significantly – says Trounov. – Walk with a weapon, you can still only if you have the right to wear it while it still has to be specially equipped and hidden. The Criminal Code has not changed and remains the responsibility of higher than anywhere else in the world. Short arms to keep and bear no permit, no innovation in the protection of property, life and health also have occurred. Two of these key amendments do not address the issue.
Even if you have a hunting license, you can walk around with a gun only during the hunt, and in certain places with corresponding rigid constraints.
But in the case of self-defense at home, when suddenly the robbers broke in and were going to kill, we should then have to prove that it was self-defense and was not impermissibly measures. This is the imperfection of the criminal law and its amendments have not touched. ”
In general, experts and legislators (including those who are involved in “weapon” topics), found it difficult to explain what it is that changes in law enforcement, as amended.
So at this point it is not clear, whether the Russians wear hunting weapons for self-defense. However, given the abundance caused by resonance and interpretations in practice the new norm can turn numerous incidents with illegal possession of weapons.
Let’s remember that words do not mean much in Russia. They are silly sounds one makes to influence naive westerners. Let’s wait for actions before passing judgement.
As I’ve said before, Ukraine can be an armed society, or a Russian society. #guns4ukraine
Most of the guns reported by Russian and American libertarian media among the maidan protesters were BB guns like the ones in these pics:
If he stays in power, we lost.
He’s exactly the spineless, narcissistic politician the world banks & global elites prefer to work with.
“If you want to take my guns, please try.” In Rivne Ukraine.
Today every citizen of Ukraine understands why our country has hundreds of thousands of policemen. Last illusions were crushed when riot police used rubber batons and boots at the Independence Square on peaceful citizens.
After such actions we realize that it is not enough to only adopt the Gun Law.
As of today Ukrainian Gun Owners Association will start to work on the preparation of amendments to the Constitution, which will provide an unconditional right for Ukrainian citizens to bear arms.
People should have the right to bear arms, which will be put in written into the Constitution.
Authorities should not and will not be stronger than its people!
Armed people are treated with respect!
I went to Zbroya Gun Day on May 14th with a libertarian friend of mine from Kyiv.
Zbroya is Ukraine’s only association of gun owners. It formed in October 2009 after a long bureaucratic process during which the founder, George Uchaikyn, obtained permission from the first deputies of Ukraine’s Army, Police and Justice Department. (more info here)
My friend Vlad and I walked through a park to reach the lodge, unsure of what to expect. We found tables and food and live rock music. The event was very well organized.
All those participating in the shooting portion were broken into three groups which rotated between pistol, shotgun and rifle ranges. A lady followed each group and recorded scores. I wish I’d realized from the beginning that I was being graded.
As is the case with similar events I’ve attended in the U.S. the staff emphasized safety. Each rotation began with a block of instruction geared toward beginners. At the pistol range, we didn’t even load the weapon. We only fired it.
I expected to do best at the rifle range. Even though they were Mosin bolt-action rifles, I thought my experience with M16s and M4s would translate. However my best rotation was the trap range. I hit six out of ten.
After the shooting portion of the event, everyone made a determined move to the food. The staff tallied the scores and Gregory, the founder of Zbroya, thanked sponsors and participants, and announced the winner. The highest post total was a hundred sixty something. Third place was a hundred forty something. Mine was a hundred fourteen. Maybe next time.
The participants I spoke sound very similar to their American counterparts. After getting to know you, they express frustration at the legal difficulties of gun ownership, and of common people’s fear and bias against guns. They say what I’ve heard many time before, “if only people would come to our events and try it for themselves.”
From what people told me at the event, it seems no definitive gun ownership laws exist in Ukraine, at least not for normal guns. Certain types of people (journalists, politicians, hunters) are explicitly allowed pneumatic (compressed-air-powered) guns.
The confusion about laws is consistent with my experience. Over the course of my ten month stay in Ukraine, I’ve gotten completely different and diametrically opposed answers about gun laws.
I’m very happy people like George exist, who are willing to jump the considerable bureaucratic hurdles and create a organization for gun owners in Ukraine.
For any gun ownership skeptics who may be reading my blog, I would say that the idea of a well armed society might, at first glace, seem violent, but experience tells the opposite story. (more info)
Gun laws only disarm law-abiding people. The most dangerous society is one in which only criminals and government are able to exercise lethal force.
Episode on the station website can be found here.
@ 5:45 — the moderator asks whether the government is for the people or against the people, then we see several citizens talking about how difficult it is to live on a government pension.
@ 8:20 — the guy says the pension is fine, but the stores shouldn’t be raising prices.
@ 13:15 — the lady expresses a lot of ideas about government-enforced “fairness” in the pension system.
@ 16:30 — the guy points out that soon there will be more pensioners than tax payers. [FYI: Ukraine’s population is declining sharply]
@ 20:00 — Dr. Soskin names several big robberies of the Ukrainian population by their politicians, and about election fraud.
@ 32:10 — List of pensions. Who gets what.
. . . a long discussion about how (not if) the pension system should work.
@ 41:00 — Dr. Soskin shocks the host by noting a conversation with an American friend who suggested the right to bear arms for all Ukrainians.