[Nakura]

Based on the zimmerman evidence, I feel like he would have been easily acquitted here as well.

Nah, here he would have been charged with manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death and convicted of one of them (likely the latter, manslaughter is still a stretch).  Not a chance second-degree murder would stick here either, though.  Then again, here he wouldn't have been a wannabe cop armed with a handgun in hip holster wandering around his community, either, since such things are totally illegal in our country.

The Zimmerman/Martin travesty is the result of a collision of inadequate firearms laws, inadequate policing, racism, hero complex bull****, street thug bull**** (seriously, Martin was no angel either; both he and Zimmerman can be classed as dip****s, just slightly different kinds of dip****) and the wrong kind of criminal charge laid.  Plenty of blame to be spread around everywhere.

This had nothing to do with firearms law. Self-defense law applies to firearms and non-firearms alike, and as previously mentioned by several members, Florida self-defense law is about the same as other first-world countries. Zimmerman would have been able to own and yes, even carry, a firearm in every single U.S. state and most other first-world countries (including Canada and almost all of Europe). Concealed carry is hardly something unique to America, a number of European countries have laws allowing civilians to carry handguns in public. Also note that stand-your-ground laws had NOTHING to do with the defense, which relied on basic self-defense law.

[Drogoth]

Based on the zimmerman evidence, I feel like he would have been easily acquitted here as well.

Nah, here he would have been charged with manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death and convicted of one of them (likely the latter, manslaughter is still a stretch).  Not a chance second-degree murder would stick here either, though.  Then again, here he wouldn't have been a wannabe cop armed with a handgun in hip holster wandering around his community, either, since such things are totally illegal in our country.

The Zimmerman/Martin travesty is the result of a collision of inadequate firearms laws, inadequate policing, racism, hero complex bull****, street thug bull**** (seriously, Martin was no angel either; both he and Zimmerman can be classed as dip****s, just slightly different kinds of dip****) and the wrong kind of criminal charge laid.  Plenty of blame to be spread around everywhere.

This had nothing to do with firearms law. Self-defense law applies to firearms and non-firearms alike, and as previously mentioned by several members, Florida self-defense law is about the same as other first-world countries. Zimmerman would have been able to own and yes, even carry, a firearm in every single U.S. state and most other first-world countries (including Canada and almost all of Europe). Concealed carry is hardly something unique to America, a number of European countries have laws allowing civilians to carry handguns in public. Also note that stand-your-ground laws had NOTHING to do with the defense, which relied on basic self-defense law.

No Nakura, I can't speak for Europe, but concealed carry is not legal in Canada. Hand guns are classed as restricted firearms and you need an additional license on top of a regular firearms license in order to carry own one.

Furthermore, in order to transport a hand gun at all it needs to be in the trunk of your car, separated from the ammunition and you must contact the police ahead of time to inform them both when you are transporting the hand gun, as well as where you are transporting it to and from so as to acquire authorization to transport it from the Chief Firearms Officer of your given province.

I'll tell you flat out that I have never seen a gun in a public place unless it's carried by the police. People don't bring legal weapons out in public considering you know, hunting rifles and the like would be rather conspicuous, handguns are restricted, and concealed carry is illegal.

I still don't think he would have been convicted of manslaughter here, since even Canadian law justifies lethal force if retreat is no other option (though the judge would be the one determining if there was no other option - we don't have SYG). However, he would have likely been unable to kill Martin in the first place here, because of the aformentioned gun laws. Three minutes elapsed between Zimmerman's call with Dispatch ending and the cops arriving. Without a firearm I doubt zimmerman could have killed Martin.

[achtung]

George Zimmerman Emerged From Hiding for Truck Crash Rescue

[Grizzly]

Based on the zimmerman evidence, I feel like he would have been easily acquitted here as well.

Nah, here he would have been charged with manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death and convicted of one of them (likely the latter, manslaughter is still a stretch).  Not a chance second-degree murder would stick here either, though.  Then again, here he wouldn't have been a wannabe cop armed with a handgun in hip holster wandering around his community, either, since such things are totally illegal in our country.

The Zimmerman/Martin travesty is the result of a collision of inadequate firearms laws, inadequate policing, racism, hero complex bull****, street thug bull**** (seriously, Martin was no angel either; both he and Zimmerman can be classed as dip****s, just slightly different kinds of dip****) and the wrong kind of criminal charge laid.  Plenty of blame to be spread around everywhere.

This had nothing to do with firearms law. Self-defense law applies to firearms and non-firearms alike, and as previously mentioned by several members, Florida self-defense law is about the same as other first-world countries. Zimmerman would have been able to own and yes, even carry, a firearm in every single U.S. state and most other first-world countries (including Canada and almost all of Europe). Concealed carry is hardly something unique to America, a number of European countries have laws allowing civilians to carry handguns in public. Also note that stand-your-ground laws had NOTHING to do with the defense, which relied on basic self-defense law.

Alright. Almost all of Europe you say? You can count out the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany at the least on that equation. Quite sure the UK can be counted out as well. Then there's Poland, and...

well, I could go on and on, but I am quite sure that I just listed the major EU countries there anyway. Your knowledge of firearm laws in other countries is non-existent... And you have been called out several times on this already.

Could you at the least try and prove your statements? I'd like to hear which EU countries actually do allow concealed carry.

[Nakura]

Based on the zimmerman evidence, I feel like he would have been easily acquitted here as well.

Nah, here he would have been charged with manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death and convicted of one of them (likely the latter, manslaughter is still a stretch).  Not a chance second-degree murder would stick here either, though.  Then again, here he wouldn't have been a wannabe cop armed with a handgun in hip holster wandering around his community, either, since such things are totally illegal in our country.

The Zimmerman/Martin travesty is the result of a collision of inadequate firearms laws, inadequate policing, racism, hero complex bull****, street thug bull**** (seriously, Martin was no angel either; both he and Zimmerman can be classed as dip****s, just slightly different kinds of dip****) and the wrong kind of criminal charge laid.  Plenty of blame to be spread around everywhere.

This had nothing to do with firearms law. Self-defense law applies to firearms and non-firearms alike, and as previously mentioned by several members, Florida self-defense law is about the same as other first-world countries. Zimmerman would have been able to own and yes, even carry, a firearm in every single U.S. state and most other first-world countries (including Canada and almost all of Europe). Concealed carry is hardly something unique to America, a number of European countries have laws allowing civilians to carry handguns in public. Also note that stand-your-ground laws had NOTHING to do with the defense, which relied on basic self-defense law.

No Nakura, I can't speak for Europe, but concealed carry is not legal in Canada. Hand guns are classed as restricted firearms and you need an additional license on top of a regular firearms license in order to carry own one.

Furthermore, in order to transport a hand gun at all it needs to be in the trunk of your car, separated from the ammunition and you must contact the police ahead of time to inform them both when you are transporting the hand gun, as well as where you are transporting it to and from so as to acquire authorization to transport it from the Chief Firearms Officer of your given province.

I'll tell you flat out that I have never seen a gun in a public place unless it's carried by the police. People don't bring legal weapons out in public considering you know, hunting rifles and the like would be rather conspicuous, handguns are restricted, and concealed carry is illegal.

I still don't think he would have been convicted of manslaughter here, since even Canadian law justifies lethal force if retreat is no other option (though the judge would be the one determining if there was no other option - we don't have SYG). However, he would have likely been unable to kill Martin in the first place here, because of the aformentioned gun laws. Three minutes elapsed between Zimmerman's call with Dispatch ending and the cops arriving. Without a firearm I doubt zimmerman could have killed Martin.

Actually, you can legally carry handguns in Canada:

20. An individual who holds a licence authorizing the individual to possess restricted firearms or handguns referred to in subsection 12(6.1) (pre-December 1, 1998 handguns) may be authorized to possess a particular restricted firearm or handgun at a place other than the place at which it is authorized to be possessed if the individual needs the particular restricted firearm or handgun
(a) to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals; or
(b) for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation.

Source: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-11.6/

[niffiwan]

So this license they mention, how hard is it to get?

[achtung]

Based on the zimmerman evidence, I feel like he would have been easily acquitted here as well.

Nah, here he would have been charged with manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death and convicted of one of them (likely the latter, manslaughter is still a stretch).  Not a chance second-degree murder would stick here either, though.  Then again, here he wouldn't have been a wannabe cop armed with a handgun in hip holster wandering around his community, either, since such things are totally illegal in our country.

The Zimmerman/Martin travesty is the result of a collision of inadequate firearms laws, inadequate policing, racism, hero complex bull****, street thug bull**** (seriously, Martin was no angel either; both he and Zimmerman can be classed as dip****s, just slightly different kinds of dip****) and the wrong kind of criminal charge laid.  Plenty of blame to be spread around everywhere.

This had nothing to do with firearms law. Self-defense law applies to firearms and non-firearms alike, and as previously mentioned by several members, Florida self-defense law is about the same as other first-world countries. Zimmerman would have been able to own and yes, even carry, a firearm in every single U.S. state and most other first-world countries (including Canada and almost all of Europe). Concealed carry is hardly something unique to America, a number of European countries have laws allowing civilians to carry handguns in public. Also note that stand-your-ground laws had NOTHING to do with the defense, which relied on basic self-defense law.

Alright. Almost all of Europe you say? You can count out the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany at the least on that equation. Quite sure the UK can be counted out as well. Then there's Poland, and...

well, I could go on and on, but I am quite sure that I just listed the major EU countries there anyway. Your knowledge of firearm laws in other countries is non-existent... And you have been called out several times on this already.

Could you at the least try and prove your statements? I'd like to hear which EU countries actually do allow concealed carry.

Czech Republic is very lax about concealed carry compared to other EU countries. It's one of the few European countries I could stand to live in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_Czech_Republic

In general, you can conceal carry in several other European Union member states, you just have to demonstrate good reason and go through hefty paperwork. I wouldn't know about this process though, I am only somewhat familiar with gun policies in the Czech Republic, Sweden, Finland, and Ireland.

[Nakura]

Based on the zimmerman evidence, I feel like he would have been easily acquitted here as well.

Nah, here he would have been charged with manslaughter or criminal negligence causing death and convicted of one of them (likely the latter, manslaughter is still a stretch).  Not a chance second-degree murder would stick here either, though.  Then again, here he wouldn't have been a wannabe cop armed with a handgun in hip holster wandering around his community, either, since such things are totally illegal in our country.

The Zimmerman/Martin travesty is the result of a collision of inadequate firearms laws, inadequate policing, racism, hero complex bull****, street thug bull**** (seriously, Martin was no angel either; both he and Zimmerman can be classed as dip****s, just slightly different kinds of dip****) and the wrong kind of criminal charge laid.  Plenty of blame to be spread around everywhere.

This had nothing to do with firearms law. Self-defense law applies to firearms and non-firearms alike, and as previously mentioned by several members, Florida self-defense law is about the same as other first-world countries. Zimmerman would have been able to own and yes, even carry, a firearm in every single U.S. state and most other first-world countries (including Canada and almost all of Europe). Concealed carry is hardly something unique to America, a number of European countries have laws allowing civilians to carry handguns in public. Also note that stand-your-ground laws had NOTHING to do with the defense, which relied on basic self-defense law.

Alright. Almost all of Europe you say? You can count out the Netherlands, Belgium, France and Germany at the least on that equation. Quite sure the UK can be counted out as well. Then there's Poland, and...

well, I could go on and on, but I am quite sure that I just listed the major EU countries there anyway. Your knowledge of firearm laws in other countries is non-existent... And you have been called out several times on this already.

Could you at the least try and prove your statements? I'd like to hear which EU countries actually do allow concealed carry.

The right to carry a firearm is recognized by the European states listed below, but please note that this is an incomplete list and I couldn't find information regarding carrying firearms at all (one way or the other) for a few European countries.

Austria
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx


Belgium
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm


Bulgaria

Legal entities and natural persons can acquire, store and use explosives, firearms and ammunitions for professional security activities and for self-protection, for industrial, hunting, sporting and cultural purposes.

The employees of legal entities, the natural persons and the sole traders are permitted to carry firearms for the purposes enumerated in paragraph 1.

Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx


Croatia

Outside the hunting grounds or shooting ranges, hunting and sporting weapons may be carried only in suitable holsters or cases and may not be loaded.

Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx


Cyprus
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm


Czech Republic

Gun politics in the Czech Republic incorporates the political and regulatory aspects of firearms usage in the country. Policy in the Czech Republic is in many respects less restrictive than elsewhere in Europe (see Gun politics in the European Union). The most recent Gun Act was passed in 2001, replacing the previous law and tightening the legislation slightly. Firearms in the Czech Republic are available to anybody without a criminal record and aged above 18 (or 21 for certain license categories). Self-defense is an acceptable justification to obtain a firearms license. The Czech gun laws also permit a citizen to carry a concealed weapon without having to specify a reason.

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_Czech_Republic
Specific Law (in Czech): http://zbranekvalitne.cz/legislativa/119-2002


Estonia

§ 50. General Procedure for Carrying of Weapons

(1) Weapons and ammunition shall be carried together with a corresponding weapons permit or permit to carry a weapon.

(2) Weapons and ammunition shall be carried in a concealed manner which precludes their being lost, falling into the hands of other persons or causing accidental damage. The chamber of a carried firearm, except for the chamber of a revolver, shall be empty of cartridges.

(3) It is prohibited to carry weapons or ammunition:
1) while intoxicated or under the influence of narcotic, psychotropic or psychotoxic substances;
2) at meetings, demonstrations, pickets, festivities and other public events, except for persons performing their functions or duties at such public events.

(4) A Minister may, by a directive, restrict the carrying of weapons in the ministry, in government agencies within the area of government of the ministry, in state agencies administered by the ministry and at facilities in the possession of such government agencies or state agencies.

(5) A directing body or head of a company or non-profit association or a sole proprietor may, by an order, restrict the carrying of weapons in its seat and at other facilities in its ownership or possession if the police prefecture of the location of the facility has granted its consent therefor.

(6) The carrying of hunting weapons while hunting is regulated by the Hunting Act and legislation issued on the basis thereof.

Source: http://www.legaltext.ee/en/andmebaas/ava.asp?m=022


France

1. Carrying and transport of shoulder weapons and ammunition of the 5th,1 7th2 and 8th3 categories are free.

2. Prohibited except in cases provided for in Articles 58-14 and 58-2:5

- carrying of firearms and ammunition of the 1st6 and 4th7 categories, handguns of the 7th2 and 8th3 categories, weapons of the 6th category, listed in Article 2, as well as, without genuine reason, the carrying of other firearms of the 6th8 category;
- transport, without genuine reason, of firearms and ammunition of the 1st6 and 4th7 categories, weapons of the 6th category and handguns of the 7th2 category.

The licence issued by a sports federation, mentioned in 4-b) of Article 239 above, is equivalent to a lawful transport document for sports shooters, referred to in 2- of Article 2810 above, and for individuals transporting weapons of the 6th8 category, for firearms used for the practice of sports covered by the said federation

3. Firearms referred to in 2- above are transported in a way that they cannot to be used immediately either by using a technical device to meet this objective, or by removing their safety parts.

4. Notwithstanding 2- above, carrying and transport of firearms of the 1st6 and 4th7 categories, lawfully purchased and held, their use being allowed for hunting, are authorised for such activity, under conditions set by joint order of the Ministers of Interior and Defence, and Ministers in charge of Industry, Trade, Customs and Environment.

Source: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000005618597&dateTexte=vig#


Germany
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm


Greece
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm


Hungary
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm


Ireland (Republic of)

(1) t shall not be lawful for any person after the commencement of this Act to have in his possession, use, or carry any firearm or ammunition save in so far as such possession, use, or carriage is authorised by a firearm certificate granted under this Act and for the time being in force.

(2) [E]very person who after the commencement of this Act has in his possession, uses, or carries any firearm without holding a firearm certificate therefor or otherwise than as authorised by such certificate, or purchases, uses, has in his possession, or carries any ammunition without holding a firearm certificate therefor or in quantities in excess of those authorised by such certificate, or fails to comply with any condition subject to which a firearm certificate was granted to him, shall be guilty of an offence under this Act and shall be punishable accordingly.

Source: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1925/en/act/pub/0017/index.html


Latvia

Permit for Carrying of Weapons

A permit for carrying of a weapon shall grant to a natural person the right to possess a firearm at a place specified in the permit, to carry, transport or convey it, to acquire and possess the munitions thereof, as well as to apply and utilise a firearm in accordance with the cases and procedures prescribed by law.

Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx

Issuance of Weapon Permits

(1) The State Police shall issue the following permits for the acquisition and possession or carrying of weapons (with a term of validity of from one to five years):
1) permits for the possession of Category D, B or C sports or hunting firearms and high-energy pneumatic weapons; and
2) permits for the possession or carrying of such Category B short-barrelled firearms the calibre of which is not more than 9 millimetres.

(2) The State Police shall issue permits to legal persons for the acquisition, possession and transportation of Category B, C and D firearms, and high-energy pneumatic weapons.

(3) The State Police shall issue permits for acquisition or possession of Category B and C firearms (except rifled hunting firearms) to merchants, which have received a second category special permit (licence) for the performance of guarding activities.

(4) Permits for possession of weapons shall be issued to legal persons for a time period of from one to five years.

Source: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/latvia


Liechtenstein
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm


Lithuania

Duties of the Owner, Holder, User of Weapons, Ammunition

2. The owner, user of the weapons classified in Categories A, B and C, ammunition for them shall be prohibited from:
1) carrying a weapon without carrying a permit to carry the weapon;
2) transporting a weapon without also carrying a permit to hold or a permit to carry the said weapon;
3) carrying, transporting a weapon while being under the influence of alcohol (0.4 per mil or more) or intoxicated with narcotic, psychotropic or other intoxicating substances;
4) using alcoholic beverages, narcotic, psychotropic or other intoxicating substances after the use of a weapon until the sobriety or intoxication will be tested or it will be refused to carry out the test;
5) carrying a weapon ready for firing (a cartridge is put into the chamber, a revolver is cocked, a archery weapon with an inserted arrow and a drawn string), except under the circumstances when there is a direct threat to the person's health or life;
6) giving a weapon over to another person who does not have the right to hold or carry a weapon of such category and designation (this requirement shall not apply when persons are being trained to use a weapon during a shooting competition, practice, training);
7) carrying a long firearm, a archery weapon in hunting areas without having the right to hunt;
8) hindering the officers of supervisory institutions to inspect weapons, ammunition, places where they are kept, as well as documents related to the acquisition, holding, accounting of weapons, ammunition.

3. This Article shall not regulate the holding and carrying of weapons that belong to the entities having a special status.

Source: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_e?p_id=365738&p_query=&p_tr2=

General Requirements for Issuing Permits

6. A permit to acquire a weapon shall be valid for a period of six months from the day of its issuance. In case of failure to acquire a weapon, it shall be possible to apply, in accordance with the general procedure, to a police institution for another permit to acquire a weapon.

7. Permits to acquire weapons shall allow a permit holder to acquire ammunition.

8. Natural persons may acquire and keep at the same time not more than 500 cartridges of each type (calibre) for the weapons they possess. Natural persons who possess weapons for sporting purposes may acquire and keep at the same time an unlimited number of cartridges of each type (calibre).

9. The amount of ammunition which is permitted to be acquired and kept by legal persons shall be established by the Government or an institution authorised by it.

10. Permits to acquire weapons classified in Categories A, B and C, their ammunition shall be issued to permanent residents of the Republic of Lithuania and legal persons registered in the Republic of Lithuania in accordance with the procedure established by the Government or an institution authorised by it. Acquired weapons must be registered at police institutions not later than within 10 days of the acquisition thereof. Upon the registration of the weapons, a permit to carry weapons or a permit to hold them shall be issued. A single permit to carry (hold) weapons may be issued to natural persons. The said permit shall indicate which weapons a person may carry and which he may hold...

Source: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_e?p_id=365738&p_query=&p_tr2=


Moldova

Rights and Obligations of Weapon Owners and Users

Owners and users of weapons shall have the right to:
a) hold and carry weapon in compliance with the requirements under which the weapon was obtained;
b) use the weapon only in the cases and in the manner prescribed by positive regulations.

Owners and users of weapons are obligated to:
a) use the weapon only in compliance with the requirements under which the weapon was obtained;
b) ensure maintaining the weapon and ammunition in preserved condition in compliance with positive laws and normative acts of the Ministry of the Interior.

Source: http://www.seesac.org/uploads/armslaws/moldova.pdf

Carrying the Weapon

Owner, possessor or user, while they are carrying the weapon, are obligated to have on their person the due permit issued by the local police authority.

Source: http://www.seesac.org/uploads/armslaws/moldova.pdf

Use of Firearms

Persons having the permit to hold and carry the weapon may use the weapon as a last resort in the following cases:
a) For self-defence and for protection of persons from attack that poses a real threat to life and health, as well as for the prevention of seizure of firearms through the use of force.
b) In order to repel a group or armed attack on facilities and premises guarded, which belong to physical and legal persons;
c) In order to ward off breaking into residential and business facilities which threatens the life and health of persons present on these premises;
d) In order to arrest a person who offers armed resistance, or who was caught to perform a serious criminal offence and who attempts to leave the scene of the crime.

Owners, possessors, and users may also use firearms for raising alarm or calling for help, as well as for rendering harmless the animal which threatens the life and health of persons

Source: http://www.seesac.org/uploads/armslaws/moldova.pdf


Monaco
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm


Montenegro

Physical person may carry weapons on the ground of weapon permit and possess it on the basis of permit to carry it.

Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx


Poland
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm


Romania

Physical persons shall be allowed to hold and, as appropriate, carry and use the arms and ammunition only based on the permit issued by the authorities of the Ministry of the Interior with the jurisdiction over the area in which such persons have place of residence.

Competent authorities of the Ministry of the Interior may issue to physical persons the licences to hold, carry or use arms and ammunition, pursuant to the provisions herein and provided they keep due records of it.

Competent authorities of the Ministry of the Interior shall define the number of weapons that may be held, where one and the same person may not be approved to hold more than two weapons of the same calibre, and the quantity of ammunition appropriate for such weapons.

Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx

The person licensed to hold and, as appropriate, carry arms and ammunition shall be issued a "Weapon License".

In the weapon license, the competent authority shall enter the description of the arms and ammunition that the license holder is authorized to own, and the purpose for which such arms and ammunition may be used.

The weapon licence shall entitle its holder to hold and, as appropriate, carry and use the arms and appropriate ammunition as entered in such licence, as well as borrowed arms and ammunition, pursuant to the provisions provided by the law.

Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx


Serbia

Relevant authorities shall issue permit to carry weapon for personal safety based on the decision approving carrying of such weapons.

Permit to carry weapons shall be valid for the period of five years from the day of its issuance and may be extended, if a holder submits an application 30 days at the latest prior to is expiration, for the same period of time if the relevant authorities conclude that the reasons due to which the initial permit has been issued continue to exist.

If the relevant authorities find out, in the course of the procedure from the paragraph 2 of this Article, that the reasons because of which carrying of weapon has been approved, ceased to exist, he shall suggest the authorized official to bring a decision by means of which carrying of weapon shall be banned. In case authorized official finds out that the reasons on the ground of which carrying of the weapons has been approved, ceased to exist, he shall make decision by means of which carrying of weapons shall be banned.

The authorized official shall make decision to ban weapon carrying and to take away permit to carry weapons in case the relevant authorities find out even before permit expiration that the reasons because of which carrying of the weapons has been approved ceased to exist.

An appeal against the decision from the paragraph 3 and 4 of this Article may be submitted to the Minister of Interior within 15 days from the day of decision reception.

Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfileInfo.aspx?CoI=169&pos=30

A person possessing weapon permit and permit to carry such weapon may carry weapon for personal safety.

A person wishing to carry weapon for the purpose of personal safety shall submit to the relevant authorities written application, containing proper explanation.

Based on the application from the paragraph 2 of this Article, official of the organizational unit authorized by the Minister of Interior (hereinafter referred to as authorized official) shall bring decision approving carrying of the weapons for the purpose of personal safety if convinced that there are exceptional and justified reasons for safety protection of the applicant.

In case application for obtaining permit to carry weapons for personal safety has been rejected, applicant may submit an appeal with the Minister of Interior within 15 days from the day of decision reception.

Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfileInfo.aspx?CoI=169&pos=30


Slovakia
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm


Slovenia
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm


Spain
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm


Sweden
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm


Switzerland

Carrying of arms

1 Any person who carries an arm in a place accessible to the general public or who transports an arm must hold a licence to carry arms. The holder of this licence must keep it on him and present it upon request to the police or customs authorities. Art. 28, para. 1 is reserved.

2 A licence to carry arms is issued to any person who fulfills the following conditions:
a. no objection can be raised against the person for any of the reasons as referred to in art. 8, para. 2;
b. the person plausibly establishes that he needs an arm to protect himself or third parties or objects against a tangible danger;
c. the person has passed an examination attesting to the fact that he is capable of handling an arm and knows the legal provisions regarding the use of arms; the Federal Police and Justice Department lays down examination regulations.

3 The licence to carry arms is issued by the competent authority of the Canton of ordinary residence for a given type of arm for a maximum period of five years. It is valid throughout Switzerland and fees may be payable. The persons ordinarily resident abroad must obtain it from the competent authority of the Canton by which they intend entering Switzerland.

Source: http://www.un-casa.org/CASACountryProfile/NationalLegislation/[email protected]


Turkey
Source: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/


Ukraine
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm


Though as previously mentioned, I could not find information for a number of European states, such as Andorra, Denmark and Italy.

[MP-Ryan]

Nakura, learn to read law before you quote it.

There are extremely few, extremely exceptional circumstances, under which it is legal to carry any firearm in Canada in public.  You have just taken those sections a long way out of their context.  I'll explain more later tonight if I have time, but you have just displayed that you know nothing about Canadian firearms laws.

[Nakura]

Nakura, learn to read law before you quote it.

There are extremely few, extremely exceptional circumstances, under which it is legal to carry any firearm in Canada in public.  You have just taken those sections a long way out of their context.  I'll explain more later tonight if I have time, but you have just displayed that you know nothing about Canadian firearms laws.

Nothing was taken out of context, any Canadian legal expert could back me up on this. You're the one making up random accusations, by accusing me of "knowing nothing about Canadian firearms law," when you provide absolutely ZERO laws or court interpretations that disagree with anything I posted.

So tell me, Ryan, what did I "take out of context" again?

[BloodEagle]

Nakura, learn to read law before you quote it.

There are extremely few, extremely exceptional circumstances, under which it is legal to carry any firearm in Canada in public.  You have just taken those sections a long way out of their context.  I'll explain more later tonight if I have time, but you have just displayed that you know nothing about Canadian firearms laws.

[...] any Canadian legal expert could back me up on this. [...]

Did I just read this?

[MP-Ryan]

I'm going to venture a guess that you didn't realize that I read (and enforce) Canadian law for a living before you made that post and set yourself up for the written point-by-point deconstruction that follows.  In point of fact, any Canadian legal expert would tell you exactly what I did.  But now that I have some time to elaborate, I shall.

Common Law and Self-Defence

So, all Common Law countries - and the US uses a derivation of Common Law - use virtually the same principles for self-defense:  a person's duty is first to retreat if possible, but may use reasonable force to defend themselves or other persons.  If one reasonably believes they are in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm as a result of force used against them, they may use force intended to cause grievous death or bodily harm to defend themselves.

This means literally every weapon of opportunity is acceptable.  That means a drug dealer who has an illegal handgun may legally use it to defend themselves.  That does not mean they are not still criminally liable for illegal possession of a weapon.  I'll come back to this.

Stand Your ground

Stand Your Ground Laws are a twist on Common Law - they remove the duty to retreat.  They do not exist outside the United States in other Common Law countries.  You are correct that SYG was never argued by Zimmerman - he never needed to.  He had no opportunity to retreat when he was facing death/grievous bodily harm.  However, that is irrelevant for my argument above.  SYG merely muddys the Florida waters and the comprehensive circumstances I blamed for this mess.

Use of Weapons In Self-Defence

As I mentioned above, any weapon of opportunity is acceptable so long as the level of force is reasonable.  That means if a person reasonably believes someone is trying to kill them, they can use whatever they get their hands on to stop them.  BUT if you possessed that weapon of opportunity before you needed to use it, and you possessed it in a manner that is illegal, you are still criminally liable for that.

Canadian Firearms Law

Firearms in Canada are governed by the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act and its Regulations.  The Firearms Act divides weapons into three classes:  non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited.  To possess or transport any of them, you must have an appropriate license.  All handguns are either restricted or prohibited.  This will become important momentarily.  The Firearms Act governs the circumstances under which a person may own, possess, and transport a firearm.  The Criminal Code (Part III) sets out the criminal laws that apply to the possession, use, storage, and transport of firearms.  Both are criminal legislation.

To own a firearm generally, one must be licensed.  Conditions for non-restricted weapons and licenses are fairly benign.  Conditions on restricted and prohibited weapons are quite strict.  Restricted and prohibited weapons may only be possessed and used at particular locations under particular circumstances, and transported between those locations and your residence.  This is all governed by a permit called an Authorization to Transport (ATT).  Possession/use/transport outside of the parameters of your ATT, the Firearms Act, and the Regulations under the Firearms Act is a criminal offence under part III of the Criminal Code (section varies by circumstances).

Now, you referred to section 20 of the Firearms Act earlier.  Section 20 is a CFO exemption which may be granted under specific circumstances, by permit, to certain persons, on a case by case basis.  This is the section that allows corporations or individuals to apply for permits for their employees to carry handguns - armed security among them.  These conditions may be amended onto an ATT in advance.  Section 20 is located under the heading "Authorized Transportation of Firearms" for a reason, and is a special exemption to s.17, which requires a license holder to keep their restricted or prohibited weapon only at their dwelling or places authorized in their ATT.  Section 20 is not a blanket that applies to all or most license-holders in Canada; it applies to very, very few.

Furthermore, s.20 is actually governed by Regulations.  Specifically, the Authorizations to Carry Restricted Firearms and Certain Handguns Regulations, found at the bottom of the Firearms Act.  There are extremely limited circumstances under which s.20 may even be applied.  They are spelled out in detail there, you may read them if you wish.

Concealed Carry in Canada

Is completely illegal, except for peace officers permitted to use Criminal Code provisions that enable them to break the law in the course of their duties.  In fact, carrying ANY concealed weapon is illegal in Canada, generally speaking.  Section 90 of the Criminal Code.  There are a few other Criminal Code offences and Firearms Act offences that relate as well, but 90 is the main one.  S.90 hints there may be some circumstances under which the Firearms Act may authorize concealed carry (which will be by permit), but I have yet to ever find a related section of the Firearms Act that corresponds, or a provision in the Regulations.  An exemption under one or the other would be required to negate s.90 of the CC, and a permit condition would be required as well.

Generally speaking, concealed carry does not legally exist in Canada.

George Zimmerman in Canada

Back to the original premise then.  In Canada, George Zimmerman could not have carried a handgun around his neighbourhood, holster or concealed.  He would never have been able to get a permit - he doesn't meet any of the Criminal Code conditions.  Thus, his carrying of a handgun would have been completely illegal.

Would he be guilty of second-degree murder here?  No - he used a weapon of opportunity to defend himself legally.
Would he be guilty of manslaughter here?  Maybe - the intent requirements on manslaughter in Canada are considerably less than murder charges.  s.232 of the Criminal Code.
Would he be guilty of criminal negligence causing death here?  Almost certainly.  s.219 and 220 of the Criminal Code.  The prosecution could meet that bar quite easily.
Would he be guilty of firearms offences here?  Absolutely - carrying a restricted or prohibited weapon in the circumstances and manner he did constitutes violations under Part III of the Criminal Code.

Given that I've forgotten more about Canadian law than you've ever known, Nakura, I trust you will shortly be recanting all of your statements on this page of the thread concerning Dragoth's and my posts and Canadian law on the subject.  Given your grasp of Canadian law is best described as "atrocious," I'm going to venture a guess that all of the quotes you just provided concerning other countries are similarly distorted and ill-informed.

[Lorric]

Nakura, while I can't prove that what MP-Ryan says about his occupation is true, if you put a gun to my head and told me to decide, I'd say he's telling the truth. I'll just drop this here, as I've seen him mention it before more than once, so you don't think it's too big of a coincidence to believe:

I work in law enforcement and hear the "but it's the spirit of the law" "but that's not how we meant to write it" "it's implied!" arguments all the time.  If there's one thing I've learned in approaching 8 years of law enforcement experience, it's this:

[Nakura]

I'm going to venture a guess that you didn't realize that I read (and enforce) Canadian law for a living before you made that post and set yourself up for the written point-by-point deconstruction that follows.  In point of fact, any Canadian legal expert would tell you exactly what I did.  But now that I have some time to elaborate, I shall.

Common Law and Self-Defence

So, all Common Law countries - and the US uses a derivation of Common Law - use virtually the same principles for self-defense:  a person's duty is first to retreat if possible, but may use reasonable force to defend themselves or other persons.  If one reasonably believes they are in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily harm as a result of force used against them, they may use force intended to cause grievous death or bodily harm to defend themselves.

This means literally every weapon of opportunity is acceptable.  That means a drug dealer who has an illegal handgun may legally use it to defend themselves.  That does not mean they are not still criminally liable for illegal possession of a weapon.  I'll come back to this.

Stand Your ground

Stand Your Ground Laws are a twist on Common Law - they remove the duty to retreat.  They do not exist outside the United States in other Common Law countries.  You are correct that SYG was never argued by Zimmerman - he never needed to.  He had no opportunity to retreat when he was facing death/grievous bodily harm.  However, that is irrelevant for my argument above.  SYG merely muddys the Florida waters and the comprehensive circumstances I blamed for this mess.

Use of Weapons In Self-Defence

As I mentioned above, any weapon of opportunity is acceptable so long as the level of force is reasonable.  That means if a person reasonably believes someone is trying to kill them, they can use whatever they get their hands on to stop them.  BUT if you possessed that weapon of opportunity before you needed to use it, and you possessed it in a manner that is illegal, you are still criminally liable for that.

Canadian Firearms Law

Firearms in Canada are governed by the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act and its Regulations.  The Firearms Act divides weapons into three classes:  non-restricted, restricted, and prohibited.  To possess or transport any of them, you must have an appropriate license.  All handguns are either restricted or prohibited.  This will become important momentarily.  The Firearms Act governs the circumstances under which a person may own, possess, and transport a firearm.  The Criminal Code (Part III) sets out the criminal laws that apply to the possession, use, storage, and transport of firearms.  Both are criminal legislation.

To own a firearm generally, one must be licensed.  Conditions for non-restricted weapons and licenses are fairly benign.  Conditions on restricted and prohibited weapons are quite strict.  Restricted and prohibited weapons may only be possessed and used at particular locations under particular circumstances, and transported between those locations and your residence.  This is all governed by a permit called an Authorization to Transport (ATT).  Possession/use/transport outside of the parameters of your ATT, the Firearms Act, and the Regulations under the Firearms Act is a criminal offence under part III of the Criminal Code (section varies by circumstances).

Now, you referred to section 20 of the Firearms Act earlier.  Section 20 is a CFO exemption which may be granted under specific circumstances, by permit, to certain persons, on a case by case basis.  This is the section that allows corporations or individuals to apply for permits for their employees to carry handguns - armed security among them.  These conditions may be amended onto an ATT in advance.  Section 20 is located under the heading "Authorized Transportation of Firearms" for a reason, and is a special exemption to s.17, which requires a license holder to keep their restricted or prohibited weapon only at their dwelling or places authorized in their ATT.  Section 20 is not a blanket that applies to all or most license-holders in Canada; it applies to very, very few.

Furthermore, s.20 is actually governed by Regulations.  Specifically, the Authorizations to Carry Restricted Firearms and Certain Handguns Regulations, found at the bottom of the Firearms Act.  There are extremely limited circumstances under which s.20 may even be applied.  They are spelled out in detail there, you may read them if you wish.

Concealed Carry in Canada

Is completely illegal, except for peace officers permitted to use Criminal Code provisions that enable them to break the law in the course of their duties.  In fact, carrying ANY concealed weapon is illegal in Canada, generally speaking.  Section 90 of the Criminal Code.  There are a few other Criminal Code offences and Firearms Act offences that relate as well, but 90 is the main one.  S.90 hints there may be some circumstances under which the Firearms Act may authorize concealed carry (which will be by permit), but I have yet to ever find a related section of the Firearms Act that corresponds, or a provision in the Regulations.  An exemption under one or the other would be required to negate s.90 of the CC, and a permit condition would be required as well.

Generally speaking, concealed carry does not legally exist in Canada.

George Zimmerman in Canada

Back to the original premise then.  In Canada, George Zimmerman could not have carried a handgun around his neighbourhood, holster or concealed.  He would never have been able to get a permit - he doesn't meet any of the Criminal Code conditions.  Thus, his carrying of a handgun would have been completely illegal.

Would he be guilty of second-degree murder here?  No - he used a weapon of opportunity to defend himself legally.
Would he be guilty of manslaughter here?  Maybe - the intent requirements on manslaughter in Canada are considerably less than murder charges.  s.232 of the Criminal Code.
Would he be guilty of criminal negligence causing death here?  Almost certainly.  s.219 and 220 of the Criminal Code.  The prosecution could meet that bar quite easily.
Would he be guilty of firearms offences here?  Absolutely - carrying a restricted or prohibited weapon in the circumstances and manner he did constitutes violations under Part III of the Criminal Code.

Given that I've forgotten more about Canadian law than you've ever known, Nakura, I trust you will shortly be recanting all of your statements on this page of the thread concerning Dragoth's and my posts and Canadian law on the subject.  Given your grasp of Canadian law is best described as "atrocious," I'm going to venture a guess that all of the quotes you just provided concerning other countries are similarly distorted and ill-informed.

Yes, occupation is one of the 'genuine reasons' to carry a handgun, but protection of life is also a genuine reason for applying for a carry permit. Protection of life permits, though generally issued to protect from wild animals, are also issued for self-defense (from humans), if the applicant can prove that their life may be in danger and that police protection is insufficient. Normal civilian authorization to carry licenses only apply to open carry, because of the Criminal Code. However, there is a separate permit that is available, a Class 3 Authorization to Carry License. Class 3 licenses allow civilians to carry concealed firearms, one of the few exceptions to the Criminal Code which is available to civilians, but rarely issued.

Here is the full text of the law: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-207/FullText.html


I mean no disrespect, Ryan. If I am wrong in this regard, please correct me.

[MP-Ryan]

Yes, occupation is one of the 'genuine reasons' to carry a handgun, but protection of life is also a genuine reason for applying for a carry permit. Protection of life permits, though generally issued to protect from wild animals, are also issued for self-defense (from humans), if the applicant can prove that their life may be in danger and that police protection is insufficient. Normal civilian authorization to carry licenses only apply to open carry, because of the Criminal Code. However, there is a separate permit that is available, a Class 3 Authorization to Carry License. Class 3 licenses allow civilians to carry concealed firearms, one of the few exceptions to the Criminal Code which is available to civilians, but rarely issued.

Here is the full text of the law: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-207/FullText.html

Quit reading Wikipedia.  They aren't sourcing the Class information (the MP's website is an ATIP scant on details), and nowhere does that class designation scheme exist in Canadian law.  You can't find it in the Firearms Act or its regulations.  I invite you to try.  The actual authorizations to carry are designated under the Regulations you just linked, and nowhere do the conditions in it permit concealed carry - in point of fact, they specify the use of a holster and often a uniform as well.

Now, it's amazing that you've managed to link the regulations but you haven't read them - or, if you have, my earlier comment that you need to learn how to read law before you quote it applies doubly.  There are precisely two circumstances under which a person may be authorized to carry a restricted or prohibited weapon.  Reproduced below:

Protection of Life

2. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where

    (a) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals;

    (b) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and

    (c) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.

Lawful Profession or Occupation

3. For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns for use in connection with his or her lawful profession or occupation are where

    (a) the individual’s principal activity is the handling, transportation or protection of cash, negotiable instruments or other goods of substantial value, and firearms are required for the purpose of protecting his or her life or the lives of other individuals in the course of that handling, transportation or protection activity;

    (b) the individual is working in a remote wilderness area and firearms are required for the protection of the life of that individual or of other individuals from wild animals; or

    (c) the individual is engaged in the occupation of trapping in a province and is licensed or authorized and trained as required by the laws of the province.

Now, in each subparagraph (denoted by letters), you will note the presence of the word "and" or "or."  Where "and" appears, every subparagraph must be met for a section to apply.  Thus, here is how you read section 2:

For the purpose of section 20 of the Act, the circumstances in which an individual needs restricted firearms or prohibited handguns to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals are where the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals AND police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances AND the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.

IF all of those conditions are met, then you may be able to get a permit to carry a restricted or prohibited handgun.  Maybe.  It's still up to the Chief Firearms Officer.  They are also specific conditions - you can't just generally be worried and want to carry a gun, it requires you to identify a specific threat which the police cannot counter and for which a gun is reasonably justified.  This is a very exceptional, high threshold.  Moreover, the permit must require the person to use a holster - it does not authorize concealed carry (subpara 6b, Authorizations to Carry Regulations).

Could George Zimmerman have had such a permit if the incident occurred in Canada?  There isn't a snowball's chance in hell.  These permits are not typically available to the general public, and they are generally quite rare.

With few very specific, very rigid exceptions, Canadians cannot carry or concealed carry restricted/prohibited firearms in a public place.  We also cannot transport or store them loaded and unsecured, nor possess or handle any class of firearm in a manner considered unsafe to the general public - and our police forces very much consider anyone carrying a loaded firearm around in public who is not in an area where hunting or target shooting is expressly permitted to be handling them in a manner unsafe to the general public.

[The E]

Regarding gun permits in Germany: Zimmerman wouldn't have been able to obtain a permit, much less a carry permit at all.

The following regulations apply:

• age of majority (18 years) (§ 4 WaffG)
  
• trustworthiness (§ 5 WaffG)
  
• personal adequacy (§ 6 WaffG)
  
• expert knowledge (§ 7 WaffG) and
  
• necessity (§ 8 WaffG)

§4 is self-explanatory.

§5 means that someone who has been sentenced to jail for a crime in the past ten years is automatically considered untrustworthy. Same goes for persons where strong indications are present that they lack the necessary discipline to handle a gun responsibly; a lack of secure storage for the gun is one example of this.
Edge cases, where individual judgements may be made, are for people who have been sentenced for a crime without jail time in the past 5 years, former members of associations and parties that were disbanded due to their anti-constitutional activities, people who were specifically working to undermine our democratic order through force or threat of force.

§6 says that people who are legally incapacitated (People who need a legal guardian, basically), addicted to alcohol or stronger drugs, or mentally ill, or in any other way liable to be a threat to themselves and others may not own a gun. Persons under 25 years of age who wish to purchase a firearm need an official certificate of competency, no exceptions.

§7 amounts to a necessity for any prospective gun owner to prove that he has been instructed in proper firearm use and maintenance.

§8, necessity. You absolutely need to prove that you need the gun. A necessity is assumed present if you're a hunter, are a competitive shooter, a collector, an expert for firearms and munitions, a gun store owner or gunsmith, in the protection business or there's a clear and present danger to your life. You also need to prove that the guns you want to own are fit for purpose.

In order to actually own a gun, you need two things. One, a permission to purchase. Two, a permission to own. Both of these are subject to the regulations above. When you do purchase a gun, it has to be registered with the appropriate authorities.

Openly carrying a gun is absolutely prohibited unless you are currently on the job, or transporting it from your home to a shooting stand or similar (in which case you also need to separate the gun and its ammo).

EDIT: Zimmerman would have problems with proving his personal competency and responsibility, given his record. He would very definitely not be able to show a need to own a gun, and even if he somehow got past THAT hurdle, he would not be allowed to carry a gun, openly or concealed, in public.

[pecenipicek]

Regarding gun permits in Germany: Zimmerman wouldn't have been able to obtain a permit, much less a carry permit at all.

The following regulations apply:

• age of majority (18 years) (§ 4 WaffG)
  
• trustworthiness (§ 5 WaffG)
  
• personal adequacy (§ 6 WaffG)
  
• expert knowledge (§ 7 WaffG) and
  
• necessity (§ 8 WaffG)

§4 is self-explanatory.

§5 means that someone who has been sentenced to jail for a crime in the past ten years is automatically considered untrustworthy. Same goes for persons where strong indications are present that they lack the necessary discipline to handle a gun responsibly; a lack of secure storage for the gun is one example of this.
Edge cases, where individual judgements may be made, are for people who have been sentenced for a crime without jail time in the past 5 years, former members of associations and parties that were disbanded due to their anti-constitutional activities, people who were specifically working to undermine our democratic order through force or threat of force.

§6 says that people who are legally incapacitated (People who need a legal guardian, basically), addicted to alcohol or stronger drugs, or mentally ill, or in any other way liable to be a threat to themselves and others may not own a gun. Persons under 25 years of age who wish to purchase a firearm need an official certificate of competency, no exceptions.

§7 amounts to a necessity for any prospective gun owner to prove that he has been instructed in proper firearm use and maintenance.

§8, necessity. You absolutely need to prove that you need the gun. A necessity is assumed present if you're a hunter, are a competitive shooter, a collector, an expert for firearms and munitions, a gun store owner or gunsmith, in the protection business or there's a clear and present danger to your life. You also need to prove that the guns you want to own are fit for purpose.

In order to actually own a gun, you need two things. One, a permission to purchase. Two, a permission to own. Both of these are subject to the regulations above. When you do purchase a gun, it has to be registered with the appropriate authorities.

Openly carrying a gun is absolutely prohibited unless you are currently on the job, or transporting it from your home to a shooting stand or similar (in which case you also need to separate the gun and its ammo).

EDIT: Zimmerman would have problems with proving his personal competency and responsibility, given his record. He would very definitely not be able to show a need to own a gun, and even if he somehow got past THAT hurdle, he would not be allowed to carry a gun, openly or concealed, in public.

Croatia

Outside the hunting grounds or shooting ranges, hunting and sporting weapons may be carried only in suitable holsters or cases and may not be loaded.

Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx

For the record, our laws are similar to german ones except if you've been sentenced = no gun permit, ever and if you were involved in any domestic abuse cases also.
Also, one of the requirements dictate fitness of health as well and 21 years old.

Concealed carry is mandatory if you wish to carry a weapon as a civilian (and i quote: "Weaponry of categories B, C and D are not to be made visible to the general public, nor is it allowed to be worn in a way that can be construed as disturbing to the general public." ) ,unless you are a police officer with a permit or work in security and have proper permission, in both cases, the weapon must be visible.


i do not know how its around the world but here apparently the classes are as such:
A: any fully automatic or explosive weaponry - completely restricted
B: semi-automatic or single-shot everything that can be construed as a "gunpowder-using firearm" - requires permit and notification of local police
C: spring-rifles, gas rifles and similar with either kinetic energy above 10.5J, pellet speed above 200m/s, or above 4.5mm calibre, bows above 450N pull strength, flintlocks, wheellocks, any other form of fully manual loading rifle or such - requires notification of local police
D: everything that doesnt fit above and includes most knives and such. altough you are forbidden from carrying a knife with a blade over 5 cm's in length as well if memory serves - no notification required, freely availible, but not allowed to wear openly.

[Grizzly]

Austria
Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx

Aside from you not directly linking to Austria itself (COME ON DUDE, it's like you are intentionally making this inconvenient to make it harder for me to reply here it is) this entire page is NOT about individual firearm ownership, it's about firearms trade on a nation wide scale (Like on how Qadaffi got himself a bunch of M113s type of scale). It contains NO information at all on individual carry laws.

Belgium
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm

See above - also, this data is a survey neatly placed into a 1997 ms Acces database file, which I do not have the skills to open or use - You have got to do better then that.



Bulgaria

*snip*

Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx[/quote]

Incorrect citation at best. See Austria.
Croatia

*snip*

Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx

Aside from the incorrect citation, that sounds like a NOT ALLOWED to me. An unloaded firearm is as an effective self defence as my hardened mobile telephone.

Cyprus
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm

Incorrect citation.


Czech Republic

*snip*

In the Czech Republic, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted only with special authorisation (source). It is debetable wether or not this would have been obtained in this case.

Estonia

*snip*

Source: http://www.legaltext.ee/en/andmebaas/ava.asp?m=022

Ooh. So you need a permit, and you can only carry the weapon without ammunition, which must be concealed in such a way that they can not be stolen? In this case, the victim could have run away before the perpetrator even had drawn his gun.

According to my source, The perpetrator would need to have been trained in the use of the gun, and has to go trough many many background checks, including criminal, medical, mental, and military. He also needs a good reason, and since Estonia has an adequate police force, his reason for "protecting the neighborhood" would most likely not apply.

France

*snip*

Source: http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=LEGITEXT000005618597&dateTexte=vig#

The law which you quoted says "PROHIBITED" unless special requirements are met. I assume you are familiar with the phrase prohibited?

According to my source, handgun ownership in france is prohibited with only narrow exemptions (such as being a target shooter or a security guard).

Germany
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm

Greece
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm

Hungary
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm

Incorrect citations, see Austria.

Ireland (Republic of)*snip*

Source: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1925/en/act/pub/0017/index.html[/quote]

The law itself says that it is not allowed to carry firearms except with a permit. [http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/ireland]according to my source[/url]:

(2) The conditions subject to which a firearm certificate may be granted are that, in the opinion of the issuing person, the applicant --
(a) has a good reason for requiring the firearm in respect of which the certificate is applied for,
(b) can be permitted to possess, use and carry the firearm and ammunition without danger to the public safety or security or the peace,
(c) is not a person declared by this Act to be disentitled to hold a firearm certificate,
(d) has provided secure accommodation for the firearm and ammunition at the place where it is to be kept,
(e) where the firearm is a rifle or pistol to be used for target shooting, is a member of an authorised rifle or pistol club,
(f) has complied with subsection (3),
(g) complies with such other conditions (if any) specified in the firearm certificate, including any such conditions to be complied with before a specified date as the issuing person considers necessary in the interests of public safety or security, and
(h) in case the application is for a restricted firearm certificate --
(i) has a good and sufficient reason for requiring such a firearm, and
(ii) has demonstrated that the firearm is the only type of weapon that is appropriate for the purpose for which it is required

The last bit is crucial. Ireland has a very capable police force, which themselves do not always carry firearms. If the police can do without them, so can a neighbourhood watch.


Latvia

*snip*

Source: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/latvia
[/quote]

Same source also explains how hard it is to get a licence - see ireland.

Liechtenstein
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm

Incorrect citation

Lithuania

*snip*

Source: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_e?p_id=365738&p_query=&p_tr2=

From the same source, article 1 to 5 which you FAILED TO QUOTE tell a tale:

1. Police institutions shall issue permits to acquire weapons classified in Categories A, B and C to natural persons, legal persons registered in the Republic of Lithuania (except entities having a special status, state institutions of criminal expert examination).

2. Permits to acquire weapons classified in Categories A, B and C shall be issued to:

1) natural persons who have the right to acquire weapons of such categories;

2) legal persons, registered in the Republic of Lithuania, who have obtained the licenses specified in subparagraphs 1, 5 and 6 of paragraph 1 of Article 19 of this Law, and who have the right to acquire weapons classified in such Categories;

3) legal persons, registered in the Republic of Lithuania, who carry out professional activities and have the right to acquire weapons classified in such categories;

3. Upon the receipt of applications for the acquisition of weapons, police institutions shall carry out checks with the view of establishing whether the persons who apply for permits to acquire weapons are not subject to the restrictions established by this Law. Checks shall be carried out and decisions concerning the issuance of a permit made not later than within 45 days of the submitting of the application.

4. Persons who have valid permits to carry weapons or permits to hold weapons shall be issued permits for new weapons by police institutions not later than within 5 days of the submitting of the application. Repeated checks indicated in paragraph 3 of this Article shall not be carried out.

5. Refusal to issue a permit must be grounded. An applicant or a person authorised by him shall be entitled to appeal against the refusal to issue a permit to the Commissar General of the Police who must, not later than within 30 days, make a decision concerning the issuance of a permit to acquire a weapon. An applicant who has not received a satisfying reply or who has not received any reply, may appeal to the court against the refusal to issue a permit to acquire a weapon.

As in, only under special circumstances, which would not have been applied in the perpetrators case.

Moldova

*SNIP*

Source: http://www.seesac.org/uploads/armslaws/moldova.pdf
that quote of yours only states what one can do WITH a license, not how one OBTAINS the licence.
However, that licence may be granted for reasons of self defence, so there you go. In this one (1) case, it is likely that the accusant is allowed to have a weapon on him.

Monaco
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm


Montenegro

Physical person may carry weapons on the ground of weapon permit and possess it on the basis of permit to carry it.

Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx


Poland
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm

Incorrect citations

Romania

*snip*

Again, license and permit required.

Serbia

*snip*

Serbia is not part of the European Union.

Slovakia
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Slovenia
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Spain
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm
Sweden
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm

Incorrect citations

Switzerland

Carrying of arms

1 Any person who carries an arm in a place accessible to the general public or who transports an arm must hold a licence to carry arms. The holder of this licence must keep it on him and present it upon request to the police or customs authorities. Art. 28, para. 1 is reserved.

2 A licence to carry arms is issued to any person who fulfills the following conditions:
a. no objection can be raised against the person for any of the reasons as referred to in art. 8, para. 2;
b. the person plausibly establishes that he needs an arm to protect himself or third parties or objects against a tangible danger;
c. the person has passed an examination attesting to the fact that he is capable of handling an arm and knows the legal provisions regarding the use of arms; the Federal Police and Justice Department lays down examination regulations.

3 The licence to carry arms is issued by the competent authority of the Canton of ordinary residence for a given type of arm for a maximum period of five years. It is valid throughout Switzerland and fees may be payable. The persons ordinarily resident abroad must obtain it from the competent authority of the Canton by which they intend entering Switzerland.

Source: http://www.un-casa.org/CASACountryProfile/NationalLegislation/[email protected]
[/quote]

See bolded part. Debatable whether or not the accusant would have been able to explain that there was an adequate danger (indeed, this whole upheaval is that the victim did NOT posses any kind of danger, and it is unlikely that a licence based on such grounds would be granted, seeing as Switzerland has a very capable police force

Turkey
Source: http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/
Ukraine
Source: http://www.uncjin.org/Statistics/firearms/index.htm

Incorrect citations.

Though as previously mentioned, I could not find information for a number of European states, such as Andorra, Denmark and Italy.

Gunpolicy.org has all of them. Not that it would help you, given your complete inaduquacy to actually read the sources you quoted.

[pecenipicek]

Croatia

*snip*

Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx

Aside from the incorrect citation, that sounds like a NOT ALLOWED to me. An unloaded firearm is as an effective self defence as my hardened mobile telephone.

Wrong. Look a post above yours.Concealed carry mandatory, allowed to carry loaded, as uneasy as that makes me now...
I need to read our actual laws on the topic, i'm getting mixed info from foreign sites, compared to info i sourced from domestic sites, apologies up front.


also, the gunpolicy.org statistics for my country make me a bit... scared.

[edit]gunpolicy.org and subsequently poa-iss.org are referencing something that is not the current gun law in croatia.

the current gun law has been brought into power on 6. June 2007. , with corrections and modifications subsequently on 12. December 2008. and  22. May 2012.
The second modification is on the topic of hunting weapons and irrelevant to the topic at hand. (among other things and translating the whole law would be pointless)

the "Arms act" listed on the poa-iss.org site is a translation of the old law with some... issues in regards of signees quoted and such.

the law itself however, states the following:
Link to the law, in Croatian

2. Korištenje oružja

Članak 32.

Vlasnik oružja dužan je oružje održavati u ispravnom stanju, pravilno i pozorno rukovati njime.
Oružje je zabranjeno upotrebljavati na javnim mjestima ili na mjestima gdje se može ugroziti sigurnost građana.
Lovačko oružje ne smije se upotrebljavati izvan lovišta, civilnih strelišta ili drugih mjesta određenih za vježbe gađanja.
Športsko oružje ne smije se upotrebljavati izvan civilnih strelišta ili drugih mjesta koja su određena za vježbe gađanja.
Iznimno od odredbe stavka 4. ovoga članka, zračno oružje i luk smiju se upotrebljavati i na mjestima koja su po svom položaju ili po poduzetim mjerama osiguranja takva da se ne može ugroziti sigurnost građana.
Zračnim oružjem te lukom smiju se koristiti i djeca starija od 11 godina na športskim strelištima i na drugim mjestima određenim i uređenim za vježbe gađanja pod nadzorom trenera koji ispunjava opće i posebne uvjete iz članka 10. ovoga Zakona i uvjete propisane posebnim propisom o športu.
Oružje je zabranjeno dati na uporabu djeci, osim prema odred­bama ovoga Zakona.
Kratko i dugo lovačko i dugo športsko oružje mora se izvan lovišta, odnosno strelišta prenositi u odgovarajućim navlakama ili kovčezima nenapunjeno, a kratko športsko oružje zaključano u navlakama ili kovčezima.

Layman's translation as follows:

2. Weapon use

Article 32.

The owner of the weapon is required to keep the weapon in working condition and to handle it with proper care.
It is not allowed to use the weapon in public places, or in places where the safety of the greater public can be put at risk.
Hunting weapons are not allowed to be used outside of hunting grounds, civilian shooting ranges or other places set for use for target practice.
Sport weapons cannot be used outside civilian shooting ranges or other places set for use for target practice.
In exception to the decision of line 4 of this article, air weapons and bow can be used in places which are by their position and safety measures undertaken such that public safety cannot be put at risk.
Air weapons and bows can be used by children older than 11 at sport shooting ranges and other places set and equipped for shooting practice under oversight of a trainer which fulfills general and special requirements from article 10. of this Law and requirements set out by the special specification of sport.
Weapons are not allowed to be handled to children, unless by decisions made in this Law.
Short and long hunting and long sports weapons, outside hunting grounds and shooting ranges, must be carried in appropriate covers or lockers unloaded, and short sports weapons must be locked in covers or lockers.

I tried to translate to the best of my knowledge of english and i think that i got the meaning across properly.


In short, from what i know of gun laws here in general, concealed carry has been mandatory since the country exists and you are allowed to carry a loaded firearm.
Technically the law allows you to carry a fully loaded flintlock pistol around without a permit if you can keep it out of public sight (and you notified the local police authority that you own it).

[StarSlayer]

Croatia

*snip*

Source: http://www.poa-iss.org/CountryProfiles/CountryProfiles.aspx

Aside from the incorrect citation, that sounds like a NOT ALLOWED to me. An unloaded firearm is as an effective self defence as my hardened mobile telephone.

To be fair the terms buttstroke and pistol whip don't exist because firearms are as ineffective as a cellphone in melee.  I know I wouldn't want my skull clocked with a 1911.