ABSTRACT: Highlights of the referendum to abolish arms licenses.

("STOP THEM WITH A SIGNATURE. SIGN AT ONCE FOR THE TEN REFERENDUMS, a PR pamphlet, 1980)

The illusion of self-defence by carrying arms is exploited by the arms merchants and the supporters of violence. It is necessary to reopen the discussion on traditional mental habits to create today civil democratic coexistence which has been made impossible in a country overflowing with arms.

THE NORMS TO BE ABOLISHED

We propose to abolish from the Consolidation Act on Public Order approved by Royal Decree on June 18, 1931 no.773 the third paragraph of art. 42 concerning the concession of arms licenses by police officials or prefects.

THE JURIDICAL FORMULATION

Do you wish to see abolished art. 42, paragraph (police officials have the right to issue licenses for long firearms and the prefect can grant, in the case of a proved need, licenses to carry revolvers or pistols of any size and sword-sticks whose blade is not shorter than 65 cm) of Royal Decree 18.6.1931, no.773 (Consolidation Act on Public Order) and subsequent modifications?

REFERENDUM FOR THE ABOLITION OF ARMS LICENSES

The carrying of arms is today prohibited by art.4 of law 18. 6.1975, no.110, which furthermore makes an exception of the authorisations foreseen in the old Consolidation Act of the public order laws (third paragraph of art.42 of Royal Decree 18.6. 1931, no.773). The abolition of this disposition which is the object of the referendum thus involves an absolute prohibition on carrying arms outside one's own domicile.

It is necessary to make clear immediately that the eventual approval of the referendum proposal by popular vote would not mean the disarming of military units or even of the police. In fact, the police are authorised - even without an arms license - to carry the arms which are part of the equipment necessary for them to perform the functions of their service. But their members would not be allowed to carry other arms, above all the so-called "second arms" whose use has given rise to large questions on the occasion of clashes between demonstrators and the police forces.

Another consequence of abrogating authorisation to bear arms would be the disarming of private police services, the manifold squads of "vigilantes" that patrol our cities. And this would be a truly far-reaching result. The defence of public order - it is always necessary to remember the terms of the problem - inevitably ends by interfering with the substance and exercising of the citizens' fundamental rights, rights which are constitutionally guaranteed. This is always a matter of extremely dangerous limitations. And so it is truly indispensable that public order should be entirely managed under the full and complete responsibility of authorities who are politically answerable to the Parliament and the voters. The development of private police forces is another dangerous consequence of the persistent refusal of the Christian Democrats to proceed to the necessary reforms of the public structures which are in a state of serious neglect thus compromising the exercising of institutional functions.

The proposal to abolish arms licenses will doubtless excite wide debate in the country. If the abolition of life imprisonment, which yet is part of the referendum packet, jolts the instinct to personal defence, the question raised by this proposal is at least two-fold. And it is necessary immediately to counter any facile assimilation of this one with another referendum contained in the packet - that of abolishing hunting. The abolition of arms licenses is neither a premise nor a continuation of the latter.

The common citizen who feels more secure when he goes around armed is in reality labouring under a dangerous delusion: the moment in which he tries to defend himself he will already have been the victim of an aggressor who will have taken the initiative and have had a relative advantage along with being cold, cynical and professional. Unless he runs into a common chicken thief, and in that case he will be up against the rigours of the law which will punish him for an excess of legitimate self-defence.

But beyond these considerations - and they are not of secondary importance - the battle for the abolition of gun licenses touches the fundamental principles of civil coexistence, above all in consideration of the de facto situation in our country which today is overflowing with arms. The general indifference to the reality of the very widespread possession of every kind of weapon is truly one of the inexplicable and irrational aspects of social behaviour. The possession of arms, direct instruments of offence and death, does not figure among the reasons for social alarm which are wide-spread among the public and some of which certainly ought to be put into a new perspective.

The tendency to circumscribe in a general way the presence of arms is a concern that legislators have felt; and they have intervened in the manufacture, sales, importing and detention of arms. But there has not been the necessary determination for a decisive or at least highly significant intervention. Concern has been expressed but not the will to put into question fundamental principles, traditional mental attitudes, habits taken for granted.

And perhaps only a collective national debate might generate that general awareness of the incompatibility between the principles of a democratic society and the tendency to the use of arms: the philosophy of democracy is a philosophy of non-violence, a philosophy of reason, a philosophy of tolerance which in its practical application, as the corner-stone of the regulations of co-existence, leads to the exclusion of harmful and death-dealing instruments.

The road is a very long one, but it is a question of trying to translate certain very fundamental principles into the terms of positive law which heretofore have perhaps only been grasped on the moral level.

But the practical repercussions will not be less important. The manufacture and trafficking in arms cannot help but be hit by a significant reduction and this can only be considered a very positive event, while a no less major contribution will be furnished to the fight against organised crime. It is well known that the Mafiosi always have arms licenses, and we are convinced that the prohibition to circulate while carrying arms will serve much more to combat crime than will an interrogation by the police without the assistance of a lawyer.