Interview of Vyacheslav Vaneev - the main weapon rights activist of Russia, the leader of the all-Russian organization “Right to weapon".
Vyacheslav Vladimirovich, a few years ago your movement was well known: there were street actions that numbered 500 people. Today, you can barely hear the general public. What is PnO doing now?
In recent years, there has been no expediency in holding pickets, so we focused on analytical and media work. The main direction of our activity is the raising of weapons culture: the organization of sporting events, arms education. The main objectives - the legalization of the gun and the right to self-defense.
What political parties did you try to contact?
With all. Our movement positions itself as non-political. PnO does not look at the ideology of the party, but only at the willingness to promote the ideas of weapons culture.
There is a point of view that in the 100 years of the armory of freedom, the Russian people have lost their weapon culture, and if we return the right to a short-haul to our people, everyone will shoot each other ...
It is nonsense. Although in Soviet times there were no civilian pistols, the culture of weapons was high. All men went through the army, there were sporting-shooting clubs, there were many hunters. All schoolchildren, including girls, were obligatory shot from the 4 class with a small-bore rifle rifle, which was sold without a passport until 1964. And there were no gun incidents. It fires not a weapon, it shoots a man.
With Russian weapons culture is understandable. But yesterday, the Dagestan policeman arguing shot himself in the head. In the case of legalization of pistols, the peculiarity of the mentality of the Highlanders will not lead to constant firefights?
The mentality, of course, postpones the imprint on the behavior, but any behavior is governed by the barrel directed at you. When a mountaineer knows that his neighbor is armed, he controls his actions. The more likely to get a bullet in the forehead from a neighbor, the more polite and calm any person. Correctness must be supported not only by internal intelligence, but also by the threat of physical punishment.
After the recent tragedy in Kerch, ombudsman Tatyana Moskalkova offered to sell weapons not with 18, but with 25 years ...
Then let's take to the army with 25 years. In Rosgvardiyu and the police, too. These structures are taken from 18, and in police colleges, underage cadets have access to arms.
You can also issue rights to a car with 25 years, if you follow the logic Moskalkova. After all, a car that can be sent to the crowd is a more dangerous thing than a gun.
By the way, there are almost no incidents due to the fault of the legal owners of the weapon - only 0,17% of all accidents with firearms! According to statistics from the Ministry of Internal Affairs - 2 / 3 incidents - the work of current or former law enforcement officers. Only this week, one Rosgvarder wounded himself while cleaning his weapon, another shot himself at argument, the third one was drunk.
LDPR leader Zhirinovsky believes that only men who have served in the army should have the right to arms. How do you assess his position?
There is a grain of intelligence in this. Such a qualification can only be allowed during a certain transitional period, to calm the neoliberals. But in the future, weapons should be legally accessible to all citizens, regardless of gender and military service.
Is there a threat of toughening weapon legislation in connection with Kerch tragedy?
It is not enough to say that there is such a threat. I do not want to seem like an amateur conspiracy theories, but the logic of what is happening indicates the fact of provocation. After each negative incident, “nuts are tightened” immediately against the gun owners, even if the military or, more often, a law enforcement representative was responsible for the shooting. Not an exception and became terrorist attack in Kerch.
See, in any incident the first ambulance arrives, and only then the law enforcement agencies. After the ambulance, the patrol service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs arrives. In Kerch, unknown people in military uniform arrived at the scene after 5 minutes. And this is not a division of the Rosguard, because they do not alarm so quickly, the Rosguard is not a special formation. There are many questions to the tragedy. No sensible expert practitioner will believe in the official version. I believe that the incident was created artificially in order to tighten the screws even more [ca. Ed. - the opinion of the author is not always the same as the editorial opinion]. But I'm afraid that already the thread may break. And if it fails, this nut can kill those who spin. It is impossible to joke with the people.
Who is the main anti-weapon lobby in the Russian Federation?
In my opinion, these are law enforcement agencies, in particular, the Rosguard. They benefit from the defenselessness of the population. It is important to understand: Rosgvardia is a semi-commercial structure. It provides paid services for the protection of objects: restaurants, schools. And after each incident, she lobbies her interests. Any individual can conclude a commercial contract with Rosgvardi to travel with a flasher and security. This is a kind of exclusive PSC.
In addition, although Rosgvardia represents the executive branch, it is to her that the president constantly entrusts legislative action. And when executive power deals with lawmaking, the result can be anti-humanitarian and anti-human. This led to, for example, that the Rosgvardia has the right not to provide its documents during the performance of duties, which provokes citizens to use violence against law enforcement officers - they are often confused with gangsters: the same ammunition, the same masks and, often, the same rudeness.
But by and large, the main anti-weapon lobbyist is power. Our political elites do not want an armed people: they fear disloyalty. And this is stupid, an armed citizen is always on the side of the government that gave him weapons. Unfortunately, the political elites of the Russian Federation do not trust armed citizens.
Therefore, the bill “My home is my fortress”, proposed by Senator Anton Belyakov in March of 2017, was not implemented?
Yes it is. In general, this bill appeared in 2013 year. At the heart of - the natural right to protect their own homes. He was raised in the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation. This project was posted on the portal of Russian public initiatives (ROI). And it was he who for the first time in the history of the ROI received such broad support that he was referred to the State Duma for consideration. It is not clear why President Putin, who created the ROI for feedback from the people, did not respond to the initiative properly. The project still lays, waiting for consideration in the State Duma, and the words of Senator Belyakov, who spoke in support of the forgotten initiative last year, were dissolved in the air.
Your organization is trying to pass a law on self-defense. How easy is it now to remain at liberty to a citizen who killed someone while defending himself?
Almost impossible. The law is not on the side of someone who defends himself or rescues another person in distress. And the entire practice of law enforcement agencies pushes the employee not to identify the real criminal, but to “appoint” an honest person to them, referring any self-defense case to the court as “exceeding the necessary self-defense”.
If three people with a criminal past approach you at night on the street, the judge will insist that they had no malicious intent, and they wanted to give you a balloon. A modern court is not an evidence, but an adversary, and one who has great administrative or financial resources wins (to carry out an examination is expensive).
What is more important, the right to a gun, or the right to self-defense?
In self defense, of course. This will allow a physically weak person to defend himself against a strong one or against a group of attackers, at least with an ax. And today, the judge will say: “They didn’t have a weapon, but you grabbed a sharp object,” or - “You could run away and not defend yourself ...”
Your organization is known for helping defendants who have defended themselves and ended up in networks of unjust laws. When was the last time you helped such citizens?
Three weeks ago, a St. Petersburg resident stood up for his wife, whom they wanted to brutally rape. Did not calculate the force, and now he faces 8 years in prison. Unfortunately, they turned to us too late, having made many mistakes at the stage of pre-investigation activities. If they immediately appealed to the NPL, we would instruct how to behave with law enforcement officers, and would take control of the investigation, not allowing to conclude this matter. As a result, they were able to help only with publicity and the recommendation of good lawyers.
That is, if a citizen defended himself and killed, he needs to contact in PNO?
Yes, and immediately, so that we can hold a consultation already in the early stages of the investigation.
Your predictions are mostly pessimistic. But you can, at least, racescread on the unwinding of nuts in the field of historical weapons?
Alas. PnO sets targets for the liberalization of the circulation, use and control of weapons, including crossbows, swords, etc., but there is little hope. As for the muzzle-loading firearm - muskets and fuzes, so they are under the ban of both production and circulation, as if it is a military weapon.
- What to do to armed citizens and just lovers of weapons?
Unite and fight.
If you find it important that we publish such material, support the authors