Over the weekend, a shooting with numerous casualties occurred in Kyiv. This immediately revived an old and complex discussion: should firearms be legalized for Ukraine’s civilian population, or would this merely increase the amount of everyday violence?
After I posted my position on social media, a military friend of mine called me. He is a Maidan activist, a volunteer, and, like me, has officially registered firearms. The conversation was calm, yet very focused and honest. However, we were discussing not so much the right of civilians to own guns, but how, under our conditions and legal framework, we have the right to legally use firearms to protect ourselves and our loved ones. My friend’s position was simple and quite strict: without the right and the ability to use firearms, owning them makes no sense. Therefore, the issue should be addressed comprehensively.
It is important to acknowledge one basic and unpleasant reality of modern Ukraine. We already have a significant amount of illegal firearms available. They entered civilian circulation through various means during the war. Some of these weapons have never returned under state control. Ignoring this fact only increases the risks to society.
There is also an important signal that society has already given to the state. In the spring of 2022, Ukrainians voted through the “Diia” app. The question concerned the right of civilians to own firearms. The majority of users, namely 59% of 1,700,000 who participated in the vote, supported the idea of free ownership of pistols and their carrying in public places.
However, owning firearms is only part of a larger problem. A much more complex issue is the legal use of these weapons. This is where Ukrainian legislation shows the most obvious gaps and contradictions. And this is where the biggest problem arises for a law-abiding official firearm owner.
The current law formally guarantees the possibility of necessary defense for citizens. This is enshrined in Article 36 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. It defines the conditions under which a person does not bear criminal responsibility: it concerns the protection of oneself or others from a socially dangerous attack. But the real practice of applying this norm is much more complicated. Article 118 of the Criminal Code establishes liability for exceeding the limits of defense. Article 124 regulates the issue of bodily harm in such cases. The line between lawful defense and crime often seems blurred. This is confirmed by numerous decisions of Ukrainian courts at various levels.
In practice, courts often require proof of complete proportionality between defense and threat. Any deviation may be interpreted as exceeding the bounds of defense. This creates a serious risk for the person defending themselves. They are forced to prove their correctness after the critical situation. As a result, there arises a dangerous legal uncertainty for citizens. A person who owns a legal weapon, at the same time, is afraid to use it. To understand: if a thief breaks into your apartment, you do not have the right to shoot them first. Paradoxically, they must first harm you or your family — only after that do you have the right to use your weapon against them. Otherwise, you may be accused of exceeding the level of self-defense. The risk of criminal prosecution becomes a deterrent from protection. And this effectively negates the very right to self-defense at a critical moment.
A demonstrative case involves the use of weapons in one’s own home. Intruders broke into a man’s house at night, after which he used firearms for protection. As a result, one of the attackers died, and the lower courts deemed this an excess of necessary defense. The Supreme Court overturned these decisions and acquitted the accused, recognizing his actions as lawful. The court emphasized that violent home invasion creates a real threat to a person’s life and health. In such conditions, a person is not obligated to accurately assess the level of danger or choose less effective means of defense. It was also noted that the fact of the attacker’s death does not automatically mean an excess of defense limits. Consequently, the lower courts’ decisions were reviewed in favor of the accused. The decision highlights the right of a person to effectively defend themselves and their home in a critical situation. At the same time, it is important to understand that even in 2025, such practice has not become fully established. Similar decisions exist but do not form an unambiguous and predictable standard for all courts. This inconsistency creates the main problem for citizens forced to act in critical situations.
Similar problems arise in the activities of Ukrainian law enforcement agencies. The law on the National Police stipulates the procedure for the use of force and weapons. However, each case of application is thoroughly checked and analyzed, often ending in a criminal case against police officers. This also creates additional risks for the police themselves in complex situations.
Thus, a systemic problem emerges in the state security sector. The right to protection formally exists but is practically limited by numerous conditions. This undermines citizens’ trust in the very idea of lawful protection and requires a serious and honest review of the state’s approaches.
Obviously, without legislative changes, the situation will not improve. It is necessary to clearly define the limits of necessary defense in practice and reduce the room for arbitrary interpretation of these norms by the courts. A person must understand when they are acting within the law. It is not about complete permissiveness or lifting restrictions, but about creating clear and fair rules for everyone. The state must guarantee citizens the right to effective protection. Without this, any legalization will remain just a formality.
Returning to my conversation with a serviceman, it is worth mentioning another argument. We discussed that the hypothetical presence of legal weapons in citizens’ hands on the street is a deterrent for a potential criminal. A person planning an attack assesses possible risks to themselves. The presence of armed citizens around may change this assessment.
Criminals can already use illegal weapons in their actions today. Restrictions mostly affect law-abiding citizens of Ukraine, creating a security and self-defense imbalance among the population. This imbalance requires separate discussion at the state level.
At the same time, the right to arms cannot be simple and automatic for everyone. For example, for veterans and citizens with UBD status, the procedure should be simplified. For others, the opportunity to own weapons must be accompanied by quality training. Systematic training in handling weapons needs to be introduced. Clear procedures for checks and control by responsible bodies are necessary. Therefore, it might be worth considering the model of phased implementation of such changes. Different regions may have different approaches to this issue. For frontline areas, one procedure; for rear areas, another. This will prevent sharp social and security imbalances and allow for policy adjustments based on real experience.
Ukraine has long been in a new security reality of war, where old approaches to civil security no longer work effectively. The discussion about weapon ownership and use is complex but absolutely inevitable. The question is whether the state and society can come to an agreement and how to properly regulate it. Ignoring this problem or trying to reduce the discussion to a simple “cannot” will not yield results. Without rules and a system, we risk a chaotic situation with illegal weapons and mass shootings on the streets, which will be much harder to control later.
