No menu items!

Carlos Bolsonaro Plays Key Role to Block Control of Weapons and Ammunition in Brazil

RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – Carlos Bolsonaro, President Jair Bolsonaro’s #2 son, played a key role in blocking an Army ordinance that tightened the rules for tracking and controlling weapons and ammunition in Brazil.

During the debates for the drafting of the text, Carlos attended meetings at the Planalto Palace to oppose the measure. At the table were representatives of the government, the Federal Highway Police and the Army – the son of the president, who is a city councilor for Rio de Janeiro, had no specific attribution to be present at the negotiations.

Carlos Bolsonaro, President Jair Bolsonaro's #2 son, played a key role in blocking an Army ordinance that tightened the rules for tracking and controlling weapons and ammunition in Brazil.
Carlos Bolsonaro, President Jair Bolsonaro’s #2 son, played a key role in blocking an Army ordinance that tightened the rules for tracking and controlling weapons and ammunition in Brazil. (Photo internet reproduction)

Representatives of the Army and the Ministry of Defense examined the issue for over a year. They argued that the measure would provide greater security and control over the entry of weapons into the country and could be a turning point in solving crimes committed with firearms, since there would be a marking on both the weapon and the ammunition to be included in a national registry in order to identify and find the equipment owners. Carlos, on the other hand, stated that the measure would not be required and that the current legislation is sufficient.

The Army’s Logistical Command ultimately issued the measure in March this year, over Carlos Bolsonaro’s wishes. Ordinance number 46 established the creation of the National Tracking System of Products Controlled by the Army (SisNaR). This system would be in charge of creating a sort of database with importers, exporters, traders and service providers information related to the subject. The sale of weapons and ammunition would be restricted to people registered in the system and who would provide their personal data, for instance.

Two complementary ordinances were issued in April. Ordinance number 60 detailed what markings would be required on firearms, established the standard for code registration and determined that weapons acquired by public bodies should contain coats of arms to identify them as public property.

On the other hand, ordinance number 61 determined that the ammunition buyer should be identified through the sale registration, in a computerized system, available for consultation by the inspection bodies, which would link the marking of the marketed products (boxes, packs or ammunition packages) to the buyer’s CPF (Individual Tax Registry) or CNPJ (Legal Entity Tax Registry). The circulation of ammunition in the country would only be authorized if stored in marked packages.

Pressured by his son and by representatives of pro-weapons categories, who claimed that the measures would hinder and even make it impossible to import into the country, President Bolsonaro ordered the revocation of the three ordinances, which became official on April 17th.

The revocation was challenged earlier this month by the 7th Coordination and Review Chamber of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office. In a technical note sent to the Attorney General’s Office, the body maintains that the measures edited by the Army had the “clear goal of increasing control over the sale and circulation of weapons and ammunition in national territory”.

“In determining the revocation of these provisions, it seems that the President of the Republic has behaved according to his political understanding of the issue addressed in the rules at hand. However, this understanding is opposed to preexisting normative acts, of a general and abstract nature, which could not be informally repealed due to their verbal determination, even if directed to the authority subject to him,” states the technical note, which concludes that the repeal of the ordinances ” is incompatible with the country’s legal system” and is in disagreement “with constitutional, legal and regulatory provisions”.

Source: Veja

Check out our other content

×
You have free article(s) remaining. Subscribe for unlimited access.