Riscos e (in)constitucionalidades da flexibilização do porte (ou do acesso) as armas de fogo no Brasil

Abstract

Law n. 10,826, of December 22, 2003, also called the Disarmament Statute, established rules in Brazil that aim to reduce the number of weapons, aiming to reduce violence. However, in the government of Jair Messias Bolsonaro, several presidential decrees were issued, by which access to weapons was made more flexible, going against the grain of the aforementioned legal instrument. Therefore, we sought to analyze the controversies of these normative acts, both in relation to the Federal Constitution of 1988, and their impact on Brazilian society. For that, exploratory research was used, with bibliographic surveys and empirical data, with which a qualitative research was used. Therefore, themes related to firearms and public security at an international level were explained, approaching the theme from the perspective of criminology and also dealing with experiences with its flexibility or restriction. It also deepened in relation to the debate in the Brazilian legal system, ranging from the historical aspects to the positioning of the superior courts and the legislative proposals in favor of the flexibilization of the carrying of firearms. It was directed to the flexibilization of firearms in the Bolsonaro government, addressing the presidential decrees edited in this period and which facilitated access to weapons, making a counterpoint between weapons and crime in Brazil and in the legal Amazon after the flexibilization. Finally, the focus was the analysis of the decrees from the constitutional point of view and the legal uncertainty in the face of flexibility. It remained evident that the presidential decrees in question are unconstitutional because they deal, through a secondary normative act, with a subject that should be regulated by law, in addition, it alters the national policy of restricted access to weapons, being inconsistent with the Brazilian legal system and the Federal Constitution of 1988, inferring that the greater number of weapons does not reduce violence, on the contrary new conflicts are attested.