68/1999 Coll.



FIND



The Constitutional Court



On behalf of the United States



The Constitutional Court ruled on 17. February 1999 in the plenary on the draft Ing. J. b. and

P. M. on the repeal of section 44 para. 1 (b). (d)) and § 44 para. 2 of law No.

288/1995 Coll., on firearms and ammunition (the Firearms Act

weapons),



as follows:



The proposal is rejected.



Justification



Rapporteur Ing. J. b. on 10. April 1998 the Constitutional Court of the constitutional

a complaint against the judgment of the regional court in Brno, no. 29 Ca 40/97-19 of

3 December 2004. February 1998, which was rejected by the action against the decision of the

police authorities of the Czech Republic, which failed to comply with its requests for

the release of the arms licence with reference to § 44 para. 1 (b). (d)) of law No.

288/1995 Coll., on firearms and ammunition (the Firearms Act

weapons), on the grounds that the applicant is not blameless, because he was

convicted for an intentional criminal offence and remains to run 10 years

from a final conviction or the completion of a prison sentence.

At the same time with a constitutional complaint the applicant handed the proposal to repeal section 44

paragraph. 1 (b). (d)) of the Firearms Act. In support of its proposal,

He stated that he asked for the release of the arms licence but its request has been

the competent authorities of the police rejected with reference to this provision

the Firearms Act for the reason that it is blameless, because

He was convicted in 1991, the criminal offence of abuse of powers

public official and was sentenced to a penalty in the amount of: $200.

In the opinion of the petitioner's legal and judicial interpretation of the provision

the law on firearms, namely, that also applies to financial penalties,

which is not associated with imprisonment, leading to extraordinary

hardness and gets into a conflict with the principle of the rule of law as laid down

in article 1 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter referred to as "the Constitution"), as the de facto

allows you to build into a single plane of persons whose acts require to correct

only a financial penalty, with the persons for whose crimes is necessary

significantly more severe penalties apply [section 44 (1) (a)), and (b)) of the

firearms]. The appellant feels that the procedure

discriminated against, when extra points to the contradiction between the fact that the

under criminal law, the conviction of the offender after deletion of the rear sight,

as if the offence was not committed, but under another law (law

the firearms) stares at him, as if to avoid.



In view of that fact, IV. the Senate's Constitutional Court dealt with the

the fulfilment of the conditions of section 74 of law No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, (hereinafter referred to

"the law on the Constitutional Court") and after it came to a positive conclusion,

resolution No. j. IV. TC 165/98-14 of 14 July 2004. May 1998 proceedings

a constitutional complaint pursuant to § 78 para. 1 of the law on the Constitutional Court and

the proposal to repeal section 44 para. 1 (b). (d) of the Firearms Act)

the plenum of the Constitutional Court stepped. The case was registered under SP. zn. Pl. ÚS

16/98.



The appellant P. M. on 17. August 1998 the constitutional complaint against the

the judgment of the regional court in Ostrava No. 22 Ca 431/97-20 of 6 May 1999.

in May 1998, which was rejected by a decision of the police action against the

the authorities of the Czech Republic, which failed to comply with his requests for release

firearms licence with reference to § 44 para. 1 (b). (d)) and § 44 para. 2

the Firearms Act, on the grounds that the applicant is of integrity,

because he was convicted for a criminal offence and to the deletion of conviction

under a special law, when assessing the good repute of a person

not taken into account. At the same time with a constitutional complaint the applicant filed a motion to

repeal of § 44 para. 2 of the law on firearms. In the grounds of their

the proposal stated that the only reason he was not issued a firearms license,

was the fact that he was in 1991 convicted criminal offence pursuant to section

paragraph 277. 1 (b). (b)) (a). 2 (a). and criminal law and was) he

saved the conditional sentence of imprisonment in duration 6 months trial

a period of 1 year, and following a resolution of the military perimeter

the Court in Olomouc, SP. zn. 2 T 109/91 of 25 June. June 1992 it was accepted

that has worked well and staring back at him in accordance with § 60 para. 4 of the criminal code,

as if he has been convicted. On this basis, then the regional court in Ostrava,

as before, the authorities of the police of the Czech Republic, came to the conclusion that the

does not meet the condition of integrity set out in § 44 para. 1 (b). (d))

the Firearms Act. Certificate in criminal

during the trial, in the opinion of the Court are legally irrelevant, since

the administrative authority shall, when assessing the good repute of the applicant has consistently

be based on the legal definition of this concept and cannot take into account the

criminal legal consequences arising from § 60 para. 4 of the criminal code.

The District Court held the view that, under section 44 para. 2 of the law on firearms

It is necessary to take into account not only the weapons to the condemnation, which was zahlazeno,

but the conviction for which the statutory presumption of neodsouzení. According to the

the petitioner's opinion, this interpretation is extensive and restricts the applicant in

its right on the issue of arms licence. In addition, the question is whether the

in this case apply to § 44 para. 2 of the law on firearms, when

Institute of expungement is materially different from the conviction of the Institute of legal

the presumption of neodsouzení. The application of that provision has been infringed

navrhovatelova of the right to personal honor and reputation under art. 10

The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms ("the Charter") and is given even a contradiction

with the article. 40 para. 2 of the Charter when it is out of the question to the person who is

considered innocent because his or her conviction cannot be taken into account,

said to bear that she committed a crime.



After finding that this proposal meets the conditions set out in section 74 of the Act

on the Constitutional Court, decided to (IV). Chamber of the Constitutional Court pursuant to § 78 para. 1

the law on the Constitutional Court by order No. IV. TC 366/98 of 13 May 1998. October

the interruption of the proceedings on constitutional complaints and the proposal to repeal section 44

paragraph. the Firearms Act ceded plenary session of the Constitutional Court.

The case was registered under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 27/98.



The plenary of the Constitutional Court by a resolution then pl. ÚS 16/98 of 20 July 1998 January 1999

to join the two decided the proposals for joint discussion and decision

and will continue to be kept under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 15/98.



The Constitutional Court was under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 1/99 submitted a proposal to the P..

repeal of section 40 para. 1 (b). (e)), § 44 para. 1 (b). (d)) and § 44 para. 2

the Firearms Act. Application for annulment of the said section 44 shall appoint

paragraph. 2 it has been filed in connection with the constitutional complaint of 7 November.

December 1998 against the judgment of the regional court in České Budějovice, no.

j. 10 Ca 201/98-25 of 23 July. September 1998. The Constitutional Court by a resolution # j.

PL. ÚS 1/99 of 28 June 1999. January 1999 this proposal pursuant to § 43 para. 1 (b).

e) of the Act on the Constitutional Court, as amended, rejected

because he found that the application is inadmissible. According to § 35 para. 2

the law on the Constitutional Court, the proposal is not acceptable, if the Constitutional Court has already

in the same case. In the present proposal, this condition has been

true, because on the same case, the Constitutional Court in proceedings under the

SP. zn. PL. ÚS 15/98. Review of the draft led by under zn. Pl. ÚS

1/99 therefore defend obstacle pendens. The appellant, however, had the right to

participation in negotiations on the previously submitted proposal as intervener.

The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom pointed out in his

observations on the explanatory memorandum to § 44 para. 1 (b). (b)) of the

firearms, according to which it is a criterion of integrity for more demanding

the condition, which should as far as possible to prevent the issuance of the weapons

certificates to persons who due to their past and present

demonstrable information about them may be potential carriers of the

the dangers of the misuse of weapons. The provisions of § 44 of the law on firearms

weapons include in particular selected the most serious crimes, which

they are differentiated according to the degree of social danger, which corresponds to the

also, the length of time for which an applicant for a firearm licence cannot be considered

for an upright person. The aim of the contested provision is, therefore, in the opinion of

The Chamber of deputies in particular protection against potential

misuse of weapons. For this reason, it is irrelevant whether the offender was

such a crime liable to a penalty of imprisonment or other penalty

or that a conviction for such a crime was already for other purposes according to the

specific laws zahlazeno. You cannot ignore the inequality inherent in the

After the cancellation of the provision could be issued

firearms license to a person who has been lawfully convicted for an intentional

crime, but not to the person pursuant to section 45 of the law on firearms

weapons only so-called. unreliable, as it was in the last 3 years

a final guilty beyond a misdemeanor. In this state of things

not express an opinion that the legislature acted in

the belief that the law is adopted in accordance with the Constitution, the constitutional order

and our rule of law, the Constitutional Court, that brought on a proposal from the

assess and issued the relevant decision.



In its further observations of the Chamber of Deputies adopted in

relation to the proposal to repeal section 44 para. 2 of the law on firearms. From


her expression shows that the right to release the arms licence is

limited by § 44 para. 1 (b). (d)) of the Firearms Act and not section

44 para. 2 of this Act, which excludes only take account of the

criminal consequences of conviction expungement by a special Act.

In so doing, you can believe that the absence of § 44 para. 2 of the law on firearms

weapons should not, and despite the possible deletion of conviction

penal legislation, the impact on fixed length of time, after which the

an applicant for a firearm licence is not considered to be an impeccable. The same is true for

the Institute of the so-called. the certificate pursuant to section 60 of the criminal code. At the same time, you cannot

overlook the fact that the deletion of the conviction by the Court on

a request or application of authorized persons, implying that the assessment

integrity for the purposes of the Firearms Act, in the event that the

account of the deletion of the conviction depended only on whether the

such an initiative by the Court and how the decision was made about him. Furthermore, The Chamber

the Chamber of Deputies stated that the deletion of the conviction under sections 69 and 70 of the criminal

the Act and the certificate referred to in section 60 of the criminal code, although this is a different

institutes, their consequences are, however, identical, i.e., that in both

cases on the offender as would not be convicted. Case sensitivity

These institutes in terms of compliance with the conditions for the issue of the arms

the card shall be deemed, therefore devoid of purpose. The Chamber of Deputies considered

also the fact that the redundant footnote 13) to § 44 para.

the Firearms Act contains only a reference to the provisions of

the criminal code and code of criminal procedure concerning the deletion of the conviction,

because the footnote is not part of the normative text of the rule

the legislation and therefore does not have a normative character. Here, too, the Chamber of Deputies

expressed the view that the legislature acted in the belief that the received

the law is in accordance with the Constitution, the constitutional order and our rule of law.



From těsnopisecké report on 36. a meeting of the Chamber of deputies of the Czech Parliament

Republic in 1998. October-3. November 1995 shows that the law on the

firearms was at this meeting adopted the necessary majority

members pursuant to article. paragraph 39. 1 and 2 of the Constitution 65 votes against 27. To

discussion and adoption of the law was based on the Government's proposal, no. 1665 from

on 8 June 1998. February 1995 and joint committees of the Chamber of Deputies

(printing of 1665). This law was promulgated in the amount of 75 Collections

the laws of the United States sent out on 13. December 1995 and came into

from 1 January 2000. in March 1996. It can therefore be assumed that the law was adopted by the

and within the limits of the Constitution provided for issued and constitutionally prescribed

manner (section 68, paragraph 2, of the law on the Constitutional Court).



The application for annulment of those provisions of the Firearms Act

has made its observations and the Ministry of the Interior. The observations suggest that

zahlazením condemnation has § 44 para. the Firearms Act on

the mind, in all cases the emergence of fiction neodsouzení. In the case of the opposite

the interpretation would, in particular, in the case of offences referred to in § 44

paragraph. 1 (b). (d) of the Firearms Act), i.e. criminal offences

not referred to in points (a) and (b))), if committed intentionally and

to run at least 10 years after the final conviction or the completion of

imprisonment in the event that this penalty was saved,

could have a final conviction for the same offence for different people

different consequences in terms of fulfilment of the conditions of integrity. This would have been

in the opinion of the Ministry of the Interior violated the principle of equality in the rights

According to the article. 1 of the Charter. The Interior Ministry also argued that the use of

more stringent aspects of integrity in the case of the Firearms Act

is justified. Provisions of the Act relating to good repute should be

understood as a restrictive measure, which is designed to reduce the number of holders of

weapons licences and thereby also of weapons, in particular by tightening the conditions

to obtain a firearms licence. To a restrictive measure has acceded

in other countries, and were introduced in some States of the European Union.

The Firearms Act was seen as a special law, the Special

by modifying the integrity and its assessment. After all, if this law after

fulfilling the requirements, provides for the right to acquire firearms licence

for a physical person, in any case, it is not a fulfillment of one of the

the rights and freedoms established by the Constitution or the Charter. Also cannot, in

opinion of the Ministry of the Interior using section 44 para. 2 of the law on firearms

weapons break the law on the protection of reputation under art. 10

paragraph. 1 of the Charter. The assessment of the conditions laid down by the Act is happening in

sitting in front of the body of the police of the Czech Republic and the reasons why

It is not possible to issue a gun license, shall be communicated only to the applicant.

Ministry of Home Affairs therefore proposes rejection of the application.



The essence of the proposal to repeal section 44 para. 1 (b). (d)) of the law on firearms

weapons is the claim that this provision is inconsistent with the principle of

the rule of law enshrined in article. 1 of the Constitution, as well as with the principle of equality

in dignity and rights as laid down in article 4(1). 1 of the Charter, since removing it

the right to get the arms licence to persons who have been affected only

financial penalty, there is in fact to discrimination against them.

The essence of the proposal to repeal section 44 para. the Firearms Act is

the claim that this provision is in breach of article. 10, paragraph 1. 1 of the Charter,

as it is not respected by the legal consequence of expungement under section 70 para. 1

the criminal code, according to which, if there was a conviction, looking zahlazeno

the perpetrator, as would not be convicted.



The proposal to repeal section 44 para. 1 (b). (d)) and § 44 para. 2 of the law on

Firearms Protocol is based on two arguments. The first is the absence of

in terms of sanctions, the distinction between the different criminal offences in the

the assessment of integrity, which is seen as a violation of the principle of

the rule of law according to art. 1 of the Constitution; the second is concerned then the basic

the rights arising from article. 10, paragraph 1. 1 of the Charter, because it is not respected

the legal consequence of the deletion of paragraph 1 according to the § 70 1 of the criminal law, according to

which, if the conviction zahlazeno, staring back at the perpetrator, as if

has not been convicted.



Should be noted that the Firearms Act, which took effect

on 1 January 2004. in March 1996, introduced for all citizens are entitled to obtain

firearms licence, however, after fulfilling all the conditions laid down by law.

It is thus (unlike past) about the nárokovou thing (in the past

This claim was not given and about the possibility of obtaining the arms licence decisions

administrative organ of the police). The Firearms Act in its section of the sixth

modifies the conditions leading to obtain a firearms licence. The one (in the case of

fulfilling the requirements of the district police headquarters) is issued by the United

of the Republic. In addition to reaching the prescribed age, legal

capacity, medical fitness and competence is also required

integrity and reliability. Compared with the earlier legislation are so

clearly set out precise and clear conditions under which

You can issue a gun license, more specifically, for which firearms

licence is issued must be. It is in this context, on the site of the reasoning that is

given the State of affairs obtaining a firearms licence things challenging and

the difficulty, in other words, whether the conditions laid down by the law on firearms

the weapons are too strict (considered also in connection with the examination of the

the proposal--even in terms of determining the extent of integrity as it

the Firearms Act requires). According to the beliefs of the Constitutional Court

the solution chosen by the legislature can be considered acceptable, not on the

unreasonable. Finally, of course, follows the selected adjustment cannot be considered

unconstitutional, and even from the perspective of the appellant pointed out that, bearing in

mind in particular conflict with the article. 1 of the Constitution, when it is raised, the extraordinary

hardness, which is getting into conflict with the principle of the rule of law, when

in fact, allows you to build to one plane of the persons whose offenses

require to correct only a financial penalty, with the persons for whose criminal

acts, it is necessary to use more stringent sanctions. The Constitutional Court in its

the decision interpreted the content of the constitutional principle of equality. Identified

in them [in particular in findings in cases conducted under the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 16/93

(Collection of TC No. 1, pp. 194-205-5-6), pl. TC 36/93 (collection CS No.

1, p. 179), pl. ÚS 5/95 (collection of TC No. 4, p. 218), pl. ÚS 9/95

(Collection of TC No. 5, page 137)] with the understanding of the constitutional principle of equality, as

was expressed by the Constitutional Court of CZECHOSLOVAKIA (collection CS CZECHOSLOVAKIA, 1992, no. 11): "

certainly things of the State, in order to ensure its functions held that certain

the group will provide fewer benefits as other. Even here, however, cannot proceed

arbitrarily. If the law specifies the benefit of one group and at the same time

provides a disproportionate obligations, can happen only with reference to

public value. ". The Constitutional Court rejected the absolute understanding of the principle

equality, and noted: "equality of citizens should not be understood as

an abstract category, but as a relative equality, as have the

the mind of all the modern Constitution "[PL. TC 36/93 (collection CS # 1, str.

179)]. the content of the principle of equality has moved into the realm of constitutional law by


the concept of differentiation of subjects and aspects of rights. The first aspect

in doing so, considers the exclusion of arbitrariness. The second aspect is clear from

the legal opinion expressed in the report in the case conducted under the SP. zn. Pl. ÚS

4/95 (collection of TC No. 3, p. 209): "inequality in social relations,

in order to affect the basic human rights must reach the intensity,

challenging, at least in a certain direction, already the very essence of equality. It

usually happens when there is a violation of and a violation of equality

Another fundamental right, for example. the right to own property under art. 11

Of the Charter, one of the political rights according to art. 17 et seq. Of the Charter,

the rights of national and ethnic minorities referred to in article. 24 et seq.. Of the Charter and

Similarly, the [consistently and PL. ÚS 5/95 (collection of TC No. 4, pp. 217-18)].

The second consideration when assessing the unconstitutionality of the legislation or

part of establishing an inequality is therefore one of the concerned

fundamental rights and freedoms. If the appellant argues that the legislature

be assessed in the same manner unequal cases (which would violate article 1,

The Constitution), it would be possible to agree with him, only when it would be so

was arbitrarily, and would hit the fundamental right or freedom.

The definition of the categories of persons according to § 44 para. 1 (b). (d)) of the law on firearms

the weapons, however, any is not. Is given enough definitely and clearly

character of an intentional criminal offence and that contained information about the

moral competence of the applicant for the issue of an arms licence. Since the

"right" to a firearm is not a fundamental right, it is not disputed

inequalities of the contested provisions without prejudice to any of the statutory

fundamental rights and freedoms, and is not, therefore, given no reason for its cancellation

violation of the right of equality.



To restrict fundamental rights or freedoms, even if their constitutional modification

restrictions on does not assume, can occur in the event of a collision. In these

situations, it is necessary to lay down the conditions under which has priority

one fundamental right or freedom, and for the fulfillment of which the other. The base is

in this context, maxima, according to which fundamental right or freedom can be

limited in the interest of any other fundamental right or freedom.



In the present case are in conflict find themselves a fundamental right resulting from the article. 10

paragraph. 1 of the Charter (reflected inter alia in section 69 and 70 of the criminal

the Act) and the basic right to life (article 6, paragraphs 1, 2 of the Charter), or

other basic rights, the restrictions would be can be achieved using the

firearms (article 11, paragraph 1, article 12, paragraph 1, article 13 of the Charter and

Surely even more). When assessing possible restriction on a fundamental right or

freedom in favor of another fundamental right or freedom can be determined

These terms and conditions, compliance with which is the priority of one basic right or

freedom:



The first condition is their mutual measurement, a second request is

investigation of the nature and the meaning of omezovaného of the basic rights of freedom, respectively.

(article 4, paragraph 4, of the Charter). Mutual in mutual interference measurement

standing fundamental rights and freedoms is based on the following criteria-

the first is the criterion of suitability, thus answering the question of whether the Institute

restricting certain basic law allows to achieve the objective pursued.

the protection of other fundamental rights. In this case, if it is argued that the

under certain specific circumstances (in some specific cases)

these strict conditions (party to obtain firearms), it is only and

exclusively on the consideration of the legislature in a specific time and space. It is appropriate to

recall that the firearms area (their getting and holding) is

such spheres of life of the society in which you can accept the procedure

prudent, that needs to be carefully considered. Conditions laid down, it is possible to

described as more stringent, but not extremely strict or

even extreme. Those provisions allow you to consolidate protection then

fundamental human rights, as has been mentioned.



The criterion of necessity involves comparing legislative resource

restricting the fundamental right or freedom with other measures,

that lets you achieve the same goal, but nedotýkajícího is

fundamental rights and freedoms. Even here, you cannot state that by fixing the blame,

deviation from the specified conditions, the frame that is reasonable in a given area,

and you cannot even have considered that by establishing the integrity and, therefore, the definition

a certain degree of morality, goes beyond a reasonable degree of neediness. The third

criterion is compared the severity of both conflicts standing base

rights. In case one of them is the right to human

dignity, personal honour, good reputation and the protection of his name, the second

then, the right to life, as well as other fundamental rights, the restrictions would

It was possible to achieve the use of firearms (article 11, article 12, paragraph 1, article.

13 of the Charter, and more). Part of the comparison of the severity of the collision in the Standing

of fundamental rights is also considering the use of legal institutions

substantiated arguments that minimize intrusion into one of them. In

a number of arguments over the case tells in favour of the legislature

the edits you made, or the conditions laid down in the framework of fairly

of proportionality. An empirical argument (demonstrably increasing from year to year

the number of offences committed by a legally held firearm

weapons), System (still greater increase in aggressive and serious criminal

acts), value (vigorous attacks on the life and property of citizens). Any

Reflections on the right to self defense is a must in the context of the refuse-

i was just pointing out that what more difficult will be the possibility of a firearm

acquire and hold, the greater will be the possibility of self-defence.

The unifying element (for people, which relates to the demonstration of integrity)

It is just the fact (section 44 (1) of the Firearms Act), that the

have committed an intentional criminal offence. Of course as follows, involving

the matter moves into the plane of moral or perhaps morally ethical. Of the aspects

already landed is not decisive to consider (and even of the aspects

Constitutional), about what kind of crime or about what specific

the offence was, or what the penalty was in this or that case.

Therefore, you cannot blame lawmakers against such persons appear to distrust, and

but this just and only in connection with such serious, such as

possession and ownership of firearms. So it is not possible to speak of

hypertrophy of universality and the need for differentiation to ensure

the constitutional principle of equality. The contested provisions of the law on firearms

weapons is specific enough just by fixing all uniquely

defined the conditions under which you can acquire a firearm, and also

stick. In terms of integrity, it is mentioned she (from time

point of view expungement conviction) as defined by § 44 para. 1 (b). a) to (d))

the Firearms Act. This time is determined accurately and be sure and

also applies under clearly defined conditions for all operators as well.

The basic relationship of the Firearms Act, even in cases

children under subparagraph (d)) § 44 para. 1 of the law on firearms

unifies and receives expression in connection with intentional committing

the offence concerned with reference to the significant and socially

a significant phenomenon, such as possession of a firearm and the implications arising from them.



Even with the subject from that to own and hold a firearm is not

a fundamental human right (and certainly not the right to own property under

article. 11 of the Charter), after all, it must be observed that the interest in the protection

fundamental rights such as the right to life, health or the protection of property,

It is evident, and with the right to ownership and possession of weapons nesouměřitelný.

Options of self-defense in the event of an attack with firearms are becoming

minimum. Therefore, it must be in the area to obtain firearms

carefully and closely. Concerning contradicting the contested considerations

the provisions of the Firearms Act with article. 10, paragraph 1. 1 of the Charter should be

to refer to what has already been said, perhaps with the addition that when requesting

a copy of the criminal record is an automatic obligation of administrative

the police authorities of the rights contained in the article. 10, paragraph 1. 1 of the Charter.

The Charter itself is a basic source of legislation, the protection of personal

data and, along with other legislation such as the. the civil

code, the Criminal Code Act and the provincial offences Act, the Act on the legal profession and the law

on the protection of personal data in information systems, represents a

adequate protection and guarantees fundamental human rights contained in the article.

10, paragraph 1. 1 of the Charter. Indeed, there is no reason to have a concern that the

the competent national authority at work with a copy of the criminal records

the aforementioned fundamental rights would violate the (State authorities come into contact

with a copy of the criminal records, for example. in criminal proceedings-

the police, the public prosecutor's Office, Court of Justice), and even at the time when the criminal

the proceedings have not been completed.



The contested provisions of § 44 para. the Firearms Act can be

be considered only for explaining advanced and for doubt

the parties of the procedure for the detection of integrity in terms of this Act. It comes

a statutory scheme, which is a special, with a special definition of the concept of


integrity of the reasons which have already been mentioned. The expression of the fact that when

the assessment of the integrity of the person shall not be considered for deletion of conviction

a special law (the criminal code and code of criminal procedure), it is not

illegal, much less unconstitutional, but only for any

doubts especially procedural character. This fact then

shall not constitute grounds for cancellation or § 44 para. 2 of the law on firearms

the weapons.



In view of the above findings, the Constitutional Court did not find a contradiction to § 44 para. 1

(a). (d)) and § 44 para. the Firearms Act with the Constitution,

constitutional laws or international treaties under article. 10 of the Constitution, and

Therefore, the proposals on their removal.



The President of the Constitutional Court:



JUDr. Kessler v. r.



Different opinion on the matter have taken pursuant to section 14 of Act No. 182/1993

Coll., on the Constitutional Court, judges JUDr. Vladimír Čermák, JUDr. Vladimir

Paul and JUDr. Pavel Param V.