127Firearms Permits for Personal Protection Purposes
Marek Kania
WSB University
in Dąbrowa Górnicza
marekkania@interia.pl
ORCID: 0000-0002-1777-6564
FIREARMS PERMITS FOR PERSONAL
PROTECTION PURPOSES
POZWOLENIE NA BROŃ PALNĄ
W CELACH OCHRONY OSOBISTEJ
Abstract: The most dicult weapon permit to obtain in Poland is a permit for a weapon for
personal protection. The leading cause of the rejection of most applications in the administrat-
ive proceedings department of the provincial police head quarters is the requirement to docu-
ment a constant, relative and above-average threat to life, health and/or property. The question
of proper documentation is not so clear cut.
Zarys treści: Pozwoleniem na broń, które najtrudniej w Polsce zdobyć jest pozwolenie na
broń do ochrony osobistej. Główną przesłanką odrzucającą większość wniosków w wydziale
postępowań administracyjnych Komend Wojewódzkich Policji jest zapis o udokumentow-
aniu stałego, realnego i ponadprzeciętnego zagrożenia życia, zdrowia i/lub mienia. Kwestia
właściwego udokumentowania nie jest taka oczywista.
Keywords: re arms, personal protection, permit, danger do life, ammunition
Słowa kluczowe: broń palna, ochrona osobista, pozwolenie, zagrożenie życia, amunicja
Introduction
The principles of issuing and withdrawing permits for arms, acquisition, regis-
tration, storage, disposal and deposition of arms and ammunition, transport through
the territory of the Republic of Poland and the import from abroad and export abroad
of arms and ammunition, as well as the principles of possession of arms and ammuni-
tion by foreigners and the principles of operation of shooting ranges are dened in the
Act of 21 May 1999 on arms and ammunition.1 According to the Act, a permit for
1 On arms and ammunition Act of 21 May 1999, Dz. U. (Journal of Laws) 1999, no. 52 item 549,
as amended.
127
127gl;;
Nr 7 ss. 127–137 2022
ISSN 2543–7321 Przyjęto: 12.11.2022
© Instytut Bezpieczeństwa i Zarządzania, Akademia Pomorska w Słupsku Zaakceptowano: 12.11.2022
Oryginalna praca badawcza DOI: 10.34858/SNB.7.2022.011
STUDIA NAD BEZPIECZEŃSTWEM
128 Marek Kania
rearms (including combat, hunting, sport, gas, alarm and signal rearms) is issued
by the Provincial Police Commander with jurisdiction over the place of permanent
residence of the person concerned. The organisational unit dealing with matters re-
lated to weapon permits in the Provincial Police Headquarters is the Administrative
Proceedings Department. Therefore, all applications (requests) for rearms permits
should be submitted to the Administrative Proceedings Division of the Voivodship
Police Headquarters in person or by mail to the address of the respective WPA.
Requirements for obtaining a rearms licence
According to the Weapons and Ammunition Act,2 a person applying for a rearms
permit should draw up an application for a rearms permit addressed to the Provincial
Police Commander, indicating in it: the purpose for which the permit is to be issued,
the type of weapon applied for, the number of weapons and provide a valid reason for
having the weapon. In addition, the application must be accompanied by:
1. A medical and psychological certicate issued by an authorised doctor and psy-
chologist, stating that he or she does not belong to the persons listed in Article 15(1)
(2–4) of the Weapons and Ammunition Act and conrming that he or she may dis-
pose of weapons (Article 15(3) of the Weapons and Ammunition Act of 21.05.1999).
The cost, for example, at the Military Specialist Medical Clinic in Bielsko-Biała,
2a Willowa Street, is PLN 700 (as of April 2022). The examinations are carried out
within one day and end with the issue of a medical and psychological certicate.
2. Proof of payment of stamp duty in the amount of PLN 242 for the issuance
of the permit, paid into the account of the indicated City Oce, in accordance
with the Act of 16 November 2006 on stamp duty.
A valid reason for possessing a rearm for personal protection is considered
to be, in particular, a permanent, real and above-average threat to life, health or property.
Personal case
After fullling the statutory obligations, I received correspondence:
On 12 April 2022, I received a decision under Article 36, Article 123 § 1
and Article 268a of the Law of 14 June 1960, Code of Administrative Procedure
(Journal of Laws of 2021, item 735, as amended),3 and setting a new deadline of 23 May
2022 for completing the administrative proceedings4 for issuing me a permit to possess
a combat rearm for personal protection. In the justication, I was informed that the
proceedings could not be completed within the statutory deadline due to the need
to obtain proof of my place of residence, information from the National Criminal
2 Ibidem.
3 Code of Administrative Procedure Act of 14 June 1960, Dz. U. (Journal of Laws) 1960, no. 30,
item 168, as amended.
4 Ibidem.
129Firearms Permits for Personal Protection Purposes
Register, as well as to perform inquiries with a third party. These circumstances
made it impossible to substantively complete the administrative proceedings
within the statutory deadline for reasons beyond the control and fault of the authority.
According to Article 36 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, any failure to com-
plete a case within the time limit specied in Article 35 of the Code of Administrative
Procedure5 shall be notied to the public administration body. The public administra-
tion body is obliged to notify the parties, stating the reasons for the delay and indicat-
ing a new deadline for handling the case.
In view of the above, the Head of the Administrative Proceedings Department of
the NPC set a new deadline for the completion of the proceedings. Note, a party is
not entitled to complain about this decision and may challenge it only in an appeal
against the decision. Attached to the above decision was a document, with a request
to provide any evidence to prove the existence of the threat referred to in the original
application, dated 21 March 2022. If there were any other circumstances indicating
the existence of a threat to life, health or property, the request was to be presented
and documented within the time frame mentioned. The above is necessary because
the police authority shall only issue a gun permit if the applicant does not pose a threat
to themself, public order or safety, and presents a valid reason for having a weapon.
A valid reason is considered, in particular, a permanent, real and above-average threat
to life, health and property. The evidence referred to above (copies of documents,
in the form of certied copies of documents which had the same evidential force of
the originals) had to be sent, within 14 days of the date of delivery of this letter,
to the address of the Provincial Police Headquarters Administrative Proceedings De-
partment. Pursuant to Article 79a § 4 of the Code of Administrative Procedure,6 I was
informed that failure to document the above may result in the issuance of a decision
inconsistent with the party’s request.
On 23 May 2022, a decision was sent which set a new deadline of 21 June 2022 for
the completion of administrative proceedings for the issuance of a permit to possess
combat rearms for personal protection. An additional justication which was given
was the impossibility of completion within the statutory deadline due to the need
to obtain information from the Police Station in Łodygowice, as well as to perform
inquiries with a third party. The rest of the order was the same as the previous letter.
On 21 June 2022, a second decision was sent which set a new deadline of 21 July
2022 for the completion of administrative proceedings for the issuance of a permit
to possess a combat rearm for personal protection. An additional justication
which was given was the impossibility of completion within the statutory deadline due to
the need to obtain information from the Police Station in Zywiec, as well as to per-
form inquiries with a third party. The rest the order was the same as the previous letter.
On 13 July 2022, a third decision was received, setting a new deadline of 22 Au-
gust 2022 for the completion of the administrative proceedings for the issuance of
a permit to a party to possess a combat rearm for personal protection. As on the two
previous occasions, the additional justication was the impossibility of completion
5 Ibidem.
6 Ibidem.
130 Marek Kania
within the statutory deadline due to the need to carry out inquiries with a third party.
Again, as before, the rest of the order was the same as the previous letters. A docu-
ment was attached to this third order, with the information: “realizing the obligation
set forth in Article 79a § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,7 I inform you that you still
have not documented a valid reason for possession of combat rearms for personal
protection, as referred to in the provisions of the Law on Weapons and Ammunition.
This may result in the issuance of a decision inconsistent with the request. Therefore,
within 7 days from the date of delivery of this letter, there is still an opportunity to
provide evidence of a valid reason for possession of weapons for personal protec-
tion, i.e. the existence of a permanent, real and above-average threat to life, health or
property. At the same time, I would like to inform you that in accordance with Article
10 of the Code of Administrative Procedure8, you have the right to make statements,
explanations and submit requests for evidence in the administrative proceedings,
and before the decision is issued, you have the opportunity to comment on the evid-
ence and materials collected and the demands made”.
In view of the above, in accordance with Article 10 of the Code of Administrative
Procedure, I was invited to actively participate in the proceedings within 7 days of
the delivery of this letter. The above-mentioned entitlement can be exercised
in the Weapons Permits Team of the Administrative Proceedings Department of the Re-
gional Police Headquarters. Failure to participate in the ongoing proceedings would result
in a decision based on the materials available to the WPA in this case. The person
in charge of the proceedings was also given.
On 22 August 2022, I was notied of a decision to refuse to issue a permit to carry
one combat rearm for personal protection.
Reasons for the refusal decision
On 21 March 2022, the police authority received my application (third party, plus
applicant) for a permit to carry one combat rearm for personal protection. In support
of the application, the third party, among other things, stated that they are engaged
in a business which involves the complex execution of public orders and auctions
of movable property from bailis, tax oces and receivers. During the course of
the proceedings, the third party further submitted additional justication for the ap-
plication for the issuance of the permit, indicating, among other things, that I person-
ally convoyed cash. As an example of a threat to property, a call to a police patrol on
31 January 2022, in the village of Belk, was pointed out. A medical and psychological
certicate of tness to dispose of a weapon was also submitted. The Police Author-
ity also determined that the party had a positive reputation in their place of residence
and was a person with no criminal record.
According to the information collected, it additionally emerged that incidents at
their place of residence indicating a threat to life, health or property were not reported.
7 Ibidem.
8 Ibidem.
131Firearms Permits for Personal Protection Purposes
Additionally, the Police Station reported that the police intervention in the village of
Belk was as a result of the party’s report concerning the collection of a vehicle bought
in a baili’s auction. During the incident, there was no danger to the party’s life, health
or property. The party did not le a notice of a crime or oence in connection with
the incident. In accordance with Article 10 of the Code of Administrative Procedure,
the party was assured of participation in the administrative proceedings, as well as
being informed of the provision of Article 79a § 1 of the Code of Administrative
Procedure.9 Within the prescribed time limit, the party failed to provide the police
authority with evidence of a valid reason for possessing a combat rearm for personal
protection. However, the arguments cited in the party’s application and the materials
collected in the course of the proceedings do not, in the opinion of the authority of
the rst instance, provide grounds for issuing a combat rearm permit.
According to Article 10(1) of the Law on Weapons and Ammunition,10 the com-
petent police authority shall issue weapons permits if the applicant does not pose
a threat to himself, public order or safety, and presents a valid reason for owning
weapons. Weapons permits are issued in particular for personal protection purposes.
The provision also stipulates that a valid reason for a gun permit for personal protec-
tion purposes is considered, in particular, a permanent, real and above-average threat
to life, health or property. The aforementioned prerequisites must exist cumulatively,
and the threat must arise from objective circumstances, and not just from the belief of
the person applying for a gun permit. The burden of proving that such a state of facts
exists is on that person. This does not relieve the police authority of the obligation to
take all steps necessary to establish the facts of the case and gather evidence to freely
assess whether the request is justied and a gun permit should be issued. Thus, the ap-
plicant may cite any circumstance that, in their opinion, indicates that they are at risk,
but the assessment of whether it meets the requirements of Article 10(1) and (2)(1)
and (3)(1) of the Law on Arms and Ammunition,11 belongs to the Police authority.
The Police Authority, in evaluating the evidence, does not have to share the applic-
ant’s view of the need to protect their life, health or property with weapons.
This means that although a party (the applicant) has the right to invoke any, in
their point of view, relevant circumstances that, in their view, prove a threat, it is up
to the authorities competent for weapons permits to determine whether these circum-
stance justify consideration of the case in accordance with the applicant’s wishes.
Indeed, it should be noted that the provision of Article 10 of the Law does not even
specify exemplary circumstances indicating the existence of a threat giving grounds
for equipping the applicant with a private combat weapon. Therefore, in police prac-
tice resulting from the rationing nature of the Law on Arms and Ammunition, it has
been assumed that these must be special circumstances, distinguishing the appli-
cant from the general public. In the case of a combat rearm, and thus a particu-
larly dangerous tool, these must be circumstances conrming that their life, health
or property is in such danger that protection with a weapon of this particular type is
9 Ibidem.
10 On arms and ammunition Act of 21 May 1999, op. cit.
11 Ibidem.
132 Marek Kania
required. At the same time, the danger of an attack on these goods must be con-
stant, real and above average in comparison with other citizens in a similar situation,
and therefore cannot be based only on the subjective belief of the applicant. Thus,
a mere feeling of danger is not sucient for the issuance of a permit for a combat re-
arm for personal protection. What is important, however, is for the applicant to indicate
that the threat to their life, health or property is constant, real and above average.
The right to own combat rearms for personal protection should be granted if the evid-
ence cited by the applicant proves the existence of these circumstances, and means
other than combat rearms would be insucient for protection. Indeed, Polish law
does not provide for a citizen’s right to possess weapons, and this is strictly regulated
by the provisions of the Law on Weapons and Ammunition (see, the judgment of
the WSA in Warsaw of 21 August 2012 ref. act II SA/Wa 935/12).12
In the administrative proceedings conducted, it was not established that the party
posed a threat to themself, public order or security. The party is a person with no
criminal record, as evidenced by information obtained from the National Criminal
Register. They also have a positive reputation in their place of residence. However,
the above circumstances do not allow the party’s application to be granted in accord-
ance with their request without the existence of a valid reason for possession of com-
bat rearms for personal protection, which is considered, in particular, a permanent,
real and above-average threat to life, health or property.
In the course of the proceedings, a valid reason for the possession of weapons was
not established. The arguments presented by the party in the application for a gun permit
and in the course of the proceedings, in the opinion of the rst-instance authority, do not
constitute a valid reason for owning combat rearms. The party indicated that they con-
duct business activities and that in connection with these activities they reported an in-
tervention by the Police in Bełk on 31 January 2022. The party also stated that they es-
cort cash in connection with the business. In the opinion of the authority of the rst
instance, these are not circumstances that conrm the applicant’s current above-average
danger. This is because they do not prove a direct, constant and real threat to the party’s
life, health or property. A party’s concern for their safety related to the running of a busi-
ness and carrying cash cannot prejudge the granting of a rearm permit for personal
protection. Indeed, the mere fact of conducting business and the associated transporta-
tion of cash, as well as subjective feelings of danger, does not imply the existence of
a threat to life, health and property that would justify the issuance of a rearm permit for
personal protection. Concerns such as the applicant’s are held by many business people,
and such an interpretation would make it necessary to also equip them with rearms.
Moreover, carrying cash is not an unusual phenomenon and does not distinguish the
party from other entrepreneurs. It should be pointed out that insecurity for various rea-
sons is declared by a great many people. However, this does not imply an obligation to
issue a gun permit to anyone who applies for one. Permits for rearms for personal
protection are issued to people who present a valid reason for owning a weapon, which,
according to the legislation, is in particular a permanent, real and above-average threat
12 Judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 21.08.2012, ref. no. II SA/Wa 935/12.
133Firearms Permits for Personal Protection Purposes
to life, health or property. A party’s belief that it is in danger from its activities, as well
as the subjective fears indicated by the party, cannot therefore prejudge the granting of
a combat rearms permit. It is still important for the applicant to demonstrate that they
are in a situation of particular danger. However, there is no evidence of such a threat.
Otherwise, the police authorities would be obliged to issue a permit to any person con-
ducting business and personally transporting cash, regardless of whether there is a con-
stant, real and above-average threat by virtue of their business and duties. The party, on
the other hand, may use cashless trading and if, for some reason, the party chooses not
to, they do so at their own risk. Indeed, the threat justifying the need to carry a weapon
for personal protection must be above-average, distinguishing the person in question
from the general population in a similar life situation, and, moreover, constantly and
realistically existing. In turn, the type of circumstances that the party claims are invoked
by most people who, by virtue of their activities, want to obtain a combat rearms per-
mit for personal protection. Thus, these are not special circumstances, but typical ones,
and as such they cannot prejudge the issuance of a weapons permit. Similarly, the police
intervention of 31 January 2022 in the village of Belk, indicated by the party, also cannot
prejudge the granting of such a permit. Indeed, the information obtained from the Police
Station shows that the intervention concerned the surrender of a vehicle bought in
a baili’s auction. The report also indicated that the previous owner did not want to hand
it over. In the presence of the ocers, however, the individuals came to an agreement.
There was no danger to the life, health or property of the party during this incident.
Therefore, this event cannot be considered as a basis for issuing a combat rearm permit
for personal protection. Furthermore, the party has not demonstrated any other grounds
justifying the need for a weapon for personal protection. In turn, the subjective belief
that they may become a victim of an attack on life or health is not sucient. In the
course of the administrative proceedings, the party did not present evidence to establish
that there is currently a clear above-average threat of criminal action, which would jus-
tify the possession of a means of self-defence in the form of a rearm for personal pro-
tection. It was not proven that their life, health and property are currently under constant,
real and above-average threat. The existence of the threat in question was only inferred
from the fact that the business operates and deals with substantial cash sums. This in-
ferred threat, which the party tried to demonstrate, does not bear the characteristics of
a permanent, real and above-average threat, but only the characteristics of a hypothetical
threat. This is also pointed out in their rulings by administrative courts. Thus, for exam-
ple, the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw in its judgment of 29 August 2013,
ref. no. II SA/Wa739/1313 indicated, among other things, that the lack of a sense of se-
curity, for a variety of reasons, is declared by many people. However, this does not im-
ply an obligation to issue a gun permit to anyone who applies for such a permit, and
13 II SA/Wa 739/13, Stałe, realne i ponadprzeciętne zagrożenie życia, zdrowia lub mienia jako
przesłanka ubiegania się o pozwolenie na posiadanie broni. Wyrok Wojewódzkiego Sądu Ad-
ministracyjnego w II SA/Wa 739/13, Stałe, realne i ponadprzeciętne zagrożenie życia, zdrowia
lub mienia jako przesłanka ubiegania się o pozwolenie na posiadanie broni. – Wyrok Woje-
wódzkiego Sądu Administracyjnego w Warszawie – LEX no. 1367770.
134 Marek Kania
the assessment in these matters is up to the police authorities, who may pursue a more
or less stringent policy in this regard. In turn, the Supreme Administrative Court, in its
judgment of 6 June 2014, ref. II OSK 32/13,14 indicated that the iden-tication of only
combat rearms as a means of protection is not justied, since there are such instru-
ments of nancial trading that allow, if not to eliminate completely, then at least to
minimize the possible threat associated with cash trading or products of signicant val-
ue. There is also nothing to prevent the applicant from using the services of a security
company for the company’s headquarters, or for providing protection at the place of
residence, if they feel the need to do so. If, for some reason, a party does not choose
these solutions, it does so at its own risk. In other judgments it is pointed out that the
issuance of a permit to possess rearms must be justied in each individual case by
special factual circumstances, and these must not be subjective circumstances, but ob-
jectively existing ones (e.g., the judgment of the Provincial Administrative Court in
Warsaw of 6 November 2014, ref. Akt. II SA/Wa1188/14).15 The Provincial Administra-
tive Court in Warsaw in the judgments of 13 June 2012, Akt. no. II SA/Wa621/12;16 of
30 March 2012, Akt. no. II SA/Wa2603/11;17 of 26 February 2014, Akt. no. II SA/
Wa2068/1318 and of 25 July 2014, Akt. ref. II SA/Wa893/1419 also indicated that a threat
to life, health or property constituting a valid reason for possessing weapons, in order to
be considered permanent, must manifest permanence and timeliness, while its reality
must be real and objective, and not characterized by subjectivity. A real threat is a fore-
seeable or highly probable hreat. It must arise from a sequence of events that have oc-
curred in the applicant’s life and have aected them. Above-average, on the other hand,
cannot be reduced to a hypothetical situation, but must be extraordinary and unprece-
dented. Similarly, the Supreme Administrative Court ruled in the judgment of 25 June
2015, ref. II OSK2836/13,20 indicating, among other things, that the condition for grant-
ing a gun permit for personal protection purposes is a strictly, dened by law, relation-
ship of circumstances that, occurring together, can constitute a valid reason justifying
the granting of the permit. One of these prerequisites is a permanent, threat to the life,
health or property of the applicant. Therefore, it cannot be a circumstance that existed in
the past and no longer exists today, because then the element of permanent occurrence
of danger is missing. Since all three of these prerequisites characterizing the threat (per-
manence, reality and above-average) must be present together, then the determination
that one of them is not present results in the other prerequisites losing their raison d’être
in the sense that they cannot justify successfully applying for a gun permit. Thus, even
a real and above-average threat, which, however, is not permanent, but has occurred in
the past and no longer exists today, cannot be considered a valid reason for granting
a rearm permit for personal protection. In the opinion of the courts, the applicant’s
subjective assessment of a threatening danger cannot be the basis for issuing a combat
14 Judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 06.06.2014, ref. no. II OSK 32/13.
15 Judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 06.11.2014, ref. no. II SA/Wa1188/14.
16 Judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 13.06.2012, ref. no. II SA/Wa621/12.
17 Judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 30.03.2012, ref. no. II SA/Wa2603/11.
18 Judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 26.02.2014, ref. no. II SA/Wa2068/13.
19 Judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 25.07.2014, ref. no. II SA/Wa893/14.
20 Judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 25.06.2015, ref. no. II OSK2836/13.
135Firearms Permits for Personal Protection Purposes
rearm permit for personal protection. It is particularly clear in view of the need to in-
terpret as restrictively as possible the provisions regulating access to a deadly weapons
in a situation where human life is under special protection (Article 38 of the Polish
Constitution).21 The degree of danger must be proportionate such that the issuance of
a gun permit is an appropriate preventive and defensive measure against it. A party ap-
plying for the issuance of a permit should prove that they are in a situation of constant,
real and above-average danger to life, health or property, or alternatively, they should
show that certain types of events aecting them demonstrate such a danger. Therefore,
it follows from the above case law that the granting of the right to own weapons cannot
be based solely on the subjective belief of the applicant. It is necessary to provide
a valid reason for such a decision, because a gun permit is not issued for a purely preven-
tive purpose. Weapon permits cannot be issued beyond a real and necessary need arising
from the purpose for which the weapon is to be used. The party has failed to prove that
their life, health or property is under constant, real and above-average threat of unlawful
attack. A valid reason supporting the issuance of a rearm permit for personal protection
was also not established during the proceedings. Therefore, in a situation where no
events have been established that could justify a party’s fear of an attack on their health,
life or property, the decision to refuse to issue a rearm permit for personal protection
must be considered valid. At the same time, it should be pointed out that the refusal to
issue a rearms permit does not prevent a party from ensuring their own safety with
means of personal protection that are not subject to restriction, and therefore do not re-
quire a permit from the police authority, and which will successfully full the preventive
role expected by the party (these include, for example, hand-held gas throwers or elec-
tric stun guns within certain parameters). After all, a gun permit is not issued just in case,
but only when the factual ndings concerning the applicant for the permit irrefutably
indicate that other measures to protect his life and health are insucient or ineective.
Applications
The denial of a gun permit is an unpleasant surprise that many applicants face.
They may have already learned to shoot, passed the medical and psychological exami-
nations and have in hand a certicate of no criminal record. What is more, they may
have fullled the formalities justifying the “purpose” of issuing the permit, so they are
only a formality away from buying their own gun; an administrative decision. However,
the WPA’s correspondence shows that, according to the Police, they may nevertheless
pose a threat, which justies the refusal to issue a positive decision. The Police’s assess-
ment invariably has a key inuence on whether one will gain the “privilege” of owning
a gun. Until 2011, Article 10 (1) of the UBiA read as follows: “The competent police
authority shall issue a gun permit if the circumstances claimed by the applicant justify
the issuance of the permit.” This provision gave the police authorities full discretion in
21 Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2 April 1997, Dz.U. (Journal of Laws) 1997, no. 78,
item 483, as amended.
136 Marek Kania
assessing whether the applicant should be allowed the privilege in question. This, of
course, led to much controversy. Each Provincial Police Chief or Military Police Chief
had their own local policy on issuing permits. As a result, in one province it was easier
to get a permit, while in another it was more dicult. This dierentiated the legal situa-
tion of citizens, who could not count on equal treatment. This was at the root of the 2011
amendment, which introduced the wording of Article 10(1) of the UBiA, which remains
in eect today: “The competent police authority shall issue a gun permit if the applicant
does not pose a threat to himself, public order or safety, and presents a valid reason for
having a gun.”
Some “important” reasons take a rather “Kafkaesque” form. In order to become
a collector one has to become a member of a collectors’ association, but to own
a weapon for a commemorative purpose it is enough to show, for example, that it
was donated to us. Importantly, the catalogue of purposes is open. That is, we can
apply to possess a weapon for any other purpose that those listed in Article 10(2)
of the UBiA. Moreover, even within the scope of the purposes listed in Article 10(2)
of the UBIA, we can prove a valid reason by other means of evidence than those indi-
cated in Article 10(3) of the UBIA. This is indicated by the words “in particular” used
in both of these paragraphs of Article 10. Police authorities refuse to issue a permit for
the purposes indicated in Article 10(2) solely on the grounds that the applicant has not
shown the evidence indicated in Article 10(3). In my opinion, this practice is wrong.
The authority should consider all the evidence provided and take into account all
the circumstances. Only on the basis of these should it assess whether they are suf-
cient to establish a valid reason. This applies primarily to a sports permit. Here,
however, the applicant always runs the risk of encountering the past, well-known,
full discretion of the police authorities. It must be taken into account that the Admin-
istrat-ive Courts are reluctant to challenge the competence of the Police authorities in
their assessment. However, the revocation of such decisions is possible. In practice,
however, this is limited to situations in which the police authority has clearly exceeded
the limits of its discretion or made procedural errors involving, for example, the omis-
sion of important evidence. Merely showing a valid reason is not enough to obtain
a permit. Refusal to issue a gun permit can be dictated by security reasons, in
which case the discretion of the police is even greater than in the case of a valid reason.
his is conrmed by the Administrative Courts, which explicitly conrm universally
that it is the Police who have the right to make this assessment. Of course, judicial
overturning of a refusal decision is possible, but this is limited to exceptional failures of
administrative procedure. After all, any evaluation must be based at least minimally on
the evidence presented in the proceedings. Thus, the Administrative Court may over-
turn the decision if it nds that the police authority exceeded its administrative dis-
cretion. In practice, this will mean issuing a decision that is completely disconnected
from the reality documented in the proceedings. On the other hand, it is doubtful
the Administrative Court would consider whether a person convicted of a series of
minor oences is dangerous or not. That is what the police are for. This is where another
problem arises, as in practice a clean Criminal Record and a positive psychological
137Firearms Permits for Personal Protection Purposes
examination alone are not sucient proof that a person is not a danger. Police author-
ities consider the situation cross-sectionally, analysing the person’s attitude to obey-
ing the law in a broad sense. For example, if a person notoriously endangers the life
and health of others in trac there is also no guarantee that he or she will behave
dierently when in possession of a weapon. It should be borne in mind that such
a decision is made by an ocial who, if in doubt, will refuse to issue a gun permit. Such
an attitude is hardly surprising to see. How do the police know about our past? First of all,
from the KSIP (National Police Information System). This contains all the information
of our infamous past, even that which is expired or time-barred. The Polish legal sys-
tem does not provide for automatic deletion of data on expired convictions from KSIP.
They are removed from the KRK (National Criminal Register), but remain in the KSIP,
which is administered by the Police Chief in Warsaw. So, before applying for a permit
to carry a gun, it is worth rst applying to the Chief of Police for the deletion of data
on expired or time-barred crimes and misdemeanours, thanks to which our records in
the KSIP should be cleared. Bear in mind, however, any ne within two years of
a previous oence causes the expiry or time-barred date to reset and start running
anew. In such a case, our request to erase the data on oences will be rejected.
Bibliography
Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2 April 1997, Dz.U. (Journal of Laws) 1997, no. 78,
item 483, as amended.
On arms and ammunition Act of 21 May 1999, Dz. U. (Journal of Laws) 1999, no. 52 item
549, as amended.
Code of Administrative Procedure Act of 14 June 1960, Dz. U. (Journal of Laws) 1960, no. 30
item 168, as amended.
Judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 30.03.2012, ref. no. le II SA/Wa2603/11.
Judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 21.08.2012, ref. no. II SA/Wa 935/12.
Judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 29.08.2013, II SA/Wa 739/13, LEX, no. 1367770.
Judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 06.06.2014, ref. no. II OSK 32/13.
Judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 06.11.2014, ref. no. II SA/Wa1188/14.
Judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 13.06.2012, ref. no. II SA/Wa621/12.
Judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 26.02.2014, ref. no. II SA/Wa2068/13.
Judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 25.07.2014, ref. no. II SA/Wa893/14.
Judgment of the WSA in Warsaw of 25.06.2015, ref. no. II OSK2836/13.
Summary
The refusal to issue a gun permit is an unpleasant surprise that many applicants face.
A police authority will issue a weapons permit if the circumstances relied upon by the applic-
ant justify its issuance. However, this is an evaluative decision and is often based on the data
contained in the KSIP. In order to help avoid a refusal, it is worth ensuring that the time-barred
data in this register is removed by submitting an appropriate application.
