implementing brazil's 'disarmament statute': putting law into practice

ESTATUTO DO DESARMAMENTOESTATUTO DO DESARMAMENTOESTATUTO DO DESARMAMENTOESTATUTO DO DESARMAMENTO
























ESTATUTO DO DESARMAMENTO ESTATUTO DO DESARMAMENTOESTATUTO DO DESARMAMENTOESTATUTO DO DESARMAMENTOESTATUTO DO DESARMAMENTO
















IMPLEMENTING BRAZIL’S‘DISARMAMENT STATUTE’:PUTTING LAW INTO PRACTICE

Support:Support:

In December of 2003, after intense popular pressure and mobilization, Brazil’s Congress approved law 10.826 – known as the Disarmament Statute – to strengthen control over the guns in circulation in the country. The results came immediately: five thousand lives saved during the law’s first year in effect, meaning a decrease of the homicide rates in Brazil for the first time in over a decade. Six years later, Instituto Sou da Paz presents a new study evaluating the implementation of the measures established by the Disarmament Statute and offering recommendations to the responsible governmental instances, intending to guarantee the legislation is implemented in its entirety in hopes that further thousands of deaths can be prevented.









































INDEX

INTRODUCTION | 020

1. THE DISARMAMENT STATUTE | 040

1.1 Main measures set forth by the law | 040

1.2 State attributions: who does what? | 040

1.3 Categories that may possess guns and who controls them | 060

2. MAIN RESEARCH FINDINGS | 0802.1 Positive impacts of the law | 080

2.2 Overview of firearms in Brazil | 1202.3 Main problems in implementing the law | 130

3. RECOMMENDATIONS | 300

| 02 |

Introduction

In no other country do more people die due to firearms than Brazil. The country represents 2.8% of the global population, but accounts for 13% of the deaths due to armed violence in the world. According to the Map of Violence of Brazilian Municipalities, over half a million Brazilians lost their lives to gun homicides between 1996 and 2006.1 The main victims of homicides are young males, between the ages of 15 and 24, living in the slums (“favelas”), and in the outskirts of the large urban centers. Easy access to firearms, deficient gun control legislation, and inefficient public policies aggravated this situation. In 2003, according to DATASUS health statistics, about 40 thousand Brazilians died from firearms.

In December of 2003, after intense dialogue between the State and civil society organizations, Brazil’s National Congress approved the Disarmament Statute, legislation with 37 articles foreseeing strict control of all phases of the circulation of firearms and ammunition in the country – from production, to destruction, to carrying and owning firearms. Midway through 2004, when the Statute finally entered into effect, the measures set forth in the Statute began to be put into practice and, during its first year of implementation, estimates show the law was able to prevent five thousand deaths.2

Having participated in the process that culminated in the approval of the Disarmament Statute and having struggled to defend the law in Congress, Instituto Sou da Paz perceived that some of the articles of the law were being implemented by authorities while others had not been put into practice. Additionally, implementation seemed to vary from one State to another, despite the fact this is a federal law. For these reasons, between 2008 and 2009, Sou da Paz conducted a national research study on the implementation of the Disarmament Statute and produced a set of recommendations for government instances responsible for implementing the law. The study was done in collaboration with organizations from the Brazilian Disarmament Network,3 which have intimate knowledge of the realities of each State and the power to continue monitoring the law in the future.

The Disarmament Statute is undoubtedly difficult to enforce and monitor, as its standards set forth obligations for a variety of public agencies or entities (Federal, Civil and Military Police, Judiciary, Army) and for private legal entities (weapons and ammunition stores and industries, private security companies and shooting clubs, for example). To assess if the Statute is being properly upheld, nevertheless, is a necessary task to make Brazil a safer country.

The study consisted of detailed data collection through interviews with civil servants from a variety of agencies, access to reports and official information, as well as information obtained through media and publications. The study was conducted in ten Brazilian States (São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais, Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul, Espírito Santo, Ceará, Pernambuco, Pará and the Federal District - Brasília).

In each State researchers attempted to carry out interviews with all relevant agencies for gun control: the Federal Police, Civil Police, Military Police and the Army (through the SFPC – Serviço de Fiscalização de Produtos Controlados). Interviews were also carried out with federal

| 03 |

INTRODUCTION

authorities in Brasilia, such as those responsible for the SINARM4 of the Federal Police and for the Diretoria de Fiscalização de Produtos Controlados (DFPC) of the Army, as well as important actors in the public security sector within the Ministry of Justice.

Given the fact that certain government instances do not regularly engage in dialogue with civil society, it was only possible to talk to all of the aforementioned actors and/or to collect responses from the interviewees to all the questions posed, in a few States. Thus, a comparative study, State by State, proved impossible. Therefore this analysis seeks to demonstrate the general trends in the implementation of the Disarmament Statute.

The most cited sources in the study, the Army -DFPC and the Federal Police-SINARM, were sent a first draft of the report, in order to allow clarifications or comments on the information published. The comments received were taken into account in the final report. The report in its entirety is available at www.soudapaz.org.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSFord Foundation, Ana Toni, Gleice Sanches, Rede Desarma Brasil, Shelley Simis de Botton, Patrícia Henzell, Cel. Luiz Brenner Guimarães, Serguem Jessui Machado, Ademir Soares de Oliveira, Eduardo Teodósio Quadros, Everardo Aguiar, Irmã Marie Henriqueta, José Luis Ventura Leal.

Cel. Clóvis Ilha, Edsom Ortega, Fernando Duran, General Pedroza Rêgo, Marcus Vinícius Dantas, Pedro Abramovay, Túlio Kahn, Diretoria de Fiscalização de Produtos Controlados (DFPC) do Exército Brasileiro, Diretoria de Combate ao Crime Organizado da Polícia Federal (DCOR) / Divisão de Repressão ao Tráfico Ilícito de Armas da Polícia Federal (DARM)/ Sistema Nacional de Registro de Armas (SINARM), DELEARM/PF da Bahia, DELEARM/PF do Ceará, DELEARM/PF de Espírito Santo, DELEARM/PF de Minas Gerais, DELEARM/PF do Pará, DELEARM/PF do Paraná, Polícia Federal de Pernambuco, DELEARM/PF do Rio Grande do Sul, DELEARM/PF de São Paulo, DELESP/PF de São Paulo, Guarda Civil Metropolitana de São Paulo, Guarda Civil Municipal de Barueri, Polícia Civil do Ceará - DAME, Polícia Civil do Distrito Federal - DAME, Polícia Civil do Espírito Santo – DAME e Divisão de Homicídios, Polícia Judiciária Civil do Mato Grosso, Polícia Civil de Minas Gerais, Polícia Civil do Pará, Polícia Civil do Paraná - DEAM, Polícia Civil de Pernambuco, Polícia Civil do Rio Grande do Sul - DAME, Polícia Civil do Rio de Janeiro - DFAE, Polícia Civil de São Paulo – DPC, Polícia Militar do Espírito Santo, Polícia Militar de Minas Gerais, Polícia Militar de Pernambuco, Brigada Militar do Rio Grande do Sul, Secretaria de Defesa Social de Minas Gerais, Secretaria de Segurança Pública do Espírito Santo, Secretaria de Segurança Pública do Rio Grande do Sul, Secretaria de Segurança Pública de São Paulo, Sindicato das Empresas de Segurança e Transporte de Valores do Paraná, SFPC da 10ª Região Militar (Ceará e Piauí), SFPC da 7ª Região Militar (Rio Grande do Norte, Paraíba, Pernambuco e Alagoas), SFPC da 1ª Região Militar (Espírito Santo).

This report is dedicated to the late Pablo Gabriel Dreyfus, a key figure in all the relevant studies on gun control in the country, and one of the most respected professionals worldwide on this issue.

| 04 |

1. THE DISARMAMENT STATUTE

1.1 Main measures set forth by the law:seven minimum requirements to purchase a weapon,• including increasing the minimum age from 21 to 25, mandatory psychological and shooting (technical) tests, effective proof of the need for a weapon, and absence of a criminal record;

centralized gun registration and authorization to purchase and possess •weapons with the Federal Police, as well as improvement of SINARM (federal database that should contain information on weapons and their owners registered throughout the country);

greater control over the sale of ammunition• , carried out only by registered shop owners and in boxes with bar codes for identification, with a maximum limit of 50 bullets per year for registered civilians;

greater control on the ammunition acquired by police forces,• which should be marked on the bottom rim of the bullet casing, identifying the specific police force that purchased the ammunition;

ban on civilians carrying a gun. • Registered and authorized possession – that is, having a weapon legally in your home – continues to be allowed, but it is no longer permitted to carry a gun (with very rare exceptions);

arms trafficking codified as a specific crime• that differs from trafficking of other products;

integration between the two main registry databases on firearms in the •country, SIGMA (Army database) and SINARM (Federal Police registry);

creation of a ballistics database that will register the unique markings •imprinted on the bullet by each gun produced in the country, allowing for tracing the bullet to its origin.

1.2 State attributions: who does what?The Disarmament Statute and its complementary legislation determine concessions and responsibilities for individuals and legal entities, as well as for several government instances. Most of these pertain to the Federal Executive, notably the Brazilian Army and the Federal Police.

Brazilian Army

The Brazilian Army can be deemed the main actor in the national weapons control system. Aspects of paramount importance to ensure that firearms are not diverted to the illegal market – or that allow for tracing guns back to their origin if they fall into the wrong hands – are the exclusive responsibility of the Army. For example:

| 05 |


destruction of guns seized or turned over voluntarily. The Army should receive all •seized guns from police forces and destroy them within 48 hours when they are no longer needed as evidence in criminal hearings,

transportation of weapons from the manufacturing plants to stores, police and ports •for export. In addition, the Army is responsible for authorizing and supervising the production and trade of arms and ammunition, as well as for controlling categories that have their weapons registered in the SIGMA – Sistema de Gerenciamento Militar de Armas (Military Management System for Firearms);

import of weapons and ammunition for both restricted and permitted use, be it by •the Armed Forces or police, collectors, sports shooters or hunters;

supervision of exports of weapons and ammunition.•

The Army is responsible for the SIGMA, the database with all the information regarding firearms of restricted use; from hunters, collectors, sports shooters, the Armed Forces, the Military Police and firemen (institutional and personal weapons); from ABIN (Federal intelligence agents); among others.

Federal Police

The Federal Police holds responsibility for the control of firearms in the hands of the civilian population. Through SINARM, their obligation is to register and issue authorization for the purchase or possession of weapons for civilians – the core foundation of the control system. Before the Statute, this was done in a decentralized fashion by the Civil Police in each Brazilian State. Centralizing and unifying the process with the Federal Police constituted a definite move forward.

The Federal Police is responsible for registering the firearms of the Civil Police and of the Municipal Guards in SINARM, and for authorizing carrying licenses for the Municipal Guards when permitted. It also holds responsibility over the registration of weapons and employees of private security companies5, and for their supervision and authorization.

With the advent of the Disarmament Statute, in order to take firearms out of circulation, the federal government launched voluntary gun buy-back campaigns. The Federal Police have also played a central role in these campaigns by taking on responsibility for receiving and registering the weapons turned over (in some cases, in partnership with State police forces and Municipal Guards).

The Federal Police manages the SINARM database, which stores all of the information regarding firearms in the following categories: civilians, Metropolitan Civil Guards in municipalities authorized to carry guns (for municipalities with over 50 thousand inhabitants or part of major metropolitan regions); institutional and personal weapons for the Civil Police and the Federal Police; Federal Highway Police;

guns of private security companies; and, weapons used in escorting prisoners and the seaport guards.

State Police Forces and State Secretaries of Public Security

State police forces (civil and military) are required to relay the characteristics and circumstance underlying all gun seizures to the Federal Police, where the data should be inserted in the SINARM national database. The state police forces must also provide “necessary support” to the Army in its oversight of gun and ammunition commerce, in the identification of individuals or private companies carrying out activities with an unregistered weapon, as well as in investigations in the case of accidents or explosions caused by the storage or mishandling of firearms. Finally, it is their duty to apprehend weapons involved in crimes or illegal situations and refer these to the Judiciary or send them to the Army to be destroyed.

Judiciary

In accordance with Article 25 of the Statute, “when they are no longer of interest for criminal prosecution [the firearms] shall be turned over by the judge” to the Army, within a period of 48 hours. If the decision is made to donate the weapons to police forces (depending on the criteria established by the Ministry of Justice and the Army) – a change in the Statute determined by Act 11.706 in 2008 – the competent judge will also “determine their forfeiture to the institution benefited”.

It is also an attribution of the Judiciary Power to institute “instruments to remit to SINARM or to SIGMA (...) every semester a list of the weapons apprehended and stored by the court, specifying their characteristics and their storage location”.

1.3 Categories that may possess guns and who controls them

Categories How many firearms are allowed?

How much ammunition can be

bought?

Where is the weapon registered?

Is carrying permitted or prohibited?

Civilians Up to 6 firearms50 units a year

for each weapon registered

SINARM Prohibited

Military Police (for their own personal use)

Up to 3 weapons every 2 years, including one of restricted use

600 units per year for each firearm

registered SIGMA Allowed, including

off duty

Civil Police (for their own

personal use)



registeredSINARM Allowed, including

off duty

Federal Police (for their own personal use)

Up to 3 weapons every 2 years, including one of restricted

use (Including calibers .357 Magnum, 9x19mm, .40 S&W e

.45 ACP)


registeredSINARM Allowed, including

off duty

| 06 |


Municipal Guard (Institutional use)

Non restricted firearms and 12 caliber rifles, up to a maximum of 10% of the staff

100 units per year for each weapon SINARM

In cities between 50 thousand and

500 thousand inhabitants, only

on duty. Over 500 thousand

inhabitants: Full time

Armed Forces (for their own

personal use)



registeredSIGMA

For officers in service in the Army carrying is allowed

(on and off duty)

Private security companies

Calibers 32 or 38; in the case of armed escort for securities transportation, repeating rifle or projectile caliber 38, rifles in permitted calibers 12, 16 or 20, and semi-automatic pistols caliber .380 "Short"

and 7,65 mm

[Stockpile] At least two and a maximum

of three loads for each weapon

SINARM Only on duty

Collectors

As many weapons as can be safely stored – including calibers of restricted use,

according to the “level” of the collector

One cartridge for each firearm

model or obsolete ammunition boxes

SIGMA Prohibitted

Sports ShootersUp to 12 firearms, including 4 of restricted use (with limita-

tions of calibers)

A maximum of 300 rounds of sports ammunition for

caliber .22, and a maximum of 200

rounds of calibers calibers: 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36 and 9.1mm per month

SIGMA

Prohibited. In the case of competi-tions, they must seek transporta-tions documenta-tion with the SFPC

Hunters Maximum of 12 weapons for hunting as a sport

A maximum of 200 rounds a month, of calibers: 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 36 and

9.1mm

SIGMA

Permitted only when actively

hunting, with proper

documentation issued by the

Military Command

Note: There is no information regarding institutional firearms for the Military, Civil and Federal Police, as for these institutions the Army establishes the allocations of arms and ammunition. This information can only be found in reserved and inaccessible documents.

| 07 |

2. MAIN RESEARCH FINDINGS

2.1 Positive impacts of the lawStrict criteria for the acquisition of firearms lead to a drop in number of guns in circulation

As a result of the new requirements for purchasing firearms, the legal market for such artifacts suffered a decline, leading to a reduction of more than 90% in gun sales, which contributed to the consequent bankruptcy of the large majority of gun shops. According to the president of the National Association of Gun Owners and Dealers (Aniam), in 2008 the segment sold only 10% of the volume sold in 2000.6 In 2009, according to the Federal Police, only 15,927 new weapons were purchased legally in stores throughout the country.7 As has been proven by the Parliamentary Investigative Committee on Firearm Trafficking, legal weapons continue to be the main source for the illegal market and crime: 68% of the guns apprehended with criminals and traced to their origin had been first sold legally in stores.8 Therefore, reducing the number of legal weapons in circulation has an impact on the illegal market as well.

A recent study carried out by researcher Daniel Cerqueira, from the Institute for Applied Economic Research (Ipea), with the Pontifical Catholic University (PUC) in Rio de Janeiro, utilizing the data from the State of São Paulo between 2001 and 2007, demonstrates that decreasing the number of firearms in the hands of the population (legal as well as illegal) had a direct impact on homicides and suicides committed. The study shows that even the number of deaths taking place in the victims´ homes have decreased in São Paulo. The researcher concluded that the new limitations on firearm acquisition, as well as measures to remove guns from circulation (detailed below), have a direct correlation with this reduction. The study estimated that the contrary is also true: for a 1% increase of firearms in the hands of the population, there is a 2% growth in homicides.9

In addition to reducing the number of firearms in circulation, the more rigorous requirements for buying a gun also seem to have impacted the illegal market, as weapons have become scarcer, and consequently more costly. According to a director from SINARM, in the Brazilian state of Santa Catarina, a 38 caliber revolver, which before the Statute cost R$ 80 on the streets, after the gun law had increased in price to R$ 350.10 In São Paulo, a 9mm pistol, previously valued at least at R$ 800 in the illegal market, is now worth R$ 1,300, while in Rio de Janeiro an automatic shotgun, formerly sold at US$ 6 thousand, now costs between U$ 30 and U$ 40 thousand, a 500% increase.11

| 08 |


How are the shooting and psychological tests being enforced in practice?

Regarding the criteria set forth by the Disarmament Statute for the acquisition of a firearm, there is evidence that the shooting and psychological tests are being carried out in a more rigorous manner, with significant advances when it comes to their standardization and increased control over registered psychologists and shooting instructors by the Federal Police.12 The Federal Council on Psychology has determined that the evaluation cannot be “carried out by psychologists at public and private institutions whose agents have (commercial, economic, administrative or personal) interests in the assessment results. Additionally, the council has determined that it is inappropriate and detrimental if the psychologist accredited by the Federal Police and candidates that will undergo the psychological evaluation have any type of prior tie”. 13

Currently, citizens that fail the psychological test can take it as many times as they wish. However, a new regulation will allow people to retake the test only once and within 45 days. The Federal Police have not shared information on the percentage of people who fail the exam (although this information is required to be filed in the SINARM) as most of these processes are still done on paper.14

For the shooting test, instructors have to be accredited by the Federal Police. A recent addition to the law (2009) created the National Commission for Shooting Instructors (CONAT) from the Federal Police, whose members – shooting instructors from the Federal Police, teachers at the National Police Academy– travel throughout Brazil to apply very stringent tests (practical and written) for instructors looking to be accredited in each State. This explains the low number of accredited instructors: 15 in Rio Grande do Sul and 30 in São Paulo, for example.

Ban on carrying for civilians impacts homicides in the country

More thorough requirements for civilians to acquire a firearm has had an impact on the reduction in firearm homicides in Brazil. In this sense, it is important to highlight the role of the ban on civilians carrying a firearm - one of the measures that came into effect immediately after the law was sanctioned. This is one of the main factors singled out as being responsible for the reduction of homicides in the country after 13 years of growth. In the first year in effect alone, the Statute led to a drop of 8% in firearm related homicides in Brazil (attaining a reduction of 12% by 2006). Studies carried out by UNESCO and the Health Ministry point to the fact this drop is due largely to the prohibition of carrying weapons in the streets.15 With less people armed on the streets, less deaths occur, mainly those which are triggered by day-to-day conflicts.

| 09 |

Concessions of carrying permits for civilians after the Disarmament Statute

In Brazilian States:

In São Paulo, the Federal Police calculate that only 260 gun carrying permits were granted between •2004 and 2009.16

In Espírito Santo, there were 346 carrying licenses approved between 2006 and 2009, decreasing from •205 in 2006, to 77 in 2007, 49 in 2008, and only 15 in 2009.17

In Minas Gerais 146 carrying permits were granted in 2007 and 48 in 2008, and in the last quarter of •that year, not a single new license was granted.18

In Brazil

The total number of carrying permits for “personal defense”, that is, for common citizens who can prove its necessity (such as being under death threats), granted throughout the country between January and the 15th of December of 2009 was only 1,256. The total number of carrying permits (including for the Civil and Federal Police and Municipal Guards) in 2009 was 9,626. For the purpose of comparison, in the State of São Paulo alone, before the Statute, 7,387 permits for possession of firearms were issued.19

Results in terms of reduction of homicides are more impressive in States where there is greater police commitment and efforts to identify and repress illegal possession of firearms. In the state of São Paulo, for example, homicides dropped 70% between 1999 and 2008.20 According to Túlio Kahn, the Coordinator of Analysis and Planning for the Public Security Secretariat in São Paulo, after the Statute less people are carrying guns on the streets and therefore, the number of weapons seized by the police has decreased considerably (even though the number of individuals searched by the police has increased). According to the Department for Controlled Products (DPC) from the Civil Police in São Paulo, “ten years ago, about 15 thousand firearms were apprehended every year. The ban on carrying weapons has contributed to reducing the number of firearms being apprehended, which presently is about 9 thousand annually”.21

Increase in the number of weapons removed from circulation

The Disarmament Statute has also made it possible to remove a large amount of guns from circulation through apprehension by police officers, gun buy-back campaigns and the destruction of guns carried out by the Army.

For the first time in Brazil, the Statute codified the crime of firearm trafficking, which has contributed to more stringent and plentiful operations carried out by the police in search of illegal guns and ammunition. After the Statute, many States begun to implement illegal gun seizures as a priority. The formerly mentioned research from IPEA–PUC estimates that, with every 18 weapons apprehended by the police in São Paulo, one life has been saved. Thus, the guns seized in São Paulo, between 2001 and 2007 are responsible for saving nearly 13,000 lives.

| 10 |

How is this being put into practice?

With the aim of increasing gun seizures, several States (such as Espírito Santo, Santa Catarina, Pernambuco, Ceará and Sergipe) have established financial incentives for police officers who apprehend weapons. Other States have managed to prioritize apprehension through a clear political commitment by their governments.

The Federal Police has carried out a plethora of operations in the last years aiming to tackle organized crime gun traffickers and their transportation schemes and structures, usually involving heavy weapons and ammunition.22 Also noteworthy is the initiative of the Ministry of Justice which, at the end of October of 2009, presented the Project for Specialized Policing on the Borders (Pefron) with the aim of impeding illegal entrance of weapons and drugs into the country. The Ministry’s initiative is based on successful experiences in States like Mato Grosso, where, in a five-year-period, through the action of police trained specially to protect the border, the amount of drug apprehensions increased by 3,300% and that of weapons by 400%.23

The Statute also foresees the possibility of voluntary gun-buy back campaigns. Since the law was sanctioned, the federal government has deployed efforts to motivate citizens to voluntarily turn over their guns. These campaigns not only raise awareness about the problem of armed violence and reduce the demand for guns, but they also help to remove guns from circulation. Between July of 2004 and October of 2005, the first campaign removed more than 460 thousand guns from the streets. The most recent edition of the campaign, ongoing since 2008, removed another 30 thousand weapons, totaling about half a million weapons taken out of circulation.

The law makes it mandatory to completely destroy guns that are voluntarily turned over or apprehended. The Brazilian Army has a record of the destruction of 1,885,910 weapons, between 1997 and 2008. If we consider the study that best estimated the number of weapons in circulation in the country,24 this represents almost 15% of all weapons in the hands of civilians in Brazil.

Centralized information on firearms throughout the country

Another positive aspect of the Statute was strengthening the SINARM database, which concentrates the data on firearms belonging to civilians. The law requires centralizing this information in the hands of the Federal Police. Formerly the processes to authorize the purchase and possession of firearms were carried out in a fragmented manner by each State police force.

Today, SINARM contains information referring to the entire “life cycle” of over 7 million firearms belonging to civilians, municipal guards and the private and institutional weapons for the Civil and Federal Police forces - from the moment in which the gun is acquired and registered, up to information on its current status: if it has been turned in voluntarily, seized, stolen, lost or recovered. Despite problems with the system that are detailed further in the pages ahead, it is important to acknowledge that strengthening this database was a significant step forward. Currently the Federal Police in any State can consult data on apprehended guns, whether stolen or involved in a crime, regardless of its origin.

| 11 |


2.2 Overview of firearms in BrazilThanks to the efforts of the researchers at Instituto Sou da Paz and the contributions of the Brazilian Disarmament Network, for the first time it became possible to visualize a clear overview, albeit partial, of firearms in Brazil. This information is unprecedented and could be even more comprehensive if the agencies responsible for gun control in Brazil - especially the Army - would respond to the many requests for information and were willing to openly share their data. In a country where 70% of the homicides are committed with firearms, it is crucial to have precise data regarding the number of weapons that are in circulation, their location and who owns them.25 The survey allowed us to arrive at the following scenario:

Firearms in circulation:

7,312,227 guns are registered in the SINARM database, including those of civilians, private security •companies and securities transportation companies, institutional and personal weapons for the Civil and Federal Police and Municipal Guards, weapons apprehended, stolen and some State registries (transferred to the national database);26

There are 613,546 weapons registered in the Army database SIGMA. This number includes guns •in the hands of the Military Police and the Military Firefighters (376,148 are institutional guns, 231,335 are private weapons of the military police officers and 6,063 belonging to the military firefighters);27

There are 154,522 firearms in the SIGMA database from collectors, sports shooters and hunters, of •which 66.400 belong to collectors, 77,805 to sports shooters and 10,317 to hunters; 28

According to the National System for Apprehended Goods from the CNJ (National Justice Council), •in court house storage across the country there are 41,277 firearms registered, of which more than 40 thousand have been classified as being in an “undefined situation”, only 287 have been destroyed and 351 lost.29

Weapons removed from circulation:

1,885,910 firearms have been destroyed by the Army between 1997 and 2008.•

According to this data there are at least 8,080,295 firearms in the hands of the police forces and the population (sum of weapons in the SINARM and SIGMA). It is not possible to confirm if the weapons registered in the National System of Apprehended Goods of the CNJ, that are found in court house storage, are registered in the SINARM, as they should be. As we will see further ahead, data on apprehended weapons is not always conveyed or transmitted to the Federal Police. Therefore we can assume that only part of these weapons is included in the total number of weapons registered in SINARM.

The fact that the information on stolen weapons, lost weapons, seized in court or apprehended by the state police is not transmitted to the Federal Police also means that the information in SINARM on the status of a given firearm is not always up to date. Besides these complications, it has been impossible to get to a more precise estimate on the number of weapons in circulation due to the absence or lack of access to the following data:

| 12 |

number of firearm licenses with each state before the Disarmament Statute that were •not transferred to SINARM (which could be a rather significant number considering, for example, that in Espírito Santo up until the end of 2008 only 24% of the weapons with licenses issued by the Civil Police were transferred to SINARM);

number of institutional and private weapons of the Armed Forces not made available •to the researchers;

universally accepted methodologies to estimate the number of illegal weapons in •circulation in Brazil.

2.3 Main problems in implementing the lawDespite the progress that has been achieved, through the present study it has been possible to detect the main problems preventing the complete implementation of the Disarmament Statute. Although the Statute is a federal law, part of its implementation and the desired results depend upon actions at the state level. The law’s measures are not always implemented uniformly by each State, which contributes to uneven success in the fight against armed violence.

a) Institutional disorganization

A considerable part of the problems found in the implementation of the Disarmament Statute reflect the lack of organization of different governmental instances responsible for gun control. Another factor which regrettably became apparent during the study is that there is no political urgency or sense of priority in putting the measures of the law into practice, a fact observed especially in regards to information sharing between the Army and the Federal Police, in the integration between the SIGMA and SINARM databases and the creation of a national ballistics database. Below are some of the main difficulties encountered:

Discrepancies between States in granting concessions for carrying and •ownership licenses

The increased difficulty to purchase a weapon and the ban on carrying for civilians, together with serious dedication by some police forces, have significantly contributed to diminishing homicide levels. Nevertheless, there are still many areas in need of improvement. One of these refers to the requirement for civilians to prove they need a weapon for personal protection. This “effective need” is a subjective criteria aimed at granting police authorities the ability to guarantee that, even though the objective requirements have been fulfilled, ownership or carrying licenses will not be granted unless with the candidate presents an exceptional life threatening situation. Through interviews and empirical data it was possible to conclude that in some states the Federal Police interpret this demand in a less stringent way than in others. Considering data on new guns registered and the concessions of carrying licenses is much higher

| 13 |


in some States, it can be assumed that there is a correlation between the large number of weapons sold and greater flexibility on the part of the Federal Police in those states.

Though nationwide there is a downward trend, not only in acquisitions but in the issuing of carrying permits, these numbers are still high in some States.

In 2008, the Federal District (Brasília) was responsible for 26% of all gun sales in Brazil, which led the Federal District to be known as the “firearm sales champion ”.31 Of the 22,451 new weapons sold in the country, 5,913 were acquired in Brasilia and its surroundings, with a population of only 2.5 million inhabitants. For the sake of comparison, in São Paulo, with over 40 million inhabitants, only 2,241 new weapons were sold in the same year.32 Data from SINARM shows that, in 2008 as well as in 2009, the Federal District was the leader in the ranking of States with the highest number of new weapons registered per 100 thousand inhabitants – 240.76 and 104.83, respectively.

Table 1 - New guns registered by State(1)

States New firearms 2008Rate

(per 100 thousand inhabitants)

New firearms registered in 2009

Rate (per 100 thousand

inhabitants)Acre 252 38.45 398 57.58

Alagoas 680 22.38 195 6.17

Amapá 152 25.88 13 2.07

Amazonas 284 8.81 369 10.60

Bahia 418 2.96 165 1.12

Ceará 408 4.98 220 2.57

Distrito Federal 5,913 240.76 2,733 104.83

Espírito Santo 387 11.54 216 6.19

Goiás 140 2.47 204 3.44

Maranhão 1 - - -

Mato Grosso 35 1.22 33 1.09

Mato Grosso do Sul 161 7.1 85 3.60

Minas Gerais 722 3.74 815 4.06

Pará 50 0.7 87 1.17

Paraíba 1 - 1 -

Paraná 3,444 33.48 2,587 24.20

Pernambuco 264 3.11 3

Piauí 656 21.63 57 1.81

Rio de Janeiro 1,063 6.89 576 3.59

Rio Grande do Norte 65 2.15 47 1.49

Rio Grande do Sul 1,152 10.88 1,361 12.47

Rondônia 28 1.92 31 2.06

Roraima 42 10.61 20 4.74

Santa Catarina 3,763 64.14 3,414 55.79

São Paulo 2,241 5.62 1,916 4.62

Sergipe 82 4.22 89 4.40

Tocantins 47 3.77 292 22.59

Total - Brazil 22,451 12.2 15,927 8.31

Source: SINARM/Federal Police 01/01/2008 to 12/31/2008 and 01/01/2009 to 12/15/2009. Table by: Instituto Sou da Paz

(1) New firearms acquired in stores and registered by common citizens, private security companies, public institutions and police.Population 2008 and 2009 by the IBGE.

| 14 |

Rio Grande do Sul, on the other hand, is the State with the largest number of gun stores in the country (143).33 It is possible to conclude that, despite the limitations imposed by the Statute, interpretation of criteria is the most flexible in this State. According to the data on new weapons registered in 2009, Rio Grande do Sul occupies the 6th position in the ranking, with an index of 12.47 new weapons registered per 100 thousand inhabitants. This figure is low if compared to the rates of Acre, Santa Catarina, Paraná and Tocantins (and the formerly mentioned Federal District), but is greater than the rates in São Paulo (4.62) and Rio de Janeiro (3.59), Brazil’s two most populated states.

On the other hand, in some States the Federal Police has interpreted the criteria for effective need more rigorously.

In Espírito Santo, a letter was sent by the Federal Police in July 2009 to all gun stores in the State reinforcing that the Federal Police authorization for the purchase of new weapons was strictly contingent upon a consistent declaration of effective need, including proof of life threatening circumstances. This initiative seems to have impacted firearm sales in the state: in 2008 the rate of new weapons registered in Espírito Santo was 11.54 per 100 thousand inhabitants, dropping to 6.19 in 2009.34

Additionally, regarding carrying permits issued to citizens, the Federal District and Rio Grande do Sul continue to lead the ranking. In 2009, the sum of the permits granted to citizens in the Federal District and in Rio Grande do Sul (608) represents almost half of the total number of permits granted throughout the country (1,256).

Table 2 – Carrying licenses approved for common citizens 2009

States Carrying

licenses for personal defense *

Rate (per100

thousand inhab.)

States

States carrying

licenses for personal defense *

Rate (per 100 thousand

inhab.)

Acre 9 1.30 Paraíba 10 0

Alagoas 34 1.07 Paraná 33 0

Amapá - - Pernambuco 11 0

Amazonas 26 0 Piauí 6 0

Bahia 78 0 Rio de Janeiro 18 0

Ceará 58 0 Rio Grande do Norte 6 0

Distrito Federal 182 6.98 Rio Grande do Sul 426 3.90

Espírito Santo 48 1.37 Rondônia 16 1.06

Goiás 22 0 Roraima 2 0

Maranhão 61 0 Santa Catarina 15 0

Mato Grosso 20 0 São Paulo 47 0

Mato Grosso do Sul 21 0 Sergipe 23 1.13

Minas Gerais 60 0 Tocantins 1 0

Pará 23 0

Total - Brasil 1,256 0

Source: SINARM/Federal Police 01/01/2009 to 12/15/2009.Issued to the common citizen.Population 2009 estimated by the IBGE.Table by: Sou da Paz Institute.

| 15 |


Marking guns and ammunition for police forces•

Marking the firearms and ammunition of the public security forces allows for subsequent tracing and serves as a deterrent to diverting ammunition from the State. Marking, by the Statute’s provisions, should be done by the manufacturing companies, under the supervision of the Army.

However, this study reveals that the actual implementation of this measure in many instances took extremely long (and in some States still has not been adequately put in place) and should have been done five years ago, clearly a reason for concern.

In some States, the study confirms that the majority of the public security forces only began receiving marked ammunition in 2008.35 In other States, interviewees noted they had still never seen marked ammunition. In some States, old unmarked ammunition is already being distributed to the police forces for training at the academy, but it was not possible to obtain information from all police forces on what is done with old ammunition and how new marked ammunition is being registered and controlled.

Problems updating the SINARM database•

Before pointing out the problems regarding updating information into SINARM, it is important to acknowledge the major step forward in gun control brought about by the Disarmament Statute with information on all weapons registered by civilians in the country for the first time being centralized in one database. Despite this achievement, failure to update the database impedes the law from attaining its full potential. The information on the number of weapons registered, stolen and apprehended in each State is not fully conveyed to SINARM.

Part of the problem is the indirect way in which this updating is done - the state police forces, responsible for seizing illegal weapons and documenting gun theft, do not have direct access to the SINARM database and such data is rarely passed on to the Federal Police. The chief of the state police force is required to send a document with all of the information on the stolen or apprehended firearms to the Federal Police, which only then enters the data into the system. In the case of stolen or lost weapons, the lack of data fed into SINARM is disastrous, as such weapons have gone from the legal to the illegal market, which means a total lack of information, making it possible to identify neither their origin nor their destination.

Examples of discrepancies between the data registered in each State and data in SINARM (apprehended weapons):

In São Paulo, the Public Security Secretariat published statistics revealing nearly 21 thousand •guns seized in 2008. The national SINARM database, however, shows only 3 thousand weapons apprehended in the state during the same period.36

The Civil and Military Police of the state of Pernambuco apprehended 6,549 firearms in 2008. In •the SINARM, only 346 guns have been registered, which corresponds to a little more than 5% of all weapons apprehended.37

| 16 |

The information is available in each State, but is simply not passed on to the Federal Police as determined by the law, as can be observed in Table 3 below.

Table 3 – Firearms apprehended – Comparison of data from the State police, with data in the SINARM database

States 2007 2008

Rio de JaneiroSeseg 11,062 10,010

SINARM 2,855 1,438

São PauloSSP 23,443 20,277

SINARM 856 3,412

Distrito FederalPC 1,865 2,364

SINARM 2,447 4,217

Pará SSP 382 392

SINARM 27 35

CearáPC 2,045 2,055

SINARM 124 52

Mato GrossoPC 1,958 1,836

SINARM 95

Source: Federal Police – 2007 and 2008, Public Security Secretariats SP/RJ/DF/PA – 2009, questionnaire answered by the Civil Police of CE 2009, data made available by the Civil Police of the MT during the visit of the Brazilian Disarmament Network Caravan, 2009.Table by: Instituto Sou da Paz.

Some initiatives aimed at changing this scenario should be highlighted, such as that of the Federal District allowing the State Civil Police access to update SINARM data, feeding information on apprehended and stolen weapons directly into the system.

In addition to the difficulty for State police forces in conveying data to SINARM, in almost all of the States, the transfer of records from the State police (of gun licenses registered before the Statute) to the Federal system still has not been completed. These weapons should be entered into SINARM in two ways: through the transfer of data from the Civil Police to the Federal Police and/or through the gun re-registration carried out by owners as required by the law. As can be seen in the examples presented, the data transfer to SINARM has not been completed, constituting the main factor preventing a more accurate estimate of the number of guns in circulation in the country.

Examples of discrepancies between the weapons registered in the States prior to the Statute and in SINARM today:

In the Southern state of Rio Grande do Sul, the Federal Police estimates that 800 thousand guns were •registered with the Civil Police before the Disarmament Statute and a “little over 100 thousand” of those licenses have been transferred to SINARM.38

According to data from the Civil Police in the state of Espírito Santo, up until the end of 2003, before the •Disarmament Statute entered into effect, there were 45,701 weapons registered in the State.39 At the end of 2008, a mere 24% of those guns had been re-registered in SINARM.40

| 17 |


In the majority of States surveyed, the Civil Police confirmed having their own separate databases containing this information. It is fundamental that these databases be digitalized and that funding be approved to hire personnel to enter the data into SINARM. Unfortunately, as the law does not specifically require that the State police transfer this data to the Federal database, it will depend on the initiative of Civil and Federal police forces.

The re-registration of firearms with state issued licenses, by their owners, according to the original law should have been concluded three years ago. However, a series of postponements (the most recent of which pushed the deadline to the end of 2009) has delayed the process and only been partially successful. The last amendment to the law defined that the re-registration process for weapons registered with a state authority would be done in the following manner: up to December 31, 2009, the psychological and shooting tests would not be necessary and no fees would be charged for the re-registration of the same firearm with the Federal Police. In this case, it would be sufficient to fill in the provisional registration on the Federal Police website, valid for 90 days.

It is important to recognize the significant number of firearms re-registered in SINARM in 2008 and 2009 – when there finally was a focused initiative by the federal government. The number of weapons re-registered in 2008 (over 400 thousand) was greater than the total number of guns re-registered in the four previous years (about 344 thousand).41 According to the Ministry of Justice, approximately 2 million weapons were re-registered with the Federal Police between 2006 and 2009. In 2009, the State of São Paulo had the highest number of re- registrations (244 thousand weapons), followed by Rio Grande do Sul (171 thousand) and Minas Gerais (129 thousand).42 Though a considerable step forward, the discrepancies that still exist between States and the Federal systems allow us to conclude that implementation of this measure is still incomplete.

Lack of integration between databases•

It is truly a mystery how SIGMA (the military firearm database) operates, given the Army´s resistance in sharing information, even with police agencies. However, it was possible to obtain from the competent authorities the information presented in item 2.2 Overview of firearms in Brazil, which had never before been released to civil society.

According to the DFPC (Army department in charge of gun control), the “total number of firearms presently in the hands of the Military Police and Firefighters and under the control of the Army” (functional weapons) is 376,148. Of these, 339,096 are handguns (revolvers, pistols and automatic handguns) and the rest (37,052) are rifles and shotguns. Regarding the weapons owned privately, 231,335 belong to the Military Police officers, while those of the Military Firefighters are 6,063.

Weapons in the hands of the Armed Forces have not been accounted for in SIGMA nor has this information been shared: “so far the institutional SIGMA database, which should contain the weapons registered to the Armed Forces, has not been implemented. Presently these weapons appear in the registries of the institutions and corporations exclusively”.43

| 18 |

In accordance with Article 9 of Decree 5.123 of 2004, “the data of SINARM and SIGMA will be interconnected and shared in a period not to exceed one year.” Despite the Army´s declarations, alleging that the two systems are already interconnected (through the INFOSEG system), interviews conducted with the Federal Police reveal that this is a measure that has not been put into practice, even though the law was regulated five years ago. Interviews carried out confirm that the two databases are in fact not connected and that this is one of the main factors that impede tracing guns in the interest of crime prevention and investigation.

The Army DFPC has stated that, through the INFOSEG system, “complete data on guns is made available [to the Federal Police], including the background information. Data on the owner is informed only through written request”.44 The Director of the SINARM database explained that the information that is accessible through the INFOSEG system does not suffice for crime prevention and investigation and that the Federal Police needs access to all of the Army data relating to production, exports and circulation of firearms. The information from INFOSEG system (which can also be accessed by employees from the Department of Motor Vehicles, for example) is not useful when the Federal Police needs to cross this data with SINARM for an investigation on a gun they believe to be registered in SIGMA. In order to obtain the details on these firearms and their owners, the Federal Police have to resort to sending a written request to the Army.

In addition to the lack of integration between the SINARM and SIGMA databases, another source of concern is the lack of Federal Police access to other “complementary” or “accessory” data processing systems for firearms controlled by the Army. Such systems include the System for the Control of Weapons Manufacture (SICOFA); the System for Management Information for the DFPC (SIG-DFPC); the Electronic System of Transit Permits (Sist G Trf Elt) and the System for the Control and Sale of Ammunition (SICOVEM). All of these systems were created after the Disarmament Statute was regulated into law in 2004 and therefore could not be included in the decree. Nevertheless it is implicit that the information contained in them should certainly be shared with the Federal Police in order to enhance the control of guns and ammunition in the country, respecting the spirit of the law.

The situation has become so untenable that, in 2008 the Federal Public Prosecutor filed a civil suit condemning the Federal government to carry out the database integration in no more than one month. Nevertheless, there has been no progress to date.45

Supposedly the obstacle impeding the Federal Police from having real access to the SIGMA system is the creation of access profiles and passwords. According to the law, such profiles should be specified in a ruling from the Ministry of Justice and the Defense Ministry, detailing who should be permitted to use the system. The Federal Police drafted a proposal for such a ruling and sent it to the Army, who claims having re-directed this proposal to the legal sector of the Defense Ministry. Three years later there still has been no official response.

The Director of SINARM confirmed that, to comply with the civil suit, the Army has created three passwords enabling only three agents from the Federal Police access to SIGMA. This access is apparently “in a test phase” and eventually the plan would be to issue a password to each Federal Police department.

| 19 |


How does this lack of coordination and integration hamper the investigative work of the police? One example mentioned was a licensed gun collector registered with the Army. According to police interviewees, they knew that since the beginning of 2008 that this collector had about 300 weapons and five thousand pieces of ammunition inside his home, a large part, they suspected, without registration. According to investigations the collector was responsible for selling ammunition to members of criminal faction PCC. However, the police officers were not able to seize these weapons and ammunition, nor arrest the individual in question, as he held a collectors´ license issued by the Army. Therefore they were forced to wait for more information from the Army on the number of weapons this subject had legally registered in SIGMA, and how many might be illegal. Had SIGMA and the SINARM been integrated, cases such as this one would easily be detected and addressed by the police forces.

Non-compliance with this provision, more than five years after the approval of the Disarmament Statute, reveals a distorted vision that privileges theoretical “national security” in detriment of public security. The total integration of the two databases would allow for much more effective measures to combat crime, reducing weapons trafficking and diversion. Even accepting that resistance to sharing data on weapons of the Armed Forces is understandable, it seems ludicrous to treat information on sports shooters, hunters and collectors as if this were an issue of national security.

Lack of information on armed Civil Municipal Guards•

The Federal Police is responsible for authorizing carrying licenses for the Municipal Guards, however SINARM in Brasilia cannot confirm the number of armed guards in the country, as “we are talking about decentralized information, on hard copy, that remains within the Federal Police department in each State”.46 In 2009, the Federal Police of São Paulo confirmed a list of municipalities with Civil Guards authorized to carry weapons. However, throughout our research we were made aware of other armed guards, without authorization from Federal Police, which continue to carry a gun on the job. This situation is apparently ever more common, as a diversity of guards carry weapons after pursuing injunctions through the justice system, before they have been authorized by the Federal Police. For example, the Civil Guard from the city of Indaiatuba, received permission from the Federal Police to carry 234 weapons in March of 2009, but it had already been using guns since December of 2008, thanks to an injunction. The Civil Guard had requested to carry weapons in 2005 and in 2008, had even received training with funds from the Ministry of Justice, even though they had not officially been authorized by the Federal Police.47

Lack of defined timelines for firearm destruction•

The Disarmament Statute determines that weapons seized by the police or collected in voluntary buy-back campaigns must be destroyed to prevent them from returning to circulation and being used in future crimes. The efficiency and frequency of such destructions - which is the responsibility of the Army and should take place immediately as soon as the weapons are no longer needed by the police and the judiciary - is crucial to definitely get rid of guns that no longer have a reason to exist.

| 20 |

The time between the apprehension or voluntary turn over of a gun and its destruction, which according to the Statute should take no longer than 48 hours, is respected in extremely rare cases. According to the interviews carried out, there is no fixed time span established for the destruction of firearms in any of the ten States surveyed.

The absence of specific deadlines is justified by the need to wait to accumulate a minimum batch of weapons to make arrangements for their transportation and destruction. However, waiting for a minimum batch means accumulating a large number of weapons, often times in spaces lacking the necessary safety conditions (especially in the case of court houses). This problem is often linked to other factors such as the faulty relationship between the police and the Army (when interviewees stated there is a good frequency of destruction, there was generally a good working relationship between the two) and a lack of infrastructure or staff (such as available officers to transport the weapons to a steel plant for destruction, or available ballistic experts, as pointed out in the State of Ceará).

Unavailable or inconsistent information•

One of the greatest difficulties of analyzing arms control in Brazil is not having a reasonable estimate of how many guns exist or circulate in the country, as there seems to be a different number according to each actor involved. In part, this is because the transparency of the governmental instances is not satisfactory or homogenous. In some cases these agencies were not willing to speak to civil society, in others they were willing to be interviewed but refused to share specific data, and in yet other situations, revealed a complete lack of knowledge regarding the information requested.

Furthermore, data on gun control in Brazil is not available consistently throughout the national territory - some States stand out because of their professionalism and excellent data organization, while others lag far behind. The topics addressed above - especially those referring to the number of guns registered, seized or destroyed - demonstrate that the lack of information, or the contradictory nature of information obtained, is extremely serious and has limited advancement in the field.

Relationship between control agencies•

The difficult relationship between control agencies – Army, Federal Police and Civil and Military Police of the States – was one of the most recurrent issues mentioned during the interviews. It is also a factor that can amplify or cause many of the problems pointed out above. The difficulties occur from the higher echelons of government (between the Ministry of Justice and the Army Command), to the State level (between the Police and Army in each State), and even the relationship between the different police forces (Federal, Military and Civil Police). A successful working relationship between the different police forces and between the police and the Army too often depends on personal friendship rather than professionalism. This was identified as constituting one of the main problems in Brazil´s gun control system and exacerbates obstacles such as: Civil Police updating of data to SINARM, integration of the Federal Police and Army databases, weapons destruction and inconsistency in the information available.

| 21 |


If this reality is not urgently addressed, it will be impossible to witness the law´s full potential. A professional and coordinated relationship among these agencies must be the norm rather than the exception.

b) Lack of public investment

Some of the measures determined by the Disarmament Statute have either only partially been put into practice or not implemented at all due to lack of funding and investment. This indicates that gun control is not a major political or budgetary priority for the Federal government. In a country that spends enormous amounts of money to acquire fighter planes and nuclear submarines, it is inadmissible that the central agencies for firearm control not receive better working conditions, tools and human and technological resources to carry out their essential role in preventing armed violence. The following items demonstrate the lack of investment and prioritization of gun control in Brazil:

Creation of a ballistic database•

The barrel of any weapon has so called “grooves” that leave a mark on bullets when fired. No two weapons make the same markings. According to the Statute, all weapons should be fired at the factory before being sold and the resulting “fingerprint” should be filed and forwarded to a ballistic database that would be part of SINARM. The database therefore would become an extremely useful tool to investigate crimes, as each cartridge found could lead to the gun used to commit the crime – and its origin.

According to the head of SINARM, a commission was created at the Federal Police to carry out an investigation on similar types of databases around the world. This commission analyzed similar systems in Russia, Canada and the United States, concluding the system would not be viable for Brazil, because of the steep cost and its ability to only identify crimes of passion, as “professional criminals or hit men will always be able to change the gun barrel or put sand in the barrel to hamper identification of the groove impression”. Regardless of the justifications, omission in implementing this article of the Statute requires immediate attention. A first step would be reviewing the report of the aforementioned commission – including information on new technologies available –, with a budget proposal to implement the measure and carry out a more detailed study on its feasibility. It is worth mentioning that “crimes of passion”, which refer to interpersonal homicides committed by people without a police record, represent the majority of the murders in a great number of Brazilian States.

Security of stockpiles•

Efficient control of arsenals would decrease the risk of firearms being diverted from the legal to the illegal market. The Statute sets forth a series of requirements on how weapons should be kept, but it was difficult to obtain information on the security of stockpiles, including State arsenals and deposits in court houses, given the confidential treatment of this issue. As the researchers had little access to such information, it is difficult to state whether these measures are being implemented. Nevertheless, a list of recent newspaper headlines suggests that the control of stockpiles is still inadequate:

| 22 |

“Criminals steal weapons from court house in Maranhão”, G1, 01/12/09•

“Criminals take 54 weapons from firearm industry in Ribeirão Pires (SP); police •are looking for suspects”, Folha Online, 03/06/09

“Shotguns are stolen from the Army headquarters in the outskirts of SP”, •G1, 03/09/09

“Robbers steal weapons from court house”, Diário do Nordeste, 03/11/09•

“Criminals take weapons and safety vests from the Civil Metropolitan Guard in São •Paulo”, Folha Online, 03/16/09

“Thieves steal 11 weapons from the Military Police command”, •O Tempo, 04/27/09

“Shotguns are stolen from the Military Police battalion in Rio”, •Folha Online, 05/11/09

“Military Police discover a weapons trafficking scheme in the Pindamonhangaba •courthouse (SP)”, Folha Online, 07/30/09

“More than 2,000 pieces of ammunition were stolen from the Army headquarters •in São Paulo”, R7 Notícias, 10/15/10

The headlines report cases such as break-ins into a police precinct, the holding hostage of Army officers or Civil Guards to steal weapons often times of restricted use (high caliber), revealing the fragility of the current control. When a simple crowbar or a hole in the wall gives access to stockpiles without any supervision, or when employees can divert arms, including machine guns over a period of seven months, such as occurred in one of the court house cases above, we can conclude that the situation has become unacceptable.

In the case of weapons stored in courthouses, the situation illustrated in research carried out by ILANUD (United Nations Latin American Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders), “Control of weapons apprehended by the police”,48 is alarming, and demands immediate measures be taken to stop diversion. The study comes to disturbing conclusions on the lack of security of guns stockpiled by police and the Judiciary:

“We concluded that there is no control system for the weapons apprehended by the police. Although we have not identified a concrete example referring to diversion of weapons, we can state with all certainty that if the weapons do not disappear, it is by mere chance and not because there is a true concern with keeping them securely stored. Control over these stockpiles is flawed basically because there is no system nor concern on the part of the actors involved (...) The inexistence of a security system from the technological viewpoint, is compounded by the inexistence of a system from the institutional viewpoint. (page 81)

To remedy the situation at the courthouses, in April 2009, the National Council of Justice determined that the Brazilian judiciary should “edit norms standardizing the identification of firearms in judicial processes and under guard or stockpiled in courthouses”. According to the CNJ (National Council of Justice), there are 41,277 firearms registered in the Judicial process, over 40 thousand of which are classified as being in an “indefinable” situation. Only 287 have been destroyed and 351 categorized officially as lost.49

| 23 |


Efficient control requires investment of money, time, planning and intelligence. Besides video-monitoring, bulletproofing doors, putting in reinforced hinges and efficient padlocks, there must be clear rules for the locations where weapons are stockpiled, training for security personnel, maintenance of a detailed plan of the people authorized and times in which they are authorized to enter the deposit to bring in or withdraw guns, and a record of who enters or leaves the storage site. It is fundamental to schedule periodic inspections to verify safety conditions at all levels. Such measures should be implemented urgently and nationwide.

Lack of personnel and technological resources•

At several moments during the research we were faced with the complaints of lack of personnel and technological resources to truly enforce the controls demanded by the Statute. This is the case, for example, regarding complying with the 48 hour time limit between the apprehension of guns by the police and their destruction by the Army. As mentioned earlier, in the Brazilian State of Ceará “the scarcity of experts in ballistics is one of the factors contributing to a delay in sending the weapons on to the Army for destruction. For the entire State of Ceará, there are only two experts.”50

When it comes to updating the information in the SINARM database, most of the Federal Police units consulted argued that their greatest limitation in terms of efficiently registering and entering data, was lack of personnel, infrastructure and resources. In the opinion of one federal police agent, “to operate SINARM efficiently, we would need to have three times the number of employees and equipment, among other aspects relating to infrastructure”. In the State of Bahia, only two typists and three police agents are responsible for updating the SINARM system; in Espírito Santo there are only three employees and in the State of São Paulo, only 15 police agents had been delegated to this task. These numbers in all cases were deemed insufficient considering the workload.

The SINARM information technology system also constitutes an obstacle to the full implementation of the Statute, as the technology is extremely outdated compared to available alternatives. The database does not allow for the easy separation of weapons by category or the breakdown of data on guns registered by private security companies – such tools have to be created by an IT specialist.51 There is news from the Federal Police in Brasilia, that a project for a more technologically advanced system is awaiting the approval for resources from the National Public Security Secretariat (SENASP).52 According to SENASP, the project to refurbish the SINARM system has already been approved.

c) Privileges for specific categories

This item raises points on the lack of thoroughness in the supervision and control of specific groups, exceptionally authorized to carry or possess weapons in opposition to the general norm.

| 24 |

Private security companies•

According to SENASP, “There are about 1.1 million trained security guards, and of these, about 350 thousand work for surveillance companies and have the right to carry weapons during the exercise of their professional activities”. The sector has its own control system, the Private Surveillance System (SISVIP), fed by the information from SINARM.53

Despite the fact they are responsible for all of the data on guns, ammunition and other material from private security companies, the SISVIP is not directly connected to the SINARM. The list of employees from a company authorized to carry weapons is sent every six months to DELESP (Precinct for Private Security) from the Federal Police. Thus, the companies´ guns are registered in SINARM, but the employees that carry the weapons are only registered in DELESP. Supposedly very well controlled by the DELESP system, the registered companies claim to send their lists always within the deadline, as they will be closed down immediately by law if they do not do so.54

In interviews with Federal Police agents, it was alleged that the DELESP is merely administrative, and that the private security companies have many “fringe benefits”. An irregular company that is discovered will simply receive a notification to pay a fine, and will be granted one month to legalize its situation. According to the law, a company can replace stolen or “lost” weapons as long as it has adopted measures to avoid future diversions. This system proves to be insufficient, especially if we consider that the Parliamentary Investigation Committee on Arms Trafficking revealed that of more than 10 thousand weapons apprehended with criminals and traced by the Civil Police in Rio de Janeiro between 1998 and 2003, 17% belonged originally to private security companies.55

Data from the State of São Paulo unveils that not only is there a large number of firearms registered by private security companies (69,613), but also that the volume of stolen weapons (21,240) is alarming.56 This means that the number of stolen weapons up to March of 2010 is equivalent to almost one third of the total number of weapons registered. The General Coordination of Private Security from the Federal Police has confirmed that since 2003, more than 17 thousand weapons have been diverted from private security companies, being that 1,500 were registered as having been “lost”.57 These are unacceptable rates that deviate completely from normal standards and may support theories that many security companies are used as a cover up for criminal organizations, or to facilitate their access to weapons.

Collectors, sport shooters and hunters•

The number of collectors, sport shooters and hunters in Brazil is surprising – and according to the controlling agency, the DFPC of the Army, requests for registration certificates have increased after the Statute. In March 2009, the number of individuals registered in these categories were: collectors: 10,332 individuals and 49 legal entities (museums, etc.); shooters: 32,957 individuals and 327 legal entities (shooting associations); hunters: 4,653 individuals and 112 legal entities (hunting associations). This significant group owns 154,522 firearms, being that 66,400 belong to collectors; 77,805 to sports shooters; and 10,317 to hunters.58

| 25 |


Within this group there are individuals that certainly cannot be deemed to be “law abiding citizens”. Much like the sports shooter arrested in the Biological Reserve of Araras (RJ) in May 2009, and who kept in his home two caliber 20 shotguns, two caliber 28 shotguns, two pressure carbines, a 28 caliber garruchão (rustic riffle), a 32 caliber revolver, a Beretta pistol caliber 6, 35 mm, 73 pieces of ammunition for a diversity of calibers, of which nine were for restricted use of the armed forces (caliber 9mm).59 Or the collector mentioned in the interview with the Federal Police in São Paulo that had such a huge number of weapons in his home that he had to use his kitchen cabinets to store them. Or even the collector and prison warden who was responsible for supplying shotguns to the militia that dominated five slums in Rio de Janeiro.60

There is little information regarding the requirements and how they are implemented for individuals who request a license for these categories. In response to our request, the DFPC responded that the rate for denial of registration license requests for these categories: “is unavailable information”. As there is no other means to obtain this information, treated as a ”national security secret”, it is impossible to determine if the Army has properly implemented the Statute in this field. The constant news of “collectors” that carry out illicit activities suggests that control is not as tough as it should be.

According to the DFPC, supervision of these categories is carried out as follows: there is “a monitoring visit when the Registration Certificate is granted and another when it is renewed, when there has been a change of address, and other unannounced visits that may become necessary”.61 There are two different types of monitoring visits (“official” and “unannounced”); nevertheless, on both the date is scheduled with the collector, that is, the collector is notified of the visit. In practical terms, the difference between the two is that, in the first, the officer is in uniform, and in the latter he is plain-clothed. According to the DFPC, visits take place “at least” every two years, the period of validity for a collector’s license, which means a collector can go up to two years in an illegal situation until being discovered by the Army. It is worth mentioning that Level 4 collectors (who have been registered for at least nine years) can legally acquire automatic weapons and heavy military-issue armament.

Questions on if, and how many, shooting ranges have lost their licenses for violations; if there has been cancellation of collectors licenses (and how many); and how many “administrative processes” were initiated due to “losses” of weapons by collectors and hunters, were all answered by the DFPC in the same manner: “information not available at the DFPC, as this is the responsibility of Commands in the Military Regions”.

Investigation of irregularities is apparently common, but from the information obtained, it seems that few investigations get to the point of revoking the Registration Certificate. One wonders whether administrative measures and temporary suspensions suffice to inhibit and penalize irregularities that exert a high toll among the population in terms of public security.

| 26 |

Police and members of the Armed Forces•

Another category privileged by the Statute is that of police and members of the Armed Forces, regarding their own personal firearms, given certain flexibility in the criteria and limits set forth by the law for the acquisition of firearms and ammunition for personal use in these categories. These limits should be reviewed, as the weapons are for private use, and have nothing to do with the public or national security role of these professionals.

In order to acquire a firearm for personal use, members of the police and Armed Forces do not need to prove a licit occupation, fixed residency, technical aptitude and psychological capacity, nor do they need to pay any of the applicable fees.

In the case of the Civil and Military Police, each officer is entitled to acquire three weapons for personal use every two years (one hand gun, one for hunting and one for sport shooting). Individually they are entitled to acquire (as with the Armed Forces) 600 cartridges of ammunition per year, per weapon registered, for “training and technical qualification purposes”.62 The private weapons can be acquired in normal gun shops, or directly from the manufacturer when authorized by the Army.

In addition to permitted calibers, police officers can acquire restricted firearms such as caliber .40 for their own use, as long as they possess authorization from their police institution or corporation’s command.63 The weapon is not emblazoned and does not contain the corporation´s name.

The Federal Police can acquire the same weapons as State police forces, with a single difference: they are also allowed to acquire up to two restricted firearms, limited to calibers .357 Magnum, 9x19mm, .40 S&W and .45 ACP, (only the Federal Police and the Army are permitted to posses the .45 and 9mm calibers for personal use).

In the case the Armed Forces, each member can acquire up to three weapons every two years, for their personal use (one hand gun and two for hunting, one of which is automatic, the other non-automatic). Amongst the weapons the military (either from the active force, reserve or retired) can own, are the .45 and 9mm caliber firearms. Upon moving to the reserve, the military person who owns a permitted firearm can request (30 days before leaving the force) the transfer of its registration from SIGMA to SINARM.

d) Changes in the law

The present study noted several modifications (or attempted modifications) of the original legislation, which, in the majority of cases, weaken the law and create new obstacles for Brazil’s firearm control system. Two examples merit attention: concession of carrying licenses to categories other than those responsible for providing public security; and changes in the deadlines for re-registry of firearms.

| 27 |


Years after the approval of the Disarmament Statute, there are many draft bills circulating in Congress with the goal of granting carrying licenses to categories, that do not work in occupations that put their lives in danger and for whom carrying a firearm would pose greater risk than benefit. These bills wish to allow certain categories to carry guns, ranging from courtroom officers to supervisors of IBAMA (the environmental protection agency), to off-duty prison wardens. The most absurd examples include allowing lawyers, social educators and those living in “violent areas” to carry firearms. The Statute wisely prohibits citizens from carrying firearms given that the risks posed to the safety of a person carrying a firearm are much greater that their capacity to defend themselves. Only those entrusted with the responsibility to fight crime and constant training should be authorized to carry lethal instruments such as firearms.

Among the revisions to the law that have already been approved are the right to carry weapons for those working for the Receita Federal (akin to the IRS in Brazil, included in 2005) and for federal fiscal auditors and tax analysts (added in 2007). In these cases, as in other categories, the concrete situations in which there might be an armed confrontation are slim and there is always the possibility to request police protection in a situation that might put them at risk. For these categories, it is important that the head of the institution publish a decree with standards regulating the need for firearms for its employees. Through this decree, the Receita Federal should detail the specific positions that require the use of firearms, and justify why they cannot request that the State or Federal Police to carry out these security functions for them.

Another category that has continuously undergone alterations in the legislation is that of the Municipal Guards. The original version of the law stated only the Municipal Guards in cities with more than 250 thousand inhabitants could carry firearms, and only those in cities with more than 500 thousand inhabitants could carry weapons off-duty. The first modification was approved quickly in May 2004 and included the use of firearms by Guards in municipalities with a population of 50 thousand people. In 2008, another alteration granted the right to carry weapons to Guards that are “part of metropolitan regions”.

The constant revisions to the legislation may have contributed to the lack of precise information on the number of Guards carrying weapons in the country, as well as to cases where Civil Guards are found carrying firearms without authorization from the Federal Police.

Additionally, the following question arises: should Municipal Guards be entitled to carry weapons at all? The role of Municipal Guards – to protect municipal property – and their vocation for community policing makes it questionable if they should carry a gun. The Civil Guard in Rio de Janeiro does not work armed and 50% of the Guard in the city of São Paulo is unarmed.

The second case of disastrous changes to the law has been constantly postponing deadlines for re-registration of firearms with the Federal Police. As explained above, the licenses issued by State police, before the publication of the Disarmament Statute in 2003, had to be renewed with the Federal Police. According to Article 30 of the Statute, owners of firearms not registered with the Federal Police had 180 days to proceed with this registration. Since

| 28 |

then, this deadline has been extended several times through executive orders. This perpetual moratorium constitutes an obstacle to the full implementation of the Statute, as the message conveyed is “do not worry, if you do not register your weapon with the Federal Police by the deadline, soon there will be another extension”, which is certainly not an incentive for firearm owners to participate in the registration process.

Any citizen who, after all of the extensions offered, still has not registered their weapon, has clearly made the choice to remain in illegality and commit a crime. There is no reason not to register or re-register a weapon and, thus, further extensions simply should not be tolerated.

| 29 |


3. RECOMMENDATIONSThe following set of recommendations is aimed at enhancing the implementation of the Disarmament Statute, as well as improving the overall gun control system in Brazil.

Cross-cutting Recommendations

Develop an immediate plan to install complete civil control over all facets of gun control •in Brazil by granting the Federal Police all the responsibilities set forth in the Statute;

Create an “Integrated Gun Control Management Group” within the sphere of the Federal •government, including and coordinating all instances and actors with responsibilities over gun control measures;

Install a culture of transparency for all aspects of gun control;•

Improve information and data on firearms control so that political and administrative •decisions can be made based on knowledge and proven methodologies, instead of assumptions;

Politically, administratively and financially value gun control as an area of public •security with proven results, and an even greater potential for violence prevention if fully implemented ;

Protect the Disarmament Statute from further changes that are contrary to violence •prevention – such as the majority of bills seeking carrying licenses for several professional categories.

Purchase and Possession

Standardize and set objective criteria for proving “effective need” to carry and own a •weapon;

Establish a maximum limit of attempts for the shooting test (not greater than three, •followed by a six-month temporary suspension before a new attempt).

In the case of psychological tests, a citizen that is deemed to be inept may seek a •second opinion. If the diagnosis is maintained, the proposal is a one-year suspension before a new attempt;

Within the Federal Police, create a database with the number of people approved •and denied by each psychologist. Those who seem to be approving numbers above the average should have their practices verified, with the risk of losing their licenses.

| 30 |

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

Registration

Guarantee the actual integration of ALL of firearms registration systems in Brazil (not •merely between SINARM and SIGMA, but also all of the “accessory systems”) into a single, centralized system, with full access by the Federal Police;

If it proves impossible to include the institutional weapons of the Armed Forces in •the aforementioned single registry, the system should, at a minimum, include the registrations of hunters, sports shooters and collectors, as well as the Military Police, and firefighters, and the personal firearms of all members of the Armed Forces;

Determine legal responsibilities, timelines and sufficient resources (human, technological •and financial) for the immediate transfer to SINARM of all firearms registered by the Civil Police prior to the Statute ;

Create a manual and courses for police officers on identification and registration of •firearms into the central registry, thus enabling all police forces using the system to register firearms in the same manner.

Enable the State police (both Civil and Military) to “feed” information directly into the •SINARM database;

Upgrade the technology of the SINARM database;•

Establish specific timelines (every six months, for example) for the Federal Police to •publish data on permits granted for carrying firearms, firearms sold, apprehended, destroyed, stolen, in the hands of collectors, sports shooters and hunters.

Renewal and re-registration

Ensure that there will be no further extensions of the re-registration deadline;•

For the renewal of licenses approved in 2009 (after a three year time period, thus in •2012) return to enforcing the requirements of psychological and shooting tests, as well as presenting all the documentation required by law;

Foster ongoing awareness-raising campaigns for owners of firearms, on the need to renew •their registration and the consequences associated to not complying with the law;

The Federal Police should send letters to all firearms owners, calling on them to •renew their registrations within the mandatory three-year time period determined by the Statute.

| 31 |

Carrying licenses for civilians

Respect national criteria that a citizen must fully prove “effective need” to carry a •weapon and edit an administrative ruling from the Federal Police standardizing what is meant by “need” and valid ways to prove it;

Permanently monitor the number of carrying permits issued to civilians by each Federal •Police department to verify if the prohibition to carry weapons as a general rule is being complied with.

Constantly check the justifications presented at each Federal Police department of the •federation to identify eventual breaches of the aforementioned administrative rule.

Institutional licenses

Demand that each non-police institution with the power to grant permits to carry weapons •explain and justify which specific roles or functions require the use of firearms for their employees;

Demand that each non-police institution with the above characteristics present a detailed •program on the control of use of firearms by their members;

Periodically publish the number of employees at each non-police institution authorized to •carry firearms;

Require Municipal Guards that insist on carrying firearms to present, to the Federal •Police, a detailed plan explaining which employees should carry weapons (based on the function or role they carry out), how many weapons are necessary, the types of training being carried out, procedures adopted in the case of unjustifiable use of firearms or loss weapons, as well as detailed measures on how the stockpile is stored;

Guarantee that no Municipal Guard utilizes firearms without the authorization of the •Federal Police;

Expedite the process of verification of the requirements for Municipal Guards to carry •firearms.

Marking firearms and ammunition

Guarantee that each police force or public institution that receives marked ammunition •maintain files on this information (and send copies to the Federal Police or the Army) including lists containing the agencies or units that have received each batch of marked ammunition and the dates they were received.

Expand the law to include the marking of ALL ammunition cartridges manufactured •in Brazil, including for civilians.

| 32 |

Private Security Companies

Intensify control over private security companies authorized to use firearms, by verifying •all of the requirements determined by the Statute (sending a list of employees to the Federal Police, as well as information on the company, notification in 24 hours when weapons are lost, stolen or diverted, and the results of psychological and shooting tests of all employees);

Increase and strengthen the Federal Police force tasked with supervising private security •companies, especially for a more thorough repression of illegal companies acting freely throughout the country and posing a risk to the population.

Collectors, Sport Shooters and Hunters

Guarantee the Federal Police has access to all data regarding the identity of collectors, •sport shooters and hunters, as well as their firearms;

Every semester, publish the results of the inspections carried out in the homes of collectors •and shooting ranges showing the amount of irregularities found and penalties applied;

Implement unannounced visits, that is, without the prior knowledge of the collector. The •“surprise” visit should occur once a year, as a minimum;

Abolish the legal category of individual firearm collectors in Brazil (maintaining only the •possibility of museums):

As a minimum alternative, determine that all weapons from the arsenal of collectors be •mechanically inefficient for use, that is, bereft of their trigger mechanism;

Revise the legislation to transfer control of these groups to the Federal Police, as there is •no justification for these categories to be deemed fundamental for “ national security” .

Security of Stockpiles

Urgently put into place a national task force to resolve the serious crisis of stockpile •security, adapting the security measures for ALL actors that stockpile weapons and ammunition;

Special attention should be given to weapons stored in court houses, as these deposits are •extremely vulnerable and contain large numbers of firearms;

Ensure exemplary punishment for members of the security forces who violate the safety •and integrity of State stockpiles;

Implement international recommendations and guidelines on the storage of firearms, such •as those proposed by the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe)64 and the Small Arms Survey.65

| 33 |

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

Inspections and visits

Transfer the monitoring of commerce, exports and imports of firearms and ammunition •from the Army to the Federal Police;

Transfer the responsibilities for monitoring hunters, sport shooters and collectors to the •Federal Police;

Greater accountability and transparency regarding the monitoring of collectors, sport •shooters and hunters, gun shops and arms factories, including a greater frequency of surprise inspection visits.

Precisely because the Disarmament Statute is an excellent piece of gun control legislation that has already delivered concrete results, the law must be implemented more effectively and completely. That is, all of its articles and measures must truly go from paper to practice. Considering that firearms are the main instrument used in the still obscene number of homicides in Brazil, society should remain vigilant and demand the full and immediate implementation of the law, while the Brazilian State must ensure all possible efforts to overcome the obstacles that have prevented full compliance and implementation of the Disarmament Statute.

| 34 |

| 35 |

END NOTES

1 WAISELFISZ, Julio Jacobo. Map of Violence in Brazilian municipalities. Organization of the Ibero-American States for Education, Science and Culture – OEI, 2008, page 94.

2 UNESCO. Lives saved – The impact of disarmament in Brazil. Ministry of Justice and Health Ministry, 2005. <http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001408/140846por.pdf>.

3 The Brazilian Disarmament Network – Safety, Justice and Peace was created in 2005 with the aim of expanding and improving the Disarmament Campaign in Brazil. Over 70 organizations are part of it, working on issues relating to public safety, combat against violence and the promotion of a culture of peace. For more information see: <www.deolhonoestatuto.org.br>.

4 SINARM (Sistema Nacional de Armas), National Firearms database of the Federal Police, whose name recently changed to SENARM (Serviço Nacional de Armas).

5 The information on private security company employees authorized to carry firearms is registered in the SINARM and the registry and supervision of the companies themselves is carried out by the DELESP (Private Security Department of the Federal Police).

6 WEBER, Demetrio; DUTRA, Marcelo. “DISARMAMENT: over 464 thousand firearms collected”. O Globo, Rio de Janeiro, January 31, 2008. <http://www.abin.gov.br/modules/articles/article.php?id=1886>.

7 Up to December 15th, 2009, SINARM/PF.

8 PIMENTA, Paulo (Rapporteur and representative). Report on the Parliamentary Commission for Investigation destined to investigating the criminal organizations in weapon trafficking Brasilia: House of Representatives, November 27, 2006.

9 CERQUEIRA, Daniel. Results on the PUC-IPEA survey. Presented at: 4th Brazilian Forum on Public Safety; São Paulo, Brazil, March 17, 2010.

10 BANDEIRA, Antonio Rangel; BOURGOIS, Josephine. Firearms, protection or a risk? Rio de Janeiro: Viva Rio, 2005.

11 DESTAK. “Targeted by thieves in São Paulo, shotguns cost 500% more than five years ago”, March 11, 2009, Available at: <http://www.destakjornal.com.br/readContent.aspx?id=13,34577>.

12 Interview with the Federal Police from Rio Grande do Sul , 2009.

13 PSI PSYCHOLOGY JOURNAL. “CFP changes resolution of arms possession”. Edi 162, sept./oct./nov. 2009. <http://www.crpsp.org.br/crp/midia/jornal_crp/162/frames/fr_orientacao.aspx>.

14 Interview with the Federal Police – SINARM, 2009.

15 UNESCO, work cited, 2005 and HEALTH MINISTRY. Reduction in number of homicides in Brazil, 2007. <http://www.deolhonoestatuto.org.br/index.php?op=com_content&task=view&id=23&Itemid=27>.

16 Data informed in a questionnaire responded to by the Federal Police of São Paulo, 2009.

17 Data informed in a questionnaire responded by the Federal Police of Espírito Santo, 2009.

18 Interview with the Federal Police of Minas Gerais, 2008.

19 CAMPOS, M. “Weapons stores, a business in extinction”. O Estado de S. Paulo, March 12, 2006. <http:// www.comunidadesegura.org/pt-br/node/24716>.

20 According to data from the SSP/SP, the rate of homicides in São Paulo in 1999 was of 35.71 per 100 thousand inhabitants and in 2008, it had fallen to 10.6 per 100 thousand inhabitants. http://www.ssp.sp.gov.br/estatistica/downloads/apresentacao2008.pdf.

21 Information collected in an interview with the Civil Police of São Paulo, 2008.

22 It is worth mentioning that there is no way to register information on the apprehension of ammunition in the SINARM, but some forces, such as the Division of Controlled Products from the Civil Police of São Paulo, have created a database of their own with this type of information.

23 RODRIGUES, Alex. “Justice Ministry launches a program for the prevention of crimes in border regions”. Agência Brasil, October 29, 2009. <http://www.agenciabrasil.gov.br/noticias/2009/10/29/Article .2009-10-29.9036329209/view>.

| 36 |

24 DREYFUS; Pablo; NASCIMENTO, Marcelo de Souza. “Weapons Possession in Brazil: mapping weapons and their owners”. In: FERNANDES, Rubem César. Brasil: as armas e as vítimas. Rio de Janeiro: Viva Rio, Editora7 Letras, 2005.

25 HEALTH MINISTRY, 2007. Work cited.

26 According to the SINARM, 15 of March 2010.

27 Information provided by the Army – DFPC, in a questionnaire answered in 2009.


29 OLHAR DIRETO. “Judiciary should standardize rules on the apprehension of firearms”, April 30, 2009. <http://www.olhardireto.com.br:80/noticias/exibir.asp?edt=35&id=22266>.


31 Among the possible explanations for this phenomenon is the amount of weapons acquired by the federal public agencies headquartered in the Federal District and private security companies (especially from the Northeast of Brazil) that usually purchase their weapons in Brasília.

32 BRASILIA EM TEMPO REAL. “Out of every four weapons sold in the country, one is in Brasilia”. Brasília, March 17, 2009.

33 National Association of Weapon and Ammunition Industries <http://www.recadastramento.org.br/recadastramentoarmas-compra-lojas.

34 Data informed in a questionnaire answered by the Federal Police of ES, 2009.

35 According to the SFPC –CE; PF-PA, PF-MG, PF –SP; SSP and PC-RS and PM-MG.


37 VARJÃO, Suzana. “Annotations of a trip of the Desarma Brasil Network”. Report of the Safe Community Caravan (Caravana Comunidade Segura) 2009. <http://www.comunidadesegura.org/files/relatorio_final.pdf>.

38 According to an interview carried out with the Federal Police of Rio Grande do Sul in 2009.

39 Data made available to the local partner of the Brazilian Disarmament Network in Espírito Santo by the DEAME of the Civil Police referring to the registry (accumulated) of weapons with the Civil Police up until the end of 2003.

40 Information from the questionnaire answered by the Federal Police of Espírito Santo, 2009.

41 Federal Police/SINARM Del. Fernando Segóvia (2004-2007), Federal Police /SINARM Del. Marcus Vinicius Dantas (01/01/2008-12/31/2008), Federal Police/SINARM-Del. Marcus Vinicius Dantas (01/01/2009- 12/31/2009). Analysis by the Sou da Paz Institute.

42 LONDRES, Mariana. “Country registers two million weapons in three years”. R7 Notícias, January 8, 2010. <http://noticias.r7.com/brasil/noticias/pais-registra-dois-milhoes-de-armas-em-tres-anos-20100108.html>.

43 The information comes from the questionnaire answered by the Army - DFPC, 2009.

44 According to the questionnaire answered by the DFPC, 2009.

45 Última Instância. “MPF-SP requests integration of Army and FP data”. March 18, 2008. http://ultimainstancia.uol.com.br/noticia/48843.shtml.

46 Interview Federal Police – SINARM, 2009.

47 FAVARO, Tatiana. “Municipal Guard from Indaiatuba may use weapons”. O Estado de S. Paulo, January 8, 2009. <http://www.estadao.com.br/geral/not_ger304441,0.htm>.

48 FIGUEIREDO, Isabel; KNIPPEL, Edson. Control of weapons apprehended by the police. Ilanud, 2007.

49 LEGAL CONSULTANT. “Judiciary should standardize rules on apprehension”, April 30, 2009. <http://www.conjur.com.br/2009-abr-30/judiciario-devera-padronizar-armazenamento-armas-fogo>.

50 VARJÃO, 2009 work cited, p. 149.

| 37 |


52 Interview with the Federal Police – SINARM, 2009. A first prototype “should be ready by the beginning of 2011”.

53 SENASP-FGV/EAESP. Evaluation of the SINARM. São Paulo, 2006, page 21.

54 According to information from the Federal Police – SINARM in 2009.

55 PIMENTA, 2006, work cited.

56 According to information from the Federal Police – Delesp/SP, 2010. Data referring to the cumulative numbers of weapons stolen up to March 10th, 2010.

57 ABDALA, Vitor. “Arsenal lost by security companies could arm the Civil Police from eight states”. Agência Brasil, June 3, 2008. <http://www.agenciabrasil.gov.br/noticias/2008/06/02/materia.2008-06-02.8941336414/view>.

58 Information supplied by the Army – DFPC, in a questionnaire answered in 2009.

59 O Globo. “Hunter is jailed with a vast arsenal in APA Petrópolis”. Rio de Janeiro, May 4, 2009.

60 MOREIRA, Gabriela; MARTINS, Marco A. “Weapons collector loans guns to militia members”. Extra, Rio de Janeiro, March 3, 2008. <http://extra.globo.com/rio/materias/2008/03/02/colecionador_empresta_armas_para_milicianos-426053346.asp>.

61 According to a questionnaire answered by the Army -DFPC in 2009.

62 Administrative Rule 04-D Log.

63 Administrative Rule 021 D Log, dated November, 2005.

64 OSCE - Organization for Security and Co-opera in Europe. Handbook of best practices on small arms and light weapons: best practice guide on National procedures for stockpile management and security. FSC.GAL/14/03/Rev.2. Vienna, 19 September, 2003.

65 SMALL ARMS SURVEY. Small Arms Survey yearbook 2004. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

| 37 |

INSTITUTO SOU DA PAZ

Executive Director Denis Mizne

Director for Institutional DevelopmentMelina Risso

ARMS CONTROL

Mobilization CoordinatorHeather Sutton

Policy and Advocacy CoordinatorDaniel Mack

AssistantErica Ribeiro

AssistantCarolina Oliveira

Information and Reference Coordinator Ligia Rechenberg

Communications CoordinatorDaniela Caldeirinha

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DISARMAMENT STATUTE:FROM PAPER TO PRACTICE

Research Coordination Daniel Mack e Heather Sutton

InterviewsCarolina Iootty, Heather Sutton, Carolina Ricardo, Ligia Rechenberg

AssistantsTerine Husek Coelho, Carolina Oliveira, Erica Ribeiro

Analysis and textDaniel Mack

EditingDaniela Caldeirinha e Ligia Rechenberg

TranslationHeather Sutton and Amy Herszenhorn

Graphic designJanaina Siqueira

SUPPORT

Rua Luis Murat, 260Cep: 05436-040 São Paulo - SP

Phone: 11 3812-1333

[email protected]

April - 2010









































IMPLEMENTING BRAZIL’S‘DISARMAMENT STATUTE’:PUTTING LAW INTO PRACTICE

Support:Support:

In December of 2003, after intense popular pressure and mobilization, Brazil’s Congress approved law 10.826 – known as the Disarmament Statute – to strengthen control over the guns in circulation in the country. The results came immediately: five thousand lives saved during the law’s first year in effect, meaning a decrease of the homicide rates in Brazil for the first time in over a decade. Six years later, Instituto Sou da Paz presents a new study evaluating the implementation of the measures established by the Disarmament Statute and offering recommendations to the responsible governmental instances, intending to guarantee the legislation is implemented in its entirety in hopes that further thousands of deaths can be prevented.

implementing brazil's 'disarmament statute': putting law into practice

Documents