Lithuania weighs changes to firearms rules for statutory services

Lithuania’s Ministry of the Interior is preparing amendments to change the rules governing the use of firearms by statutory services, LRT reported. The ministry is consulting the services involved and says it will assess their proposals before preparing the final amendments.

The changes would cover around 10 laws regulating the use of firearms, said Šarūnas Dvareckas, an adviser to the interior minister for communications.

The ministry is consulting the Police Department, the State Border Guard Service, the Public Security Service and the Financial Crime Investigation Service. It is also reviewing the practices of law enforcement institutions abroad and the relevant legal frameworks of other countries, Dvareckas said.

Police propose replacing danger criterion

The Police Department has proposed removing the terms “imminent danger” and “unavoidably necessary” from Articles 27 and 28 of the Police Law and replacing them with the more objectively assessed criterion of “real danger,” the department’s communications chief, Ramūnas Matonis, told ELTA.

According to the police, the current regulations create practical and legal problems because they do not establish clear and objective criteria for determining when danger is “imminent” or the use of a firearm is “unavoidably necessary.”

The police say the wording may require officers to consider not only an actual danger but also the hypothetical possibility of avoiding it by other means. This is particularly problematic in dynamic and critical situations, when an officer must make a decision within a very short time.

“As a result, a situation may arise in which an officer refrains from using a firearm in the face of real danger because of doubts about whether the decision would later be recognised as ‘unavoidably necessary’,” Matonis said.

The police propose linking the conditions for using a firearm to the criterion of real danger. They say this should mean a danger that actually exists and is supported by objective circumstances, rather than a hypothetical or purely subjectively perceived threat.

They also propose that assessments of an officer’s actions take into account the specific circumstances, the information available to the officer, and objective limitations involving time, available means and other factors.

The police stressed that the proposed change would not allow firearms to be used in response to any danger or an insignificant threat. Provisions requiring officers to use physical or psychological coercion against a person before resorting to a firearm would remain in force, preserving the duty to use other available measures first.

Police seek legal and psychological support

The Police Department’s second proposal concerns assistance for officers who use firearms. It wants the law to require police institutions to provide legal and psychological support to an officer who has used a firearm.

According to the police, legal assistance should be provided until a final decision takes effect.

“With such a provision, officers would know that they would be defended if they used a firearm, regardless of the consequences that arose while carrying out their official duties,” Matonis said.

The Police Department stressed that its proposals are not final and that the ministry will decide on the final wording and measures.

The State Border Guard Service also confirmed that it had submitted proposals to the ministry on the regulation of firearms use.