Weapons among civilians: how the war created a new risk zone and why the problem will worsen in the post-war period
After the outbreak of full-scale war, civilian access to weapons ceased to be solely a political or legal debate. This issue has rapidly turned into a complex security problem that is now facing the state. While millions of Ukrainians seek to protect their homes and loved ones, society is simultaneously faced with alarming incidents of violence, high-profile gun crimes, uncontrolled trade in arsenals, and a rapid increase in their numbers. The state faces a double challenge: on the one hand, to provide citizens with a real opportunity to defend themselves, on the other hand, not to turn the streets into a zone where weapons become an everyday accessory and resolve disputes instead of the law.
Civilian access to weapons: the position of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
The issue of civilian access to arms trafficking in Ukraine is inevitably becoming more acute, and the biggest challenge is that it will become even more difficult after the end of the war. Weapons do not disappear, but remain in circulation, changing hands, often outside official control. At the same time, a system that would clearly monitor its movement, use and storage still does not exist. The experience of war has changed the very attitude to what is considered personal security, how and when force can be used, and what responsibility the state should bear for it.
In this context, the position of the National Police of Ukraine acquires special importance, it traditionally takes the position that the monopoly of force should belong to the state. That is why the position of the deputy head of the National Police, the head of the criminal police, General Andrii Nebitov, sheds light on how law enforcement officers see the future of civilian circulation of short-barreled firearms. According to the general, even well-trained soldiers do not always have time to use their weapons in cases of sudden danger.
And although the state from the first days of the invasion gave many citizens the opportunity to take up arms and stand up for the defense of the country, the reverse side of this decision was its spread outside the legal framework. After the liberation of Kyiv region and a number of other regions, some weapons remained in the hands of civilians without appropriate documentation and control. Today, there is a mechanism for registering such weapons, according to which anyone who wants to can declare them, issue them officially and keep them until the end of martial law and for 90 days after.
According to Nebytov, daily police reports increasingly record incidents involving illegal weapons. One of the examples is the shooting, which was carried out by a teenager after receiving a machine gun brought by someone from the front. Another story is that a woman in the Mykolaiv region found a grenade on her husband’s property, brought it to a friend, and as a result of the explosion, she died herself and killed a three-year-old child. Such episodes are a reminder that weapons in the home are always a potential danger. Especially when it falls into the hands of minors or people without elementary training and with a disturbed psyche.
Nebytov said that currently more than 1.1 million people in Ukraine have registered weapons. In total, civilians have 1.36 million firearms, mostly for hunting purposes, as well as approximately a quarter of a million traumatic devices. According to the general, such a scale requires not just accounting, but careful, well-thought-out regulation at the legal level.
The right to self-defense, the general is convinced, must be ensured, therefore the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine does not oppose the possession of short-barreled weapons by civilians, but supports it only if clear conditions are met. First of all, this is the formation of a culture of handling weapons. It is not only about technical training, but also about the personal responsibility of the citizen who owns a firearm, his understanding of safety rules and the ability to act within the limits of legal and ethical norms.
The second condition is ensuring the safety of others. According to Nebytov, society should have guarantees that one person’s right to self-defense does not pose a risk to others. As an example, he cites a situation when people are relaxing in a park or in a restaurant. In such places, not everyone will agree with the presence of an armed person nearby. That is why it is necessary to determine the places where it will not be possible to carry weapons. The general suggests that future legislation will include clear rules on gun-free zones.
At the same time, the general emphasizes that the National Police does not act outside the law. He admits that after the end of the war some relaxation of the rules on the use of weapons will be inevitable, but now, in the conditions of war, access to weapons must remain controlled. Until then, citizens who want to obtain the right to use weapons can join the ranks of the National Police, SBU, Armed Forces and other law enforcement agencies and defend Ukraine legally with weapons in hand.
The general paid special attention to high-profile cases of arms trade. One of them took place in Sofiivska Borshchagivka, where a serviceman sold a machine gun to his neighbor for a thousand dollars, and then began to demand additional payment. As a result, the conflict ended with the killing of two people, and such cases are not rare. According to the statistics provided by Nebitov, the number of cases of arms trafficking has increased fivefold: from 200 facts in 2021 to more than a thousand as of now. If in 2021 the police seized 156 automatic weapons, then in 2022 – 1,581, in 2023 – 1,567, and in 2024 – 1,721, that is, a tenfold increase is observed. At the same time, almost all illegal weapons were once legal, and some are trophies captured from the Russian military. She had her account, but now she is in the shadows. Such weapons are a source of potential threat in the rear. In a peaceful environment, its presence is always a lottery where people’s lives are at stake.
An incomplete picture: what the position of the Ministry of Internal Affairs does not take into account regarding arms circulation
General Nebitov consistently defends the position of the National Police that the state has the exclusive right to use force. However, after the start of a full-scale war, it was the state that opened access to weapons for the civilian population within the territorial defense and volunteer formations. Thus, only in the first days of the war, Kyiv police issued more than 6,500 weapons. At the same time, some of these weapons remained in use outside of official control and became a source of uncontrolled distribution in the rear.
Ignoring this context on the part of the police is an avoidance of a deeper problem: the state has lost monopoly control, but has not created complex mechanisms for responsible coexistence with an armed citizen, and has not yet formulated an effective legal toolkit capable of regulating its consequences. The Ministry of Internal Affairs sees the Unified Register of Weapons as a key weapon control tool, which allows tracking its circulation and storage.
In addition, the following systemic questions were left out of consideration: how many weapons are generally outside the register, how many cases of their transfer between individuals are not documented? This calls into question the effectiveness of the accounting policy itself, as law enforcement agencies do not actually have the tools to determine the full extent of the problem. As long as the state does not explain how it is going to work with this “grey area”, it is impossible to control it.
Another relevant issue concerns the control of weapons that enter the rear regions from the combat zone. Increasing checks at checkpoints, train stations and other public places sometimes provokes conflicts between the police and the military, tired of the increased responsibility. The Ministry of Internal Affairs explains its position: the task of the police is to prevent illegal weapons from getting to places where they can cause human casualties. The agency emphasizes that in such tragedies, the public first of all asks the law enforcement officers – how did this become possible?
That is why the police act in advance and stop the illegal transportation of weapons. During the current year, 238 people were detained at checkpoints, from whom 78 firearms, 353 grenades and more than 40,000 cartridges were seized. However, the Ministry of Internal Affairs admits that individual actions of police officers can cast a shadow over the entire system, as well as baseless accusations against them. To avoid distorting the facts, law enforcement officers use body cameras, and the Military Law Enforcement Service and the National Guard are also involved in the work at the checkpoints.
However, the position of the Ministry of Internal Affairs focuses on the priority of prevention, without offering de-escalation strategies. The fact of the involvement of body cameras and military structures partially solves the problem, but does not replace the systematic regulation of interaction between the police and the army in the rear. This process needs more transparency, clear and agreed action algorithms and explanatory work.
At the same time, Andrii Nebitov’s mention that even the military does not always have time to use weapons during a sudden threat confirms once again: the mere presence of weapons does not guarantee safety and self-defense. This applies to trained people, not to mention civilians without experience. References to the positive practice of countries where short barrels are allowed do not take into account Ukrainian realities. Tens of thousands of people with weapons, with traumatic experiences, psychological instability, without work and without support will return to the country. In such conditions, the legalization of the short barrel will become an additional source of conflicts, domestic violence, accidents and lynchings.
Therefore, the general’s thesis that after the end of the war a certain relaxation of the rules for the use of weapons will be inevitable is too controversial, because they must always be clear, thought out and equally binding on everyone, regardless of merit, status or personal beliefs.
In addition, the Ministry of Internal Affairs focuses on dangers, but does not analyze the reasons for the loss of public trust in the state’s ability to guarantee security. If in the rear, people try to buy weapons, keep them with them or look for unofficial ways of obtaining them, this is not only a manifestation of a crime, but also a symptom of distrust in law enforcement institutions.
It should also be noted that the arguments of the representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs regarding the “culture of handling weapons”, “the presence of personal responsibility” and “safety for the environment” are commonly used and formally correct. However, they need answers to the question: does the state have a mechanism for checking the level of culture of behavior and personal responsibility in practice? Is it ready to provide the infrastructure — courses, test sites, exams, control? If such mechanisms are not created, this rhetoric remains declarative.
Andrii Nebitov’s statement about the ban on being with a weapon in public places is a separate item that raises doubts. His proposed idea of creating gun-free zones in restaurants, parks and public spaces seems attractive on a hypothetical level, but has almost no chance of practical implementation. Control over compliance with such restrictions will require the constant presence of law enforcement officers or special inspections, the presence of checkpoints, metal detectors, for which there is neither a budget nor legal basis for application.
Moreover, the ban on carrying weapons in certain spaces is not capable of deterring those who already operate outside the law, and it is precisely such individuals who pose the main threat. The position of the Ministry of Internal Affairs relies on the logic of an ideal state with effective monitoring tools, but ignores the basic question: who and how will ensure the implementation of such rules in a country where a shadow arms market already operates, and some citizens keep them without any registration?
Regarding the offer to join the Armed Forces or law enforcement agencies for those who have a desire to use firearms. It can be seen that this is a superficial vision of a complex public request, because it is not about personnel needs at all. The civilian circulation of weapons is not a desire to wear a uniform, but a profound change in the very architecture of security in the state. People do not want status, but confidence that they can protect themselves and their loved ones. And the state’s response should not be in the form of denial, but in the form of clear, balanced regulation.
The statistics provided by Nebitov are indeed extremely disturbing. The increase in the arms trade, the increase in the seized arsenal, the cases of domestic violence involving the use of firearms – all this requires close attention. However, objective analytics requires an answer not only to the question “what is happening”, but also to the question “why”. And in this context, silence about institutional weakness remains a vulnerable place: the absence of a unified policy, transparent conditions for legalization, criminal analysis of traffic, open databases and public dialogue.
Therefore, the position of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in terms of security risks and the need to control the circulation of weapons does not have a systematic vision of solving the problem and is declarative. Ukraine needs not only preventive measures, but also state bodies that recognize their own mistakes, create clear legislation and honestly answer the question: is the state ready to have an armed but responsible citizen in the post-war era?
There is one more important question. Andrii Nebytov reported that currently more than 1.1 million people in Ukraine have registered weapons. A total of 1.36 million firearms are in the hands of civilians. However, other high-ranking officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs reported other data. In 2024, the Minister of Internal Affairs, Ihor Klymenko, at a meeting of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities under the President of Ukraine, stated that according to rough calculations, citizens of Ukraine may have from one to five million weapons, as well as ammunition. At the same time, according to Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs Bohdan Drapyaty, it is impossible to determine the exact number of unregistered weapons in the hands of the civilian population. According to approximate estimates, it is about 2 to 5 million units.
At the same time, Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs Leonid Tymchenko reported that in 2024, more than 1 million 400 thousand weapons were officially registered in Ukraine. He also noted that since the beginning of the full-scale war, the amount of illegal weapons seized has increased eightfold, and the number of crimes involving firearms in Ukraine during the three years of the full-scale war has increased from 273 cases in 2021 to more than 11,000 in 2023. According to him, 1,267 such crimes were already recorded in 2022, and 11,186 in 2023, which shows an increase of more than 40 times compared to the pre-war level.
Approximate estimates with a gap of 1 to 5 million eloquently testify not only to problems with the accounting of weapons in the country, but also to the lack of a unified understanding in the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the real scale of the problem. In a country at war, such uncertainty is especially worrisome. These statistics show not just “growth”, but an avalanche of security, when illegal or lost weapons are increasingly found in the hands of those who are ready to use them to commit crimes. It is also a clear confirmation that the conditional “arms control”, which is regularly mentioned in the official reports of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, is more and more like a facade – beautiful, loud and completely detached from reality.
Civilian weapons after the war: risks and legal gaps
Public statements of the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in particular representatives of the National Police, are built around repeated theses about the need for control, about the threat of the spread of weapons, about the responsibility of owners and the importance of a culture of behavior. All of this sounds right, but it misses the point: none of the leaders has articulated a coherent vision for how the state plans to regulate the circulation of short-barreled firearms among civilians now and after the war is over. The lack of a clearly formulated concept that corresponds to reality creates not only a legal vacuum, but also a potential security risk.
During hostilities, this issue is pushed to the background, but it is after the end of the war that it will gain critical importance. It is obvious that the return of large numbers of soldiers from the front with combat experience, PTSD, weapons in hand, often without guarantees of employment or social stability will significantly change the security landscape in the rear. Ignoring this fact can lead to a situation where the right to arms begins to live a parallel life – outside the control of the state, institutional responsibility, and laws.
This scenario is not new or unique. After the end of the Second World War, Ukraine was faced with the mass circulation of weapons among the demobilized, which caused a wave of increase in the level of crime. In the 20th century, similar problems were experienced by France, Italy, and Poland, where after the war the authorities were faced with the fact that military weapons were transferred to private life and became a source of conflicts, crimes, and lynchings. In the 1990s, similar processes also took place in the Balkans, in particular in Bosnia and Croatia, where civilian armaments became a long-term factor of internal destabilization. In all these cases, the issue was resolved not only by laws, but also by long processes of removal, retraining, institutional supervision and resocialization.
In 2024, amendments to the Law of Ukraine “On ensuring the participation of civilians in the defense of Ukraine” entered into force, which record the state’s attempt to regulate the spontaneous circulation of weapons that arose during a full-scale war. This is a necessary and expected step that can contribute to security and law and order if implemented with legal safeguards in mind. However, it contains a number of critical risks — in particular, the danger of legalizing weapons of dubious origin, legal uncertainty regarding responsibility for their use, and delegation of all key powers to the Ministry of Internal Affairs without sufficient guarantees of transparency and control.
In addition, according to the law, civilians can use received or found and declared weapons without undergoing a medical or psychological examination, as well as without mandatory training or testing. The law does not provide for any procedure for verification of persons at the stage of receipt or declaration, if it is a question of temporary use during martial law. This creates the risk of possession and use of weapons by persons without proper training or a stable psycho-emotional state.
The law also does not regulate the mechanism of intermediate control over declared weapons. After its declaration, the person retains the right of ownership until the end of martial law, but there are no clear procedures for periodic re-accounting, verification of storage conditions or intended use. This weakens the state’s ability to control the real state of arms circulation.
Although the law mandates the surrender of weapons after the end of martial law, the lack of a detailed procedure for inspection, storage and disposal increases the risk that some weapons will remain out of control or be lost. There are also gaps in checking the technical condition of such weapons or their identification, in particular in cases of changed or removed markings.
In addition, the law actually allows a situation where a person who did not have a permit for weapons before the war, after surrendering the declared weapon, can claim to own it if he meets the formal requirements. This can be perceived as an inequality in the approach to the legal and actual acquisition of weapons, since those who received permission for the war went through much more complicated procedures. Also, the provided ban on the transfer of weapons to other persons is not accompanied by a real control mechanism, which creates risks of unauthorized use or abuse. There is also no mechanism for tracking the location of declared weapons, which makes it difficult to prevent their leakage into illegal circulation.
In general, the law creates a basic framework for the regulation of weapons during wartime, but needs to be supplemented with mechanisms for control, verification of persons, conditions of use, disposal after the end of martial law and prevention of abuse. Against this background, the gap between legal norms and the practice of their application is growing, and it is this uncertainty that is the most destabilizing factor for the future.
After the end of the war, the country will inevitably face the reality that millions of weapons will remain in everyday life in the hands of people with combat experience, some of whom have an unstable psycho-emotional state, injuries and a difficult financial situation. In such an environment, there will be an even greater risk of its use in criminal, personal or situational conflicts. If the state does not introduce in advance a comprehensive, accountable and controlled mechanism for regulating the civilian circulation of weapons and clear rules for handling them, then chaotic disarmament or sluggish recalculation will turn into an additional source of danger. In the future, weapons that were supposed to protect society in wartime may become a threat to public order and a catalyst for the escalation of violence in peaceful life.
