Serbia's Parliament Passes Arms Law Amid 176 Amendments
In an extraordinary session, the National Assembly adopted the Law on Arms and Ammunition despite 176 opposition amendments, as the government cited public safety and the opposition warned of disarming citizens.
- The National Assembly adopted the draft Law on Arms and Ammunition at an extraordinary session, alongside other agenda items.
- The bill drew 176 amendments, nearly all from opposition benches.
- Assembly Speaker Ana Brnabic set the vote for July 10 at 3 p.m.
- The session was marked by a warning issued to MP Branko Lukic over a remark about the law.
Serbia’s National Assembly adopted the draft Law on Arms and Ammunition at an extraordinary session, closing one of the most contested legislative moves of the current term after a lengthy debate. The vote was held on July 10, after Assembly Speaker Ana Brnabic had confirmed a day earlier that the bill, together with other agenda items, would be decided at 3 p.m.
The law passed with a secure majority of the ruling coalition, but only after a debate in which the text attracted 176 amendments. The overwhelming share came from opposition benches, prolonging the discussion and turning it into one of the more visible political clashes in parliament this year.
Why are the two sides not describing the same law?
The ruling coalition presented the law as a measure taken in the interest of public safety. During the debate, its sponsors repeatedly argued that the point was tighter control, cleaner records and clearer rules for arms owners, at a moment when security ranks high among public concerns.
The opposition read the entire bill differently. Its representatives argue that Serbia’s problem is not legal arms owners, who have already been vetted and registered, but the illegal weapons circulating beyond any oversight. That, they say, is why they filed 176 amendments, warning that the law in its current form misses the real target and instead hits those already inside the system.
That gap in starting assumptions explains why the two sides effectively held two separate debates. For one, the law is a step toward greater safety; for the other, a step toward disarming citizens. Little middle ground remained between those positions, and the tone in the chamber stayed tense for days.
What did the session look like?
The extraordinary session was also shaped by tensions that spilled beyond the subject matter itself. Speaker Ana Brnabic issued a warning to MP Branko Lukic of the “We Are the People’s Strength” group after he said the law looked as if it had been written by women. The warning followed immediately, drew a reaction in the chamber and became one of the most noted moments of the debate.
Such outbursts, however marginal they may seem, show the atmosphere in which the debate over weapons unfolded. Instead of the content of the law and its enforcement staying at the center, part of the attention shifted to the manner in which parliament conducts its discussions.
For the governing majority, passing the law fulfills a stated commitment and signals that safety is a priority. For the opposition, the outcome was expected given the balance of power, though it vowed to keep challenging specific provisions in practice. Now that the law is on the books, the real question is whether stricter rules will actually reach illegal weapons, or whether they will weigh most on those who were already registered. Where, in your view, does the true line run between safety and excessive oversight of citizens?
