We represented a client in an administrative dispute with the Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) concerning the refusal to issue a firearm acquisition permit. The PPA interpreted the Weapons Act narrowly, arguing, among other things, that acquiring an additional firearm for the protection of one’s person and property is not justified if the individual already possesses two firearms for the same purpose.
According to the PPA, one firearm should be sufficient for self‑defence, and the necessity of an additional firearm must be substantiated with separate and significant additional reasons. The Tallinn Administrative Court did not agree with this interpretation.
The law sets no upper limit on firearm ownership
The court emphasised that the Weapons Act allows a private individual to acquire a firearm to ensure personal and property security, and the law does not set an upper limit on the number of firearms a person may own. Therefore, the PPA cannot impose such a restriction through administrative practice, as this would unjustifiably limit rights granted by law.
The court further noted that owning three firearms is not inherently suspicious and does not give grounds to assume that additional firearms are being acquired for purposes other than those provided by law. The client had also presented the police with a reasoned and logical explanation as to why their ownership of an additional firearm was necessary.
The Administrative Court upheld the complaint and annulled the PPA’s decision. Although the PPA initially appealed the ruling, it later withdrew the appeal.
Client team
The client was represented by our partner Norman Aas and assistant lawyer Siim Suiste.
