A Serbian police officer has been suspended after an illegal automatic rifle was discovered in his home, reigniting a volatile debate over gun control and the integrity of law‑enforcement in the Western Balkans. The incident, reported in December 2025, has already become a flashpoint for critics who argue that police officers should be the last people to breach the country’s strict firearms legislation.
The only verifiable fact is that the officer was temporarily removed from duty following the find; the media have not disclosed his name, the exact date of the discovery, the residence’s location, or the make of the weapon. The Ministry of Internal Affairs (MUP) confirmed the suspension and announced a rapid “door‑to‑door” verification of firearm licences for police personnel, but stopped short of detailing any further disciplinary or investigative steps.
Serbia’s legal regime classifies automatic rifles as Category A weapons, which are prohibited for civilian ownership under the 2015 Law on Weapons and Ammunition. Only the armed forces or police units with a specific exemption may possess such firearms, and any deviation constitutes a direct breach of the law. Complementary to this, Criminal Procedure Law § 530.14 obliges the competent authority to suspend or revoke a firearm licence when the holder is found in violation of weapons legislation, providing an immediate administrative sanction while criminal proceedings unfold.
Applying those statutes, the officer’s possession of an unauthorised automatic rifle would appear to contravene at least two legal requirements: the categorical prohibition on civilian ownership of Category A arms and the licence‑suspension clause that mandates swift administrative action. In practice, this means the temporary suspension is a textbook response under § 530.14, pending a fuller investigation that could lead to licence revocation or criminal charges.
MUP’s public response has been limited to the short‑term suspension and the licence‑verification sweep. No official statement has outlined a systematic audit of police armories, a revocation of the officer’s licence, or any legislative amendment to tighten oversight. The absence of a comprehensive remedial plan leaves the broader issue of how police firearms are monitored largely unaddressed.
Civil‑society commentators have seized on the episode as evidence that the police force needs tighter oversight, arguing that the scandal undermines public trust in an institution already under scrutiny from EU reform initiatives. While the media have reported a generic call for the interior ministry to “rectify this oversight,” no specific proposals, petitions, or polling data have been published to substantiate the scale of public outrage.
The episode highlights a troubling opacity in Serbia’s handling of police‑related firearms violations. Without the officer’s identity, the precise statutory articles invoked, or a clear roadmap for institutional reform, analysts cannot fully assess whether the current legal framework is being enforced effectively. Greater transparency—through timely press releases, publication of investigation findings, and a definitive policy response—would be essential to restore confidence and demonstrate that the rule of law applies equally to those sworn to uphold it.
Image Source: www.dreamstime.com
