STF rapporteur rejected action against training, control and inspection rules for municipal agents; trial started this Friday (May 29th)
Minister Nunes Marques, of the Federal Supreme Court, voted, this Friday (May 29, 2026), to maintain federal training, control and inspection requirements for the carrying of firearms by municipal guards. The ADI (Direct Unconstitutionality Action) trial began at 11 am in the Court’s virtual plenary session.
Nunes Marques rejected a request presented by associations of municipal guards against provisions of the Disarmament Statute that condition the functional possession of a firearm to training, control and inspection requirements. Here is it (PDF – 117 kB).
DISCUSSION ABOUT WEAPON CARRYING
The case analyzes whether the Union can require training, control and supervision to authorize the carrying of weapons by municipal guards. The discussion takes place after the STF recognized, in the ADPF (Argution of Non-Compliance with a Fundamental Precept), that these corporations are part of the public security system, and overturned, in the ADC (Direct Constitutional Action) 38 and the ADI, restrictions on size based on the size of the population of the municipalities.
The action questions items 3 and 4 of article 6 of 2003. The excerpts talk about the authorization for the carrying of firearms by municipal guards, the functional training of agents, the existence of inspection and internal control mechanisms and the supervision of the Ministry of Justice.
The minister stated that the Supreme Court’s legislation and jurisprudence expanded the understanding of the duties of municipal guards, and cited the General Statute of Municipal Guards, from 2014, and the law that created the , from 2018, which included guards among the operational members of public security.
Despite this, the rapporteur said that this evolution does not authorize the exemption from rules for the use of weapons. “The recognition of the constitutional legitimacy of carrying worksl [não] implies automatic exemption from meeting the minimum requirements legally established for the exercise of the prerogative”he stated.
UNDERSTAND THE CASE
In 2021, in the joint judgment of ADC and ADI 5,538, the Court invalidated sections of the Disarmament Statute that limited the carrying of weapons to guards in capitals and municipalities with a certain number of inhabitants. For the STF, the exclusively demographic criterion was not reasonable, because the number of residents does not, in itself, define the need for armed action in public security.
In the vote this Friday (May 29), Nunes Marques stated that the devices discussed now have a different nature. According to him, the rules questioned in ADI 7,717 do not exclude guards from smaller municipalities nor do they create a generic prohibition on possession. They only establish uniform conditions so that the prerogative can be exercised with training and control.
For the rapporteur, it is up to each municipality to decide whether or not to create a municipal guard and whether the corporation will be armed. If you choose to maintain an armed guard, it will be necessary to observe the general rules issued by the Union, which has constitutional competence to legislate on the possession of firearms.
“The discipline established by the federal legislator is intended to ensure minimum standards of technical training, control and supervision for the exercise of functional firearm possession throughout the national territory”wrote Nunes.
