The main argument of those opposing the constitutional change is that "he wants to make a wild west out of the Czech Republic". I think that the choice of the firearm strikes nice balance between the wild west and the need to address the unarmed majority of population with something that won't look too damn scary.
1. The reasons for the proposed constitutional amendment: worsening security in Europe as well as the EU Gun Ban directive proposal
2. Legal arms owners should become a part of security of the country in a way similar to Active Army Reserves (reservists that train for 3 weeks a year).
3. The proposal does not aim at proliferation of firearms or easing legal access to firearms.
4. The existing rules for acquisition of firearms shall be preserved.
5. Use of firearms outside of self defense situation shall be criminal as it has been (the papers labeled the proposal as "kill your terrorist free card")
6. This is part of our long term work on ensuring better public safety, the Brussels attempts did not set it off, just made us proceed faster.
7. If we don't do anything, the EU rules will not only affect all firearms owners, but also owners of air guns, magazines, muzzle guns as well as decommissioned weapons.
8. The difference between legal and illegal firearm cannot rest in its magazine capacity (1:34)
9. Czech citizens have one of the highest number of semi-automatic firearms in Europe, large part of which would be liable to be surrendered under the Directive.
10. Ask yourselves how many of the newly banned firearms will end up on the black market. It is clear that the EU Gun Ban may aid terrorism instead of hindering it.
The Minister of Interior now said that if he doesn't get support of government (aiming at the other coalition parties), he will proceed and introduce the bill in the parliament as his own personal initiative before the autumn election - i.e. after 25 years of gun rights not being politicized, it will become major topic of the autumn parliamentary elections.