a person asks the minister of internal affairs and the minister will not be able to give an answer because no one will obey the police instructions, which are not provided for by law, the circulation of any things can be prohibited or restricted only by the law of ukraine adopted by the parliament and written by the president and mykola, we are talking about the new projection laws are only about the ability to keep a short-barreled weapon at home and use it to protect your home or estate, or are we talking about a permit to carry this short-barreled weapon there, concealed carry public places or about what exactly. explain, see , uh, it was adopted in the first reading, it does not provide for the right, in principle, to exercise on a short barrel only for

athletes. unworthy yes, because i am not talking about military servicemen or employees of law enforcement agencies, this statute was developed for them, the appropriate disciplinary and, accordingly, departmental award, but people who do not fall no no serve in the relevant department, they do not have the right to a departmental award. and in our country, deputy assistants were awarded. there are various, uh, selected people close to the government. the right of citizens to carry a concealed short-barreled weapon for self-defense, what does this

mean that a person who has passed our training can be a policeman for himself, that is, if a citizen decides to have, then to have means of self-defense yes such as a short-barreled weapon and he needs it in his life because he is engaged in some kind of risky activity, is it a journalist, or is it possible to be a detective , or is it even a lawyer? to be his own policeman and not wait for the police to come to him and he goes through the same training as the policemen went through in order to protect themselves and other people and no one can deprive a person of such a natural right, well that's it sorting out the functions of law enforcement agencies and human rights defenders, but there is another side of the coin, too, that how

do we get certificates, for example, about the necessary doctors from there, about the state of health, and well , there may be cases when weapons end up in the hands of reliable people who can pose a threat to the masses, believe me, no, no, not a registered weapon, yes, not a registered weapon. she is already among those people whom people are afraid of, who have evil intentions, such people do not need registered, registered weapons, those people for such there is a so-called black market for weapons, and i do not take over any of the functions of the state. the state exists for the sake of my rights. we ukrainians created our state for our

state. are derived from our framework to protect ourselves and others , the state does not always perform its function well, the fact that the state exists in the state, there is corruption and some certificates are issued by someone there, and the state does not ensure compliance with this, control cannot deprive me e.e. the right to access means for self-defense. it is good that there is a state. it is good that there is a good police. but no matter how good it is, i will not give up my right to protection, but in this law, the draft law that is in the council and in your opinion should be there to change something, to make some changes, you know, at the beginning of the war , there were people's deputies, in particular , deputy igor, were there appropriate amendments that expanded the right of citizens to

weapons of self-defense. i think that it would have been better to adopt an alternative bill because he is as a result of many years of work and uh. let's say that this bill is uh, it came out of previous bills that were submitted to the verkhovna rada of the last convocation, it would be better to adopt complete documents. can regulate everything correctly and provide for proper control provide for an electronic register of weapons yes because when we talk about weapons we must treat them like a car we don't give up driving a car just because that there is public transport. yes, we are denying the right to have your own personality here.

transport, this also applies to weapons, er, as regards control. it is precisely the state that must improve control, and citizens must educate the culture of handling weapons, because the culture of behavior on the road, or the culture of behavior with weapons with such and such means of increased danger, well, it is very timely and in the future we will all have to prepare for the fact that this should become mass culture, uh, self-defense with such neighbors, mr. mykola, this law will solve all problems self-defense, or what else does she need? we said that in our country, self-defense is considered murder. so you, as a lawyer, may have had such precedents. well, what else do we need to change in the legislation? for this, i believe, in ukraine, the right to defense is guaranteed. properly and by the constitution, the basic law and the

criminal code provide that when causing harm to another person is not considered a crime, these are cases of precisely the necessary defense . he was killed, now they are on trial for this, they are accusing him of intentionality, i can say that it is a right, in itself, if it is even well written in the law, it will protect everything for the right, you have to fight. these are cases about self-defense. how are you, serhiy sternenka, they are create, shape our state's practice of law enforcement, when people will know how to distinguish the boundaries of their behavior from lawful and unlawful, when we will distinguish intentional murder from lawful deprivation of the life of a

criminal. so, a person who chose to attack another a person and cause harm to health or life or to take his life, she with such a decision of her own free will refused to protect her rightful life. so she made a choice on the path to her death or to her injuries when she made the decision to commit a crime in our legislation, it is written quite well in our country, and in principle the doctrine of standiground applies, which is not even written in every state in the usa. this means that when someone illegally encroaches on us, we do not attack are obliged to avoid this attack, and we have the right to defend ourselves, regardless of the ability to call someone there, the police, or someone else for help. that is, the right to defense is absolutely guaranteed to us,

so it is another matter whether in those circumstances we exceeded the limits of this necessary defense, were our actions sufficient in such a situation, yes, because the situation was different, but we must know if a group of people attacks us, that is, two or more people, if they enter our house in a violent way, our premises if we are attacked an armed person, then in such cases we can inflict any harm to our partner of any degree of severity and even cause his death . our defenders of ukraine today are not murderers , they are beautiful defenders who rightfully take the lives of criminals of the russian occupiers thank you for your personal life mykola orekhovsky

lawyer ukrainian association of weapon owners thank you very much for the expert comments on our broadcast from weapons to the church and we wish you health, next we will talk about the cathedral of the ukrainian orthodox churches of the moscow patriarchate, this oxymoron continues to exist in our country and occupies state property, our lavras are so kyiv-pechersk, and what else will we talk about there? we will add viktor yelenskyi, a religious expert, please tell me for now, let's reflect on weapons, because you have to adopt this law in the second reading, so why did they get it now they got it they didn't get it now they got it what do you think of the results of this survey, why did it get it

got it because in fact now there are more weapons in the hands of the country than ever and accordingly what to do with it next, how to behave eh question yes until then we did not want to legalize anything on the way that most countries, in a way where whoever owns it, must be able to use it, understand the responsibility and bear it accordingly in the day of a large-scale invasion of weapons are distributed - well, for protection, they were distributed en masse and now there are a lot of questions that what to do with it, of course there will be people who will not want to give up and, accordingly, the question of how we all continue to live. it is good that we are asking this question. provided that now and we then when there will be victory and i think that of course it will never happen the simple question of owning weapons and how many people own them, but exactly what should we do about it, because in some legal organizational way, with what

mr. mykola said, i mostly agree with the details of how exactly to allow which weapons. of course, we will listen to experts, specialists in we are andrii sharatsky, he was a long time ago, he passed this bill , or it is far from a large-scale invasion, and he just got it now, and accordingly , how we will vote will depend on what its content will be, that is, if there are any unexpected changes above, your position is not defined, but how you are referring to the issue of weapons. well, i think that in reality the situation of which countries. let's say that there are 140 million people who are now. well, to be more precise, 86% of those who support the war in ukraine are not divided anywhere , and in any case, you have to be able to to defend oneself in any case, it is necessary to educate a responsible society that can own weapons but understands what responsibility and what consequences it carries. therefore, it is a very complex need ecologically

, so that it is taught in school, but not in the soviet way that we had, but in such a way how about israel, one of the countries that has a constant war, look, i actually think that practice should be taken from them, just like the construction of houses with bomb shelters, the construction of schools with bomb shelters, and to continue, we must always be ready for that that when this last evil empire falls, people who were raised in the doctrine of aggression and genocide, ukrainians will not go anywhere, we must be ready for it . viktor well, let's talk about a purely religious matter, this is literally the informational message from the day before yesterday of the diocese of the ukrainian orthodox church of the moscow

patriarchate of the uoc mp in the occupied city of rovenki the church of luhansk oblast announced on the last day of spring that it does not support the decision of the council of the ukrainian orthodox church of the russian orthodox church regarding independence from the russian orthodox church. the meeting of clergy and clergy of the rivenkiv diocese passed the following decision to stop the commemoration of metropolitan onufriy during the service as the head of the uoc of rivenkiv from the sverdlovsk diocese. they remain under the omophorion of the most holy patriarch of moscow . and of all russia kirill refers to kirill gundyaev is meant in the message of the diocese of ukraine the orthodox church of the moscow patriarchate in the city of rovenka, luhansk region, has occupied territory, and this is not the only, not the only, statement to the regional branches of the uoc-mp, not the only reaction of a similar type to the decision of the last council of the uoc-mp, which is happening inside the uoc-

mp itself, or the uoc, as they call themselves at the moment, please. well, you see the dioceses that are under occupation. we can't even conclude how they really reacted to this cathedral , because there are, for example, testimonies that when were included in the meeting of the council by zoom, then e. behind some er-e hierarchs there were people in civilian clothes, but in principle i agree with those who believe that the decisive role in the formation of the ukrainian orthodox church of the former moscow patriarchate belongs to the armed forces of the armed forces of ukraine what happened er at the cathedral on may 27

- this is the result of very strong pressure from the laymen and the clergy of the ukrainian orthodox church of the moscow patriarchate, who were very, very painful even before the large-scale invasion e-e to the fact that they are under house arrest or under the control of the moscow patriarchate, to be more precise, and this is also pressure from the ukrainian society, which in no way can accept the presence of structures of the moscow patriarchate on the territory of ukraine, of course, after these decisions were made after the congregants deleted all references to the moscow patriarchate from the charter, well, the situation did not become tectonically different, as it was announced, if you

remember once, e.e. mikhail sholokhov nobelivskyi the laureate said to the reproaches of the western public that they say you are writing on the instructions of the party. he replied that no, we write according to the dictates of our hearts, and our heart, in turn, belongs to the party here. it is about the same for many bishops of the ukrainian orthodox church of the moscow patriarchate . the light shone for a very long time only from moscow, they spent a lot of effort to discredit first the kyiv patriarchate, then the orthodox church of ukraine, then the patriarch of constantinople, bartholomew, then the patriarch of alexandria, then the church of ireland, then the church of kyiv, and now they have found themselves in a situation which, to say the least, such

correct economists define as a structure with an unsettled canonical status, that is, even after they cleared everything about er moscow, it is not clear to the end what their canonical status is - this is on the one hand and on the other hand, they say that we did not break prayer communication with moscow, but instead they do not have prayer communication with constantinople and, above all, there is no prayer communication with their brothers, that is, how before they can clean themselves with a single cup with these criminals, marauders and murderers, and they cannot with the defenders of ukraine who belong to the orthodox church of ukraine, so to put it simply, this is the conclusion of this council. i think that it is now

for many priests. at least we know about four hundred such uh, the time will come when they will have to answer themselves not slyly to those questions to which the holy head of the moscow patriarchate of the uoc answered slyly and soberly and intelligently with uh, not only with economic but with a christian consciousness ms. natalya, how do you assess what is happening now in that e-e organization that p victors called a structure with an unsettled canonical status of the uoc uoc mp well, they call themselves simply the uoc, please yes i support first of all the unsettled canonical status i i would call it belonging, first of all, that

it is not a church, but a structure under the control of the fsb. the church wanted if there were any changes, it would become a part of the orthodox church of ukraine, because then it was primarily about the parishioners, the teachings of these churches were in fact the same, only the question of who is in charge, whether i am the government, who makes decisions, who distributes funds, and so on. that is, it is clear that the council said that they do not want to unite the orthodox church of ukraine, in fact there is such a wording that they even accuse that the orthodox church of ukraine is not what you would like it to be and does whatever actions you would not like, therefore also in the statute of this church is written here, it can be changed only with the approval of the primary organization, that is, with moscow, so the question is how legitimate are these changes to the charter. if their charter had such

things, and is this really the initiative of onufria, is it the initiative of kirill, after all ? well, if under the influence of a political situation somewhere, well, that is, to have to repaint, well, if you want to call everything that we from moscow, from uh, united because they understand that , accordingly, the parishioners will fall away from this church, but in fact they will continue to be the same and to act er act the same as they used to do if nothing good comes from this synod and from the so-called separation i expect that the sbu is of all that i know about the case only one of er when criminal proceedings are opened but only one thing happened at a time when even we in the mass media see a lot of when the priests of the moscow patriarchate surrendered

the positions of our military . first of all, they should be dealt with by the sbu and they should be responsible for the laws on collaborationism. well, the orthodox church of ukraine has already created a men's monastery in the lavra and asked the government to transfer to the orthodox church of ukraine what are the only canonical orthodox churches of the metropolis of ukraine. one of the churches of the upper kiev -pechersk lavra belongs to the state. lease the russian orthodox church or the ukrainian orthodox church of the moscow patriarchate who wants it, let it be called that what do you think the state has to do in this situation and what should it do about it property that is leased, in fact, to the church, which is managed from the territory of the occupying country

, and no religious communities or so-called religious communities that act to the detriment of ukraine have been transferred, therefore , there is a place where nadiya needs to be dotted for a long time, and now, you know, this is already a political con juncture that it is difficult to imagine a stronger pressure on the cabinet of ministers when they have to understand this and no so -called religious organizations, in particular the moscow patriarchate, do not give churches that are key and for ukrainians that have pechersk lavra and pochaivska lavra and accordingly, we initiated this appeal was one of those signatories who say that any of the transfer of such key temples to the use of the moscow patriarchate is er-er completely missed you, we also initiated these finally voted sanctions against kirill i know that in reality there was a lot of opposition among the monomajority, but the president insisted, in particular, on what was on

the agenda to include eight people against whom sanctions were imposed, in particular, fighting the so-called and there spawning and the so-called cabin, if i am not mistaken the one who is called a gymnast, who is called putin's mistress, finally the ukrainian parliament and the government managed to call a spade a spade, and as we now know hungary, this was included in the sanctions package, and hungary is now against imposing sanctions on kirill and the interesting cnc because if he is really the leader of the religious community of the church, so why should he worry about economic sanctions on him, so i think that we must work as a domestic policy and continue to insist on banning the church completely, no matter how it behaves called which works to the detriment of ukraine and not to rent out the main shrines, viktor, how exactly should we act now in the state, who exactly should do this, or the security service of ukraine, what should they

be, so that everything is legal and normal, if it is about sanctions, then sanctions there are missing several key characters of the moscow patriarchate, which deals with the so-called ukrainian direction, and in particular one refugee, andriy novikov, who was even considered for the position of one of the training leaders of the odesa people's republic if such a thing were to happen and as for the steps that the state needs to take for church policy, first of all, it should return to the fact that church policy should exist for two or three years, there was no such policy at all and it

was adopted in my opinion, non- intervention is a wrong strategy, it would be good if the russian federation did not interfere, if the enemy did not interfere in church affairs on a large scale with the involvement of literally the entire machine and diplomacy and intelligence and the fsb and so on and so on it is not just a lot secondly, the policy of not supporting the orthodox church of ukraine for these three years was wrong, and the policy of curtailing diplomatic efforts aimed at the recognition of the orthodox church of ukraine by other local churches was equally wrong. because the orthodox church of ukraine has one powerful

ally - it is one or two ukrainian society and the ukrainian state. they understand this in the west and in the east, but until now they did not understand in ukraine itself. further, these efforts should be directed at in order to attract the support of the islamic states, the bets that were made on this islamic issue during these years were also wrong and of the protestant centers. it is simply amazing that ukraine is one of the largest centers of evangelical movements in the whole of europe, but with the world alliance of baptists, moscow works with some protestant centers and movements

, uh, moscow works, and when in uh congress, in both houses of congress, the united states of america has dozens of baptists and pentecostals and in the very ukraine also has those baptists who are pentecostals who are ready, with the support of the ukrainian state, to attract the support of these people for the benefit of ukraine. to put it even more simply, ukraine has a state body in matters of religion that must and is obliged to do this, and when in 2000 , at the beginning of 2019, i ran around all the offices so that this body would start working, so it should have focused on religious policy in the policy regarding the nationals, i could not have imagined that it

would be ms. nataliya is such a useless tool i wanted to have literally a minute left , but returning to hungary's demand to exclude kirill from the list of personal sanctions of the european union, where is hungary? well, it seems to be a catholic country. if i'm not mistaken, where is kirill and the russian orthodox church? put together this puzzle, why is it formed like this, uh, such a union through the state religious bodies of russia and hungary, taking into account the situation in hungary in recent years, how mr. orban is rapidly coming to power how did he monopolize how he signed the constitution. we can say that there is a person in the european union who is inclined to totalitarianism. this is probably the main key. why is he

ready to speak out against the sanction of kirill ? mainly in hungary , that's why i think it's about some kind of negotiations between russia and hungary because of a variable currency , gas or some other things, but i think that there must be an influence of a. i deeply studied a as an orbán show from a liberal to er, a person who is big usurps power and how hungary has changed over the years, i think the answer lies precisely in this plane. thank you very much . i am ready to tell us everything, just one word, thank you, colleagues, for your re work