These days, the news of the proposal to amend the law on the use of weapons by armed forces personnel being on the agenda of the parliament and the discussion of changes to the law on the use of weapons and the replacement of the term “armed forces” with “armed personnel” has sparked a heated debate among supporters and opponents of this proposal, and has also caused public concerns and uncertainties.

However, with a brief look at the law “Use of Weapons by Armed Forces Personnel in Necessary Cases, approved in 1994” and comparing it with the proposed bill, it can be understood that the necessity of reviewing and making changes and amendments to this law has been raised by supporters of change and with what approach, and whether this law actually needs amendments or as critics believe, amending this law is just an excuse to expand the scope of armed individuals covered by this law?

Furthermore, the criticism and concerns of critics about opposing the change in the mentioned law due to injecting fear and anxiety into society and creating a sense of insecurity and loss of trust in the government, to what extent is it worthy of attention and investigation? And more importantly, is it possible that through this law, the conditions for suppressing protesters can be made easier by relying on creating legal exceptions?

Armed officers in place of armed forces officers.

In comparing the proposed draft with the previous law, one of the most important changes made is that in Article 1 of this draft, in the title of the law, the phrase “armed forces” is removed from the phrase “use of weapons by authorized armed forces in necessary situations, approved on 18/10/1373”. This means that the phrase “use of weapons by authorized armed forces in necessary situations” is changed to “use of weapons by authorized personnel in necessary situations”. Additionally, the phrase “other individuals authorized to carry weapons according to the law and regulations” has been added to the previous article, and in amendment 2, the condition of legitimate defense has been considered for these individuals as well.

In addition to the fact that in the beginning of Article 3 of this law, the phrase “law enforcement officers” is changed to “officers subject to Article 1 of this law” and in Clause 2 of Article 4, the phrase “military force” is changed to “military and security forces”.

From the perspective of supporters of change and in justifying their support for the amendment bill on the use of weapons, military personnel have faced fundamental limitations under the current law in cases where they have used their weapons, which either ties their hands or leads to their conviction in court for violating the law. Therefore, according to them, changing the law, clarifying it, and expanding its scope is necessary, and they believe that the development and amendment of this law can potentially prevent crimes by criminals and also have a significant impact on the safety of judicial and military officials and law enforcement officers. As a result, the power and strength of security forces against criminals and individuals who threaten the lives, property, honor, and safety of society and its people will increase, and in turn, the level of security for the community and its citizens will also increase.

However, critics of this law, which is only a few steps away from being finalized, look at the issue from another perspective and believe that the current law does not need to be changed or amended under the influence of temporary emotions. Hasty and impulsive changes to laws under the shadow of political decisions can have negative and damaging consequences, for which not only society will pay the price, but also the government will not be safe from loss and harm.

Although the approval of such laws is monitored by the General Staff of the Armed Forces, it cannot be guaranteed that the necessary sensitivities have been properly taken into account.

From the opposing point of view, with this law, security officials, known in society for their personal attire, will have the right to carry weapons and permission to shoot at individuals. This could lead to injustice and abuse of the law, as well as lack of punishment for armed individuals who have not received sufficient training and use their weapons inappropriately under the pretext of self-defense and the existence of legal exceptions, influenced by emotions and feelings, to use the weapon that has been given to them.

Furthermore, considering the increasing level and scope of economic dissatisfaction among the people and protests by various groups such as workers and teachers demanding their overdue rights, which have arisen from the critical economic conditions in recent years, it is predicted that the presentation and approval of such bills will practically give the government a free hand to suppress potential protests and subsequently give the “security forces” more leeway to use firearms against protesters, which is a clear violation of the constitution and citizens’ rights.

According to opponents, the proposed law, which includes anyone who has been given access to firearms (including military and law enforcement personnel, Basij, Revolutionary Guard, Ministry of Intelligence officials, and even members of parliament), will not lead to a brighter future for the subject forces of Article 1. From now on, the use of weapons under the pretext of protecting life and honor, rebellion, and turmoil can have an increasing trend and deprive citizens of a sense of security in society.

However, regardless of the perspectives of supporters and concerns of opponents, which can be evaluated positively or negatively in certain cases, examining the issue of social security as a type and level of people’s sense of security and the relationship between the nation and government, in which enacted laws play a fundamental role, requires mentioning a few essential points:

“In the Constitution of the Islamic Republic, multiple principles have been dedicated to the individual, social, and judicial rights and freedoms of the people. In this regard, the third chapter of the Constitution is dedicated to the rights of the nation. However, among the most important rights and freedoms mentioned in this chapter are the right of the people to security and immunity in terms of dignity, life, property, rights, housing, and occupation, the right to enjoy group freedoms such as forming parties, associations, political and trade unions, and Islamic associations and processions, the right to judicial security and immunity, innocence, prohibition of torture, and protection against violation of dignity and assault. In fact, the Constitution is a national covenant that brings the people and the government together in their interaction of rights and responsibilities.”

Protecting the dignity of individuals and maintaining security in society, as well as safeguarding their individual rights, including judicial rights, are just some of the responsibilities of the government and authority towards citizens.

Furthermore, according to Article 13 of the Charter of Citizens’ Rights, every citizen has the right to be secure in their life, property, dignity, legal rights, judicial rights, occupation, social rights, and similar rights. No authority should violate or threaten the security, rights, and legitimate freedoms of citizens and their dignity and honor in the name of providing security. It is clear that passing such laws violates the Constitution and citizens’ rights and endangers the mental health of society by instilling a sense of insecurity.

From the perspective of psychologists, the first condition for mental health is having a sense of psychological security, and the need of every society is more than just well-being and comfort, it is psychological security. The presence of a feeling of insecurity is highly stressful and anxiety-provoking, and anxiety is also one of the fundamental factors of neurological and psychological disorders.

Abraham Maslow is one of the founders of the humanistic approach to psychology, known for his theory of the hierarchy of human needs.

According to Maslow, the need for security is the second human need after biological needs. When the biological needs of individuals in society are relatively met, a higher level of needs, known as security needs, emerge. These needs include security, stability, a sense of belonging, protection, freedom from fear, lack of anxiety and chaos, the need for structure and organization, order, law and boundaries, having a powerful protector and justice. The needs related to the security of society become urgent in a situation where the law, order and power institutions are threatening. In response to the feeling of danger and insecurity, individuals in society reduce their level of needs to those related to security and distance themselves from self-defense and authority, and at the same level of Maslow’s hierarchy, they struggle with their most basic demands.

The final word is that the lack of trust in the government and the lack of feeling of security in society is a smoke that will simultaneously burn both the people and the government.