Yesterday, Adam Djaziri drove a Renault Mégane into a Paris police convoy on the Champs-Élysées in an act apparently inspired by Islamic chauvinism. Fortunately for humanity, he died for his efforts and no one was injured as a result. According to the BBC, police ” found a Kalashnikov rifle, handguns and gas bottles in the car.”

Mssr. Djaziri was “known to intelligence services.” The 31-year-old from the Parisian suburb of Argenteuil also had contact with another department of the Fifth Republic. Specifically, he had a license to own firearms.

With this bit of official French approval, Mssr. Djaziri legally owned several firearms, including what Agence France Presse calls “Kalashnikov-type assault rifles.”

Like many American gun owners, you probably think that’s a case of ignorant journalists breathlessly describing every firearm as a “Kalashnikov.” How can a French national own an AK — isn’t France the place where gun rights go to die?

No it isn’t — that’s the United Kingdom, twenty miles to the north. Gun rights are still alive for the French citizenry, although it isn’t all sunshine and beignets.

People can actually own — although not necessarily bear — a number of firearms that would make an American feel at home. The approved list includes semi-automatic rifles chambered in 7.62x39mm based on the AK design — provided they’re willing to jump through a number of bureaucratic hoops, including an application process, background checks, firearms training, and even a psychological evaluation.

British writer Alan Pearce, who has enough time living and owning guns in France to write a book on the subject, puts it succinctly: “In France, having a gun is not considered odd.” Click here for TTAG’s review of French gun law.

Suffice to say, Mssr. Djaziri jumped through the requisite hoops to join a club, go through the background check and testing process, obtain a license, purchase legal semi-automatic rifles, and then followed all of the “declaration” and safe storage laws, meaning the Kalashnikov in the backseat of the Mégane may have been legally owned. Even in France.

French government officials are already giving Gallic shrugs and wringing their hands in front of cameras about that.

Prime Minister Edouard Philippe expressed dismay that Djaziri was able to have a gun permit despite being on a jihadist watchlist.
“What I know at this stage is that the first weapons permit was given before this individual was flagged up,” he said in an interview with BFM television and RMC radio.
He added that “nobody can be satisfied — and certainly not me” that Djaziri had still been able to possess dangerous weapons.

There’s another possibility, of course. Djaziri might have simply have purchased a fully-automatic AK illegally on the black market.

France is apparently awash in such things, if you know that right people to ask. He was already planning to break some laws; in for a penny, in for a pound and all that. Background checks and other gun control laws don’t actually stop criminals from acquiring outlawed firearms; they simply stop people who comply with the law from getting them.

Recommended For You

37 Responses to Paris Terrorist Had French Gun License

  1. So naturally the government response will be that they need to punish every other gun license holder in France instead of owning their fukup.

  2. As a french citizen and a proud gun owner, I have to say that this kind of “incident” will have bad repercutions for us, abiding citizens. The Europe already wants us to give up 30 rounds magazines for 10 max ones.
    And, BTW, bearing a gun in France when you’re not Police/Gendarmerie (everywhere/everytime) or Military (only in service) is not authorized at all. You just have the right to own it, and the right to bring it to the shooting range. And during the transportation, it has to be locked, so you can’t use it without losing many minutes.

  3. “Mssr. Djaziri was ‘known to intelligence services.'”

    That phrase is my favorite, followed very closely by “known to police”, so much so that I always skim these attack reports first looking for that nugget. I’m rarely disappointed.

    Think about that: “known to intelligence services.” I’m not saying every such person is guilty or plotting something, but they probably are. We’re not talking about parking tickets here, or even innocuous phone calls swooped up in a national, statist, surveillance net.

    We’re talking about very bad dudes that the spy guys know about and devote resources to. It’s just astonishing that such people, going all the way back to the 9-11 hijackers, still operate with impunity prior to their attacks.

    • It’s really hard to let the security services swoop in and arrest someone just because they think he might be up to no good, and still live in a nation where the citizenry are free and their rights protected.

      It’s probably easier to prevent people with ill intent from coming into the country in the first place. That won’t stop certain ideas from going viral, of course.

      You can do with that what you will.

    • I’m not saying every such person is guilty or plotting something, but they probably are.

      Have you seen the recently FOIA’ed FBI file on Gary Gygax, one of the inventors of Dungeons and Dragons?

      Remember when the FBI classified Juggalos as a “loosely organized hybrid gang?”

      Sometimes all it takes to be on such a list is to have an overly bloated intelligence apparatus that needs to justify its existence.

    • Do not forget that France has been since 2015 in perpetual STATE OF EMERGENCY which effectively allows the state agents to infringe on people’s basic rights, including no-warrant house searches.

      Now the new government proposes new law that would on one hand allow the state of emergency to be lifted, on the other hand preserve most of the state of emergency special authority for the state agents.

      Goodbye civil rights.

        • We had police state here during communism in Czechoslovakia. Say what you want but those bastards were effective.

          What France is getting seems to be loss of civil rights without the effectiveness inherent to a police state.

          That will probably come later. Now the left wing government will curb the rights without delivering any added security and in four years new extreme right government will utilize it for its own goals.

    • Think there is ANY American not known to the NSA? They have you on their servers if you communicate via _______.

    • Careful what you wish for. There are plenty of incompetent people in government, with lots of power. As such, I wouldn’t be surprised if, for example, they looked at the hate / extremist group list compiled by the SPLC and accepted it as valid without questioning it. I mean, even the Oath Keepers are on that list. How long before governments make use of such lists and start surveilling or arresting people, for no other reason than being put on a list by some (most likely libtard) idiot?

    • My favourite in my part of the world is in police reports you hear “the alleged assailants were of Mediterranean or Middle Eastern appearance”.

      This description occurs on average 4-5x more than any other demographic and moreso when that demographic is about 5-10% of the total population.

    • In order to properly watch someone you need a dedicate team of about a dozen agents. Multiply that times the number of people ‘known’ to police and you’d probably need to deputize the entire population to maintain the watch on everyone else.

    • It should be understood that, thanks to the NSA, pretty much every adult American is “known to intelligence services.” That doesn’t mean much any more.
      And because I have traffic tickets (I’ve been driving since the 60s), and those tickets are in the “system,” I’m “known to the police,” as well. How many of us are in the same position?
      Does that mean I should have my guns taken away? That I should be followed by a security person?
      Of course not.
      But this is what passes for journalism, today. Make people afraid; they media is in league with the government (this isn’t a “conspiracy,” and it doesn’t take much to see that), and the government loves fear, because it allows the government to pass laws that restrict the populace.

  4. “What I know at this stage is that the first weapons permit was given before this individual was flagged up,”

    This will soon be followed by, “Better just add more restrictions to all the regular gun owners.”

  5. Why wasn’t his French gun license revoked? “If you revoke the authorisation of someone who is under surveillance, they’re going to know why.”

    Pas de merde, l’inspecteur Clouseau.

    If they’re so damn dangerous that they’re on a terror watch list, is it better to let them kill a bunch of people rather then letting them know that they’re under suspicion? Or is the entire watch list a scam?

  6. Viva la France…you dumb Frogs. “Known to gendarmes” sez it all mon ami. How about no guns for Moose-lims?

    • What good would that do? Almost every Islamic terror attack is carried out with a non-firearm weapon or illegally-obtained guns. Doesn’t seem like banning guns for them would do much to solve the problem.

  7. WOW look how effective the uber strict European gun laws are at preventing “gun violence”! Even the government watch lists will prevent terrorists for easily acquiring firearms! We should adopt their practices immediately, for the children!

    Or maybe the left has just been talking out their “downward facing sunshine holes”

  8. Just because you lean differently in your beliefs to the government you live under does not mean that you are going to murder people and do other terrorist acts. Limiting gun permits to people that only believe the party line is not a free society, it is a totalotarien regime.

  9. I don’t understand why all these countries in Europe where they don’t really have any civil rights doesn’t just ban Muslims.

    They already have a bunch of laws banning hate speech. They don’t even have to ban Muslims. They just have to enforce their hate speech laws against them.

  10. Good post. Needs to be a cornerstone in our rebuttal. IF a nation wants some level of gun-control it needs to pick the level. It’s either: No-issue; Won’t-issue; May-issue; or, Shall-issue. Pick-out whatever level and it’s precise scheme you like; it’s going to be one of these. Pick one.

    For the US, the voters ought to realize that No-issue is out-of-the-question. There would be civil war first. Prospects for Won’t-issue aren’t much better. That leaves May- or Shall-; problem is, France has May-issue and the US is already mostly Shall-issue (or hardly any control at all). Obviously, May- or Shall- still means more than 1 gun for every man, woman and child in the country. Plenty of guns for everyone. Once the gun is in the closet it can be brought-out and borne for whatever purpose its possessor chooses, including terrorism or crime.

    Everyone who wants a gun will either: qualify under the May- or Shall- scheme; or, know someone who does so qualify. The supply of guns can’t be constricted by May- or Shall- to a level low enough to impede a determined terrorist or criminal.

    This is especially so when the group you target to restrict is also a politically FAVORED group. Think of the phrases: “No guns for Negros”; “No guns for Muslims”. The former policy is antithetical in America just as the later is antithetical in France. Just try to impose a stringent May-issue policy to restrict Blacks in the US or Muslims in France who have CLEAN records; the outrage would end any such attempt. (In either case, I would oppose any such attempt on principle.)

  11. Yeah, like criminals and nut jobs bend over backwards to obey any law. See how well it works in commie kalifornia if you doubt me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *