Colombia Lifts 10-Year Ban on Concealed Carry Permits

For the first time in over a decade, Colombians holding concealed carry permits will actually be allowed to bear arms in self-defense. President Abelardo de la Espriella signed a decree ending the country’s long-running suspension of all carry permits.

A Decade of “Temporary” Suspension

The ban traces back to December 2015, when then-president Juan Manuel Santos issued a decree suspending carry permits. It was originally supposed to last a little over a month. Instead, it got extended again and again, staying in place for more than ten years under Santos and his successors, conservative Iván Duque and leftist Gustavo Petro alike.

De la Espriella made the point that every gun owner already knew: the ban did nothing to disarm criminals. It only hit law-abiding permit holders. “There is no reason for criminals to be armed to the teeth while decent people cannot defend themselves,” the president said.

He framed the decree as ending the blanket suspension rather than throwing the doors open. “What ends is the general suspension that turned the prohibition into the rule,” he said. “Strict controls, requirements, and permits from the competent authorities remain in place.”

Still a Long Way From Real Carry Rights

Nobody should mistake this for gun-rights heaven. Colombia’s licensing scheme is punishingly strict — California-style permitting with the difficulty dialed well past ten.

To carry legally, an applicant needs a valid permit issued by a military authority, and the specific firearm must be covered by that permit. The authorization doesn’t cover just any gun a person happens to own.

Beyond that, per Bearing Arms’ rundown, applicants must:

• Be at least 25 years old
• Have no criminal record
• Pass a medical certificate and psychophysical fitness assessment proving physical, psychological, and emotional fitness
• Demonstrate theoretical knowledge of firearm handling and use

The cost runs more than $400 to apply. In a country where per capita income sits around $8,500, that’s a serious chunk of change just to defend yourself in public.

There’s no right to keep and bear arms in Colombian law. Carry was first permitted by presidential decree in the early 1990s, and nothing stops de la Espriella or any future president from reimposing a ban. He campaigned on ending the suspension, so this fulfills a promise. Lowering the age, dropping the fitness requirements, and cutting the cost would be the logical next steps, though whether he goes further remains to be seen.

What It Means for North America

Directly, not much. A Colombian decree doesn’t change a single American, Canadian, or Mexican law, and no U.S. gun owner’s rights turn on what Bogotá does. But the framing is worth noting for the domestic debate.

De la Espriella justified the move with numbers American gun owners will recognize instantly: of roughly 15,700 firearms Colombian forces seized in the first eight months of 2026, more than 14,000 were tied to crimes — overwhelmingly weapons in the hands of people who were never going to bother with a permit. That’s the argument stateside advocates have made for years: prohibitions land on the law-abiding while criminals stay armed regardless. When a Latin American government reaches that conclusion and loosens carry instead of tightening it, it undercuts the tidy claim that the rest of the hemisphere has gun control figured out and only America refuses to follow.

The contrast with Mexico is sharpest. Mexico runs one of the most restrictive gun regimes on earth — a single legal gun store in the entire country — yet suffers cartel violence so severe its government tried to sue American gunmakers for $10 billion, a suit the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously tossed last year. Two neighbors, opposite directions: one blaming its bloodshed on American firearms and clamping down, the other conceding that disarming the law-abiding accomplished nothing and easing off. For American gun owners, Colombia isn’t a policy driver so much as a useful data point — one more government admitting, in its own words, that a ban “turned prohibition into the rule” and left decent people defenseless while criminals armed themselves anyway.