There are so many such cases in Poland, including famous shooting ranges and huge shooting ranges that have been operating for 130 years and are now being closed down, it's madness. We are sitting on B4ce Prochu. Officials are creating their own completely alternative state. Officials are not allowed to make decisions based on counter-arguments that contradict the content of the regulations, but they do so. We report, uh, notifications, information to the military counterintelligence service, sometimes to the internal security agency, to verify and check these people who attack these shooting ranges, because we don't want to believe that suddenly when the situation is as geopolitical and military as it is, Poland is currently the largest theater of Russian intelligence operations in the world, not in the region, but in the world, of course the Russian Federation must see this, the FSB must see this, must see that these shooting ranges are generally increasing, and therefore considers it a potential threat to the strategic interests of the Russian Federation, because if they didn't make a sensation out of it, there would n't be a problem. But which television stations do this? Just take a look at which television stations are broadcasting these intervention programs and consider how sovereign they are . Well, if you give such a narrative, you create such a narrative, you distort the proportions, you distort the image of society, right? A herd of foreign troops is coming, they don't respect this territory, they want to take it over and they see women and children on the way. So what does he do with it? Well, everyone can imagine and history shows what it does. I am saying this on purpose and emphasizing it, that listen, if you do not respect us, there will be those who will not respect you. And dear ladies, we men respect you very much in Poland. It's men who really respect women, I think, being maybe the best in the world. You must understand that you cannot attack us because we are training to protect you, not the other way around. Arrow toolo. Welcome to the Strzelce channel. Listen, today's a new format, I hope it catches on and we'll get straight to the point. And the first episode about shooting ranges. A rather controversial topic. Some say that setting up a shooting range is impossible, others say it is a painful process, and still others say it is quite simple . And today I would like to talk about it with Professor Mariusz Miąsko, who, let me tell you, helped me open my own shooting range. Hello, Mr. Professor. Hello. I am very pleased to meet you in person. Yeah, well, yeah. Our first episode about shooting ranges was on another channel, Gunmaster. There he gained a lot of popularity. You asked a lot of questions. I have collected all these questions and we will, of course, use them in the next episode with the professor. And today we will start a little more generally and with a first introductory question. Could you tell me a little about yourself? What do you do professionally and privately? What are you interested in? Mhm. Well, I think my life is quite interdisciplinary . First of all, by education I am a lawyer and of course I practice this profession. I own a law firm called Wigen Law Firm. If anyone needs good legal services, I encourage and invite them. I'm very sorry. I couldn't resist. I am also an academic lecturer. I lectured at a total of four universities. I am currently lecturing at the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Warsaw, where I am a professor and teach law. Um, most of the subjects I've taught are somehow related to service pragmatics. I most often taught military and humanitarian law in fields such as defense or cybersecurity or related subjects. However, I also have other items. due to the fact that I am a lawyer. Indeed, it helped me a lot when organizing and establishing shooting ranges, because I carried out what is probably the only comprehensive analysis of this kind in Poland so far of the legal regulations that allow all of us, the state, to establish shooting ranges. I am a shooter, I am a shooting instructor, I am an instructor of clay techniques, and I specialize in this, I cannot climb mountains. however, it specializes in rope assaults such as those related to preparing for the release of hostages or rope assaults of cubic capacity. I am a martial arts instructor. I once even won the Polish fighting championship in my weight category. I was even in the national team. Therefore, I have many of these competences. I also have detective qualifications. I currently hold five different jobs. I am an inventor. I have several patents and industrial designs. I write software. I have produced at least nine computer programs in my life. For some of them I was rewarded, for example, by IBM. I received an award for super innovative software. At this moment, for example, together with Professor Krokewicz from the Wrocław University of Science and Technology, we are preparing what I think is the work of my life in terms of this legal achievement, namely a new concept of legal interpretation. We are trying to make the law finally deterministic and fair. Great work also fascinates me, so I try to carry out only those tasks and issues in my life that fascinate me. If anyone would like to learn more about what I do in life, please visit my website www.muszmiako.pl. Among other things, I recently organized a new association together with my colleagues . National Shield Association . This is an association that was created as a result of the many problems experienced by shooting range owners or people who wanted to set up a shooting range, like you. You have organised it very beautifully here . We managed to organize it. We put in a lot of effort and we are successful, but you have to know that many people, despite two or three years of effort, still have an uphill struggle. Others, in turn, organized a shooting range, but various kinds of activities, I think of them also as having an agential character, some resulting from abdication, others probably resulting from some agential activities. Many shooting ranges are unfortunately being closed. and really a lot. I do n't even think you realize how many of these cases there are in Poland, including famous shooting ranges and huge shooting ranges that have been operating for 130 years and are now being closed down, so I decided to establish the National Shield association. I invited colleagues, shooters, former military people, enthusiasts, very different interdisciplinary and cross-sectional people. This is company and experts in the best sense of the word. And this national shield has one purpose. What is a shield? Protect first and foremost . Protect against officials who do not want to establish a shooting range. Protect against officials who want to liquidate. protect against agents and therefore I cordially invite all owners of shooting ranges or those who would like to set up a shooting range and have applied unsuccessfully to set up a shooting range to join. In this respect, I have prepared a draft amendment to the Weapons and Ammunition Act, which still needs to be refined, polished and submitted to the legislative process. In this area, I have a lot of experience, because for 25 years I have been participating in the legislative process with successive governments and ministries. Quite a lot of recipes in Poland are my own. I think that you, many of you, are benefiting from the regulations that I developed and managed to implement into law, and that they are ultimately voted on and signed by the President of the Republic of Poland. So I believe that we will also successfully change and amend the current legal status of the ammunition collection act, which gives far too much power to local government officials, preventing us from establishing new shooting ranges and closing down existing ones. these plans are much further advanced. However, I try to compile all my life and professional experiences to achieve various goals. Well, because I am a lawyer, because I lecture on the principles of legal interpretation, because I lecture on the principles of creating law in Poland, because I have participated in many legislative processes over the years, I decided to serve the shooting community. We currently have a draft amendment to the Weapons and Ammunition Act, which does not concern research. In my opinion, after the first reading it is extremely unfavorable. I see no reason or need to change regulations that have not caused any problems so far. So, as part of the National Shield, I prepared just such a petition to the President of the Republic of Poland not to sign it. If this project were to actually come to fruition, I would not sign this bill, because I believe that these are only regulations of an oppressive nature towards our environment. The interest of the PZS-U and perhaps the interest of some lobbying circles, perhaps related to the medical field, although I did not grab anyone's hand in connection with the above. So I say, maybe, but maybe it is so that we can introduce these studies so that, to put it simply, we can be providers of financial resources. But if no cascade of critical events has been recorded so far, and no results have been reported in the shooting community or are flowing from the shooting community because we do not conduct these tests so often, then why create empty laws and fictitious laws? The general rule is that you do not create unnecessary laws. And this is a classic example of unnecessary law, right? Because if we were currently experiencing a rash of cases where the shooters, I don't know, it turns out they were under the influence of some emotional, mental or psychiatric disorders, behaving inappropriately, shooting in the streets, then I understand that there would be a need to conduct such studies, but if this problem doesn't exist, how can you solve a problem that doesn't exist, right? Yes, Professor, maybe it is based on these events, these accidents and hunters, where a hunter shot someone or another hunter and they also want to classify it as sport shooters, which makes no sense. So if that's the case, if that's the case, then first of all, it doesn't expand, it shouldn't expand to a group that the problem doesn't concern. Well, maybe it concerns a hunter, I don't know if that's the case . But if that were the case, then perhaps it should be regulated in relation to hunters. But you know from this that in aviation there is a specific, and this is also a means of communication, and we drive a car, which is also a means of communication. Just because a specific problem occurs in one means of communication doesn't mean that other areas should be stigmatized because of it , right? If there is a requirement for pilots to undergo some tests, it does not mean that there is an immediate such obligation for drivers. Of course, but immediately politicians have an excuse to make a sport shooter look bad. I think politicians are one thing, but I would take a closer look at who was actually involved in the legislative process , who was invited as an expert to the subcommittee, because I would like to find out whether there was any economic intention there. I'm not saying anything categorically, but I'll take a look at it and see if there wasn't some form of lobbying, because if we, as an environment of several hundred thousand AB shooters, are growing every year, we're a great area, so to speak, potentially providing financial support to other pockets, right? Well, then what, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there are some hidden, hidden, so to speak, intentions behind it. I'm not saying that they would n't be exposed to some kind of lawsuit on this account, but I don't rule it out and that's something we need to look at very carefully and oppose. I mean, you should clearly sign the petition. I will prepare such a petition in electronic form through you, and if you wish, we will distribute it to the Strzelec, to the president. About not signing such a bill. Problems that do not exist by law are not solved. People used to say, I'm born in '75, most of you are probably much younger, so you don't remember the times before 1989, when socialism fell in Poland, but they said that socialism is a system that solves problems that don't exist in other systems. Well, we joined the European Union and we have this very case. This is not politics, so you don't think I'm getting into politics here, I'm just saying that we've entered a time when we're starting to solve problems that don't, that objectively don't exist. An identical case occurred when our community united brilliantly, and the shooting community wanted to impose certain restrictions on us, a certain muzzle. You may not remember, but it was probably 4-5 years ago. There was a draft amendment to the Act on Weapons and Ammunition prepared by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which was intended to take away from us the so-called particularly dangerous weapons, i.e. rifles and submachine guns with magazines above the specified number of pieces, if I remember correctly, five. it was believed that the same rifle or the same submachine gun would be less dangerous if it had less ammunition. It won't be particularly dangerous. I remember my friend Wyśmień, an instructor I think was probably the best tactical shooting instructor in Poland. Moreover, he was a former official of the government protection office, the president's protection office from the best times of the government protection office . Darek Czekalski, owner of the Zenit 9 system. I believe that this is currently the best tactical system in Poland, for sure, and perhaps one of the best in the world. he goes far beyond just the shooting aspect itself. It was Darek who suggested that maybe I should consolidate the shooting community at that time and oppose this legislative madness. And so it happened. I called one of the national television stations and at the shooting range in Sławków, not so far from here, because we are in Częstochowa, not so far from here, we organized two such broadcasts. Indeed, the future Riflemen came in droves, and you can find recordings of this event on the Internet. We did two shows. These broadcasts were live and if I remember correctly, 15 minutes after the first one was broadcast, the first deputy minister called and said that maybe it was a mistake. I was pointing out then that taking away our long guns and submachine guns in the geopolitical situation we are in , well, that's madness, right? Because we are sitting in a powder keg and disarming Poland, which at that time was the second most disarmed. We had the lowest weapon ratio per 100,000 inhabitants. I guess Latvia was just behind us. Well, this is totally irrational. And our pressure was effective. There, after three months, the Ministry of Internal Affairs tried to amend the act again. We then did one more extra show, and then there was a very short third show. Well, luckily we as a community extinguished it, I mean, the government didn't do it, our pressure did it, all of us, right, from the bottom up. And now what I am organizing now, that is, with this national shield for the purpose that I am talking about and that is why I am inviting you, that there is strength in unity . And now if I have this amendment to the law on weapons and ammunition, which requires us to impose on the convict the performance of unnecessary tests that have not been needed for anything for the last 20 years. So why wouldn't they suddenly be more necessary if they were unnecessary? turned out to be physically, in practice they turned out to be ineffective. So that's why I'm saying I'm preparing this petition to the president. Even at this stage, it may be necessary to prepare an urgent petition and send it to parliamentarians to block these regulations. On the one hand, we live in a state of fiction so that you don't think that I'm getting involved in any politics. Well, here the government says that it is establishing some kind of deregulation institute, some kind of unit, some kind of deregulation cell, and at the same time it is adding unnecessary regulations to us, which are unnecessary for us, for the environment. We, as the shooting community, care about the good reputation of our community and are the first to eliminate all poisoned fruit, so to speak, or rotten apples, because this would be harmful to us as an environment. But we, as a shooting community, do not see this problem at all . It doesn't exist because it doesn't exist, as the statistics show. It's not because we don't see it, because we're looking too close, or too short, but because the statistics contradict the government's view that there is a problem. Well, if there is no increase, there is a drastic increase in the number of shooters and there is no increase, no increase in the threat of critical cases, then what is the point of adding regulations? In Poland, it increases every year, I used to import an average of 33,000 pages of recipes per year. 33,000 pages of regulations per year. So you're wondering, what is regulated? Well, such things are regulated. I mean, he says on TV that we have some kind of deregulation. Brzoska is taken with all due respect to Mr. Brzoska. It is said that one takes such a flag, such a pennant, which one shows that something will be deregulated. And in the background, 33,000 pages of recipes like these are being produced. You need them because I don't. Have you seen any critical situations? As for hunters, it seems to me that the problem is of a different nature. This is not a problem of such a nature that these studies will change anything, but the problem is that hunters shoot in strictly defined, specific conditions, both weather and very often at night. And yet, in unfavorable conditions, such as I would say forest terrain, very often and it is as if I were looking for a different solution here. That is, the regulations theoretically say that hunters cannot shoot further than a certain distance and cannot shoot at certain targets, but practice says something different. Maybe training needs to be invested, right? Yes of course. But even if we take our hunters into account, it turns out that there are nine times fewer such accidents than in other European countries, for example France. Our hunters are also doing quite well in this field. I would approach this differently. Um, well, because it's like this, it's a kind of stigmatization by the media. The thing about mainstream media is that they like to show such extremely critical situations. Somehow the media does not report every road accident, which occurs from several to a dozen or so times a day. How many people die, from eight there to a dozen or so die every day. They just say, well, there were so many fatal accidents there . When a shooter shoots himself, right, because when some kind of shooter thinks, well, does everyone get upset, right, and expose this, this, this, this tragic event, but it is marginal compared to the number of people and incidents on the road. Well, it is absolutely marginal. Contrary to appearances, there are not so few hunters and there are not many of these events, if you look closely, right? Um, well, in connection with the above, uh, I think that we need to oppose it. In general, law is, I say this as a lawyer and I say this as a person who teaches law at a university for students and doctoral students, as a professor of law, because my alma mater, my alma mater is a college of legal sciences. Well, the law is a kind of prison. Law is rarely a kind of freedom. There are such laws too, but in most cases it is a law, it is a kind of prison. So, no, let's not give ourselves, let's not allow ourselves to be muzzled and put under such virtual bars, right? Because 33,000 pages of new regulations are created every year, right? I mean, he doesn't stay with us for these 33,000, it's not 33,000 pages. This makes it easier to obtain a firearms permit. Reductions are just what you're not allowed to do for the most part, right? Well, this is some kind of civic action. I encourage you to do so. I invite you to the national shield and I invite you to the channel as well. I hope that Mr. Aleksander and I will jointly promote these petitions to the Sejm and to the president and that we will not allow ourselves to be subjected to another muzzle. Professor, in my case it looked like this: I thought I would make my own shooting range and I read some materials on the Internet. Everything seemed very simple and clear. Well, when I started doing it, I suddenly hit a wall in the form of an office and I was about to give up, but luckily I found your publication, this article about shooting ranges, at the end of which there was information about the book, about your book. Let's recall the name of the book. The truth about the rules of organizing shooting ranges in Poland. We'll paste the cover here so you can see what it looks like. There will be a link in the video description if you want to purchase this book. They are available. There was supposed to be a new edition, right? Yes. We already have the second edition, actually. I'm working on the third edition now, although the third one will be a bit delayed because we haven't had the revision. For now, the Act on Weapons and Ammunition in this respect in the social context does not contain any new regulations. And we may have gained a bit of new jurisprudence, although these are not such critical changes. Therefore, we are still distributing this second edition. So far, we have already sold over 850 units, so there is a lot of interest in the community , you could say, in just a few months. So, from what I see, the Shooters buy these books not only for themselves . I see a lot of these books being delivered by shooters to offices, to city halls, to local government appeals offices and, interestingly, to courts. Because we have noticed that recently the courts have been directly referring to the content one by one. We started to investigate where they got our book from, because we didn't notice that the courts were buying it directly, but it turns out that shooters were buying it and delivering it to either the courts or state administration bodies. And this is a very wise direction, because very often it is not an intentional attack on future shooting range owners, but very often it is just ignorance and fear on the part of the administrative bodies. And fear. Yes. Yes, because in my case, it is worth distributing this book, especially since this is the first edition of it, it is a scientific work reviewed by other scientists, so it is and it is included in the achievements of the doctrine, so you can say that this is the highest possible standard and level that any book can have, right? So this is not my personal opinion about the regulations, it is just a normal book, a peer-reviewed scientific study. In connection with the power, it influences and shapes the image of judges and officials in an almost formal sense. Well, because stingy judges have to take knowledge and they take it from the so- called achievements, the so-called doctrine. This is formally called legal doctrine. And it is scientific studies that enter the legal doctrine, so it is not just some book, it is a scientific study. I see. And such a direct question. Is it easy to open your own shooting range in Poland? I mean, if we looked at the regulations, it would be very easy. If we were to look strictly at the content of the regulations, especially after the amendment two years ago of this entire administrative procedure strictly in relation to shooting ranges, these regulations say that this is an unimaginably simple process. In principle, it is enough to submit an application with a list of plots. We don't even have to make graphic sketches and we don't have to present any other evidence or attachments. That's what the regulations say. The plot does not have to be our property. It can be, but does not have to be, our property. It may be leased or lent. However, this is what the recipe says. However, officials are creating their own completely alternative state, which will violate the constitutive principle of Montuski. the separation of powers, that officials are not allowed to make decisions based on conclusions contrary to the legitimacy or on those that are in opposition to the content of the regulations, but they do so. Well, last year we established about 50 shooting ranges. This year there are fewer, about 20, so over these two years we have established about 70 shooting ranges, but we have nearly 100 proceedings for the establishment of shooting ranges currently underway. This means that there are approximately 100 problems in Poland. In addition, there were problems with the liquidation of the shooting range. This means we are experiencing a kind of unconditional attack, the likes of which I haven't noticed in recent years, and this is an attack from this year, or even from the second half of this year, on existing shooting ranges, where they started attacking them in a massive way, it seems to me that there has been a systemic attack on these shooting ranges, including shooting ranges that, ladies and gentlemen, have been operating in a given location for, say, 130 years. and they have been functioning for 130 years, they have not bothered anyone and now they are attacked. Both tiny shooting ranges and huge ones are attacked. And this is a very large number of these cases. In connection with the above, it seems to me that this is some kind of some kind of planned systemic action. Hence, we as the National Shield, as the National Shield Association, in this regard, submit notifications and information to the military counterintelligence service, sometimes to the Internal Security Agency, to verify and check those people who are attacking these shooting ranges. We don't want to believe that suddenly, when the geopolitical and military situation is as it is, right, on the eastern border, when it's officially said, because this information is from about a week ago, that Poland is currently the largest theater of Russian intelligence operations in the world, not in the region, but in the world, I don't want to believe that this massive systemic attack is simply the work of some kind of abderation, or, one could say, some kind of lack of common sense, lack of wisdom in society, but it looks like the sleepyheads have simply been woken up and are carrying out their tasks. And you have to know that shooting ranges in Poland are absolutely one of the constitutive elements of the defense of the Polish state, because we do not have, yes, we do not have conscription, we do not have service, right, as it was 20 years ago. In this way, society does not train systematically and these shooting ranges are the equivalent of such basic systemic training. This, of course, the Russian Federation must see. The FSB must see this, right? He must see that the number of these shooting ranges is generally increasing. Therefore, it considers it a potential threat to the strategic interests of the Russian Federation. And this means that, in my opinion, this may be the reason for initiating such actions of nudity, to put it colloquially, at the shooting range and what has been happening over the last six or seven months, i.e. such unconventional attacks on top Polish shooting ranges. Not only top-of-the-line, but how can you, how can you think otherwise, when the shooting range has n't bothered anyone for 130 years and suddenly it's starting to bother someone now, right? So something very bad is happening. In general, it is enough for one resident to attack a shooting range systematically and systematically and he is treated by local governments as if it was the entire community , the entire surroundings of all residents, the entire population, that was attacking that shooting range. Well, we also need to have some common sense on the part of these offices and local governments and apply some measure, right? What is more important? Is the sovereignty of the Polish state and the training of our entire population more important, or is the interest of the individual more important? Even if there were some minor nuisances, and I mean minor ones, it means that a shooting range must emit less than 50 decibels to operate legally. And basically, I don't know of any shooting ranges that do n't have such measurements, that don't confirm, that don't confirm that the statutory value of 50 decibels is not exceeded. So these nuisances we are talking about are those that are legal. That is, how can you attack a legally functioning facility that has been properly designed and does not exceed the permissible sound levels. True? So I'm talking about these cases and it's hard for me to believe that in such cases this attack is somehow uncoordinated and random. Officials have to do something because their perception of their role, because this is how it is in war, ladies and gentlemen, it is necessary, military doctrine says that in order to maintain long-term resistance, to put up so-called persistent resistance, we need to train 10%, at least 10% of the population. At least 10% of the population. There are, let 's say, less than 4 million people in Poland. This is perfectly confirmed in Ukraine, where Ukraine did not have these 10% trained and now the personnel levels in individual units are at the level of 40%. If it is 60% it is very good, but it is usually around 50%. Why? Because they didn't have anyone to fill the role. They had no one to staff these units. And in order to put up long-term persistent resistance, we need to have these pent 4 million people trained. Well, 4 million people is a huge number. This is impossible to train, because on the military infrastructure, because the new oak is packed to the brim, you could say. Well, there is no time slot at all. If you look at other facilities, they are also packed with training, either basic or other, true, of the Polish army. So there is nowhere to train these people. Besides, there is no one, because there are no instructors enough to train 4 million. And now we are back to the starting point. This means that these shooting ranges suddenly took over the burden of the basic training of these several million people. Several million people. And a few months ago I proposed to the Minister of National Defence and the Prime Minister a program, the opening of a program to organize 1,000 shooting ranges in Poland. You think there is any answer, even though I am systematically reminded of none. That is, the Chancellery of the Prime Minister writes that he will ask a question to the Minister of National Defence, and the Minister of National Defence replies the same, that he will ask a question to the Chancellery of the Prime Minister. This is what they have been telling me for many months. Due to the above, we came to the conclusion that we would organize it ourselves and take on this responsibility as citizens. This is why, among other things, the National Shield Association was founded and why I am systematically trying to create as many of these shooting ranges in Poland as possible. If I get 1000, that would be great, but if I get 500, that would be great too. Well, in two years we've already established 70. In the next 80 we have, I think, seven there, right, or 93. Never mind . We have nearly 100 more in the organization. Well, in fact, in three years we will have established, you could say, over 200 shooting ranges. Well, no matter how you look at it, it's some kind of success . Nobody pays us for this, right? in this sense, the state does not pay us for it , and we, um, create the structure and resources of our state's security and the sovereignty of our state. Of course, it is important that more of these guard posts are added than closed, and this is natural. But I have a question, is the National Shield an organization, you have to sign up for it. Yes, it is an association, which means it does not belong to me or the board. Like any association, in accordance with the Law on Associations, it belongs to society, meaning to everyone, to you, to me, to the colleague behind the camera, to you in front of the cameras, it belongs to all of us, of course, then it belongs to us if we are its members, so I cordially encourage you to participate and sign up. The more of us there are, the more pressure we will exert, because you have to know, because this may not be that common. Why is it an association and not some other form of organization? Because the Associations Law Act has granted associations precisely defined rights and competencies, 99% of society is unaware of this. Associations can de facto submit legislative initiatives. It is often thought that this is the Sejm, Senate, or president, but few people know that under the current regulations, which have been in force for over 20 years, an association can participate, and even must participate, not only that it can, but also that it must participate in a certain sector, at a certain stage of so-called public consultations in subcommittees, at the law-making stage, and there, associations have the authority to submit ready-made drafts, amendments to a provision or group of provisions. We use this very often . We use this very often . We have introduced many regulations in Poland along this path. through just uh uh public consultations. So when we all participate here as a whole as part of a strong association, we must be invited. It's not a question of whether we can, we have to be invited to public consultations, and there we can bring our project and that's a great strength. It's just that most of the time we do n't know about it. That's why I have founded several associations in my life . Some are powerful. For example, the association "The Best Way" has nearly 400 interventions and they are of a very high caliber, right? We have introduced quite a lot of such regulations through this association , so it is not a coincidence that we have organized an association, so I heartily encourage you, because we can create authentically, we can create and in a real and realistic way we can create law. And what does it look like in practice? yyy by signing up to such an association yyy for example yyy we have a shooting range and somewhere we see that someone is making trouble for us with this shooting range, trying to close this shooting range or yyy another example we try to open this shooting range and we encounter resistance. Um, can such an association help us? Y yes, yes, it can help us a lot. We implement this on several levels. Well, first of all, we often represent the interests of the shooting range organizer or owner in relations with the local government, i.e. we ask questions and demand certain explanations, right? We can say that we give credibility to a given entity. Y is the first area. The second area, by the way, is described on the website www.tarczanarodowa.pl. The second area is the area in which we help prepare a notification to the prosecutor's office. Of course, this is, uh, the client has to pay for it, because the association does not currently have the funds to be able to cover the costs itself. But of course, as long as these funds are sufficient from membership dues, we will implement them. And if it's not enough, you simply have to cover the cost. But this still does not change the fact that the association, not someone themselves, but the association, i.e. the public benefit organization, represents in relations with the prosecutor's office, whether we file a notification to the prosecutor's office about exceeding the powers, for example, by the local government appeals board or by the mayor or the head of the village in a situation where they illegally refuse to approve the regulations or try to close down the shooting range. The third area in which we operate is the preparation of notifications for the military counter-offensive service of the internal security agency. And also, because it has a different tone if everyone prepares such a notification on their own, and a different one if it is an association that, when you look there, especially at the description of the board and experts who are there, it certainly makes an impression, what kind of people constitute this esteemed body. Well, in connection with the above, we do not take on the burden of taking over the narrative in matters concerning specific shooting ranges with the counterintelligence service or counterintelligence services. And of course, another area, the one we have already mentioned, the legislative one, which is actually key for us. So yes, we carry out a lot of these tasks as an association. So listen, it's worth signing up and being interested. If you are thinking about your own shooting range, the link will of course be in the description of this video. Go to the website, read up, and if you encounter any resistance, you have your own shooting range, it's also worth signing up and simply strength in numbers. Yes. Yes. Professor, next question. What do you think, as you already have a lot of experience in this matter? What is the biggest mistake or problem people have when they want to set up a shooting range? What are they doing wrong? That they give too much of themselves to the organs. That is, they try too hard to be, excuse me, colloquial, more papal than the Pope himself and they provide too many documents. Too many documents, too many explanations, without understanding the context and thus giving officials food for thought so that they always find something when searching through the whole thing. Currently, let us remember that after the amendment to the Act on Administrative Procedure, there are separate regulations, the so-called simplified procedure, in relation to the organization of shooting ranges. And these regulations basically say that we have to provide the absolute minimum. In principle, the application can be said, it can be limited to the application, the application can also be accompanied by the model regulations from the regulation and that is basically all we should provide. However, shooters very often believe that if they provide more information, photos, if they provide outlines, it will be better. And it only gets worse because if someone has impure intentions, well, if they have pure intentions, then they don't need anything more, because that's what the regulations say. If it is unclean, then it is only food, it is fuel for finding faults in everything, and that is probably the biggest problem, yes, actually. I see. So, minimum formalities, we send what is most important. There is also some official fee there, but it's normal from what I remember. Yes. Can a municipality or city refuse to establish such a shooting range if we fulfill all the requirements properly? No, no, there is no such procedure at all for refusing to approve the shooting range regulations. If only the content of the regulations does not differ from the model regulations indicated by the minister. It should be noted that what is a commune and what can a commune approve? The commune can only approve an area, territory, space in which it is allowed to fire firearms. So much. And now the regulation only says that the municipality in this area approves certain behavior, minimally critical behavior, a way of behaving resulting from the content of the regulations. Therefore, in view of the above, if we submit an application with the content of the regulations that does not differ from the content indicated by the Minister of Internal Affairs and Administration, then formally speaking the commune cannot refuse to approve these regulations. In practice, however, it is different, because in practice, municipalities demand all sorts of documents because they clearly do not understand that the subject of approval is not environmental conditions, nor sound conditions, nor any landscape or spatial conditions, nor are they generally speaking conditions related to environmental protection, but only conditions relating to specific behaviour and the performance of precisely defined activities in a specific area, in a specific space. These are also not construction conditions, as municipalities often believe, right? Because a shooting range, let us remember, is neither an object, nor a building, nor any structure, but rather a space. Because where does this idea come from? Because many officials probably shot in closed shooting ranges and they perhaps think that the entire building is a shooting range, because when they enter, they see a sign there and it says shooting range. Meanwhile, this building is not a shooting range. Only in this building is there a separate space that serves as a shooting range. And the shooting range is not the building, but this space is, right, in a given room a given space is the shooting range. Yes. So a shooting range can be a plot of land with no buildings on it. But of course, there is a shooting range on the plot, no, not that it can only always be, it is the only structure in which, according to Polish law, it can be said that a shooting range is a space, and that in this space, in addition, sometimes a building, a structure, any construction object can be located, then that is a completely different issue. If it is located there, then this building is also located, but not this shooting range, not this space, this building can become subject to different regimes, right, for example, in the middle there or any other, for example, construction. Let us remember that a shooting range is always a space, not a building. So this is a bit of a misunderstanding. So, to answer the question of who hurts themselves the most, the ones who hurt themselves the most are the shooters who want to help themselves more by providing too much material. Of course. Well, yes, because we have to realize that sometimes, I don't know, we are, we live next to a place that is perfect for a shooting range. These are, for example, pits, former sand pits. I do n't know, gravel pits and so on. And it's a great place because there are already natural bullet traps there, because the sand or gravel has been selected and you can turn it into a shooting range. This place is practically useless now, but it's perfect for a shooting range, right? Yes, this type of facilities seem very good for many reasons. They also limit sound propagation very well , because when they are lowered, the sound propagation is naturally much smaller. Let's remember that what really constitutes a certain type of nuisance for the surroundings in some cases is the sound, because in fact there are no other elements that would in any way distinguish a shooting range from any other facility, right? This is sound. And this sound must be remembered that it cannot exceed 50 decibels in a compressed time period and this is limited for us. Of course, it is not about 15 50 decibels of nominal sound, but there is a special mathematical formula which says that within 24 hours, in the eight loudest hours, this measurement is made and it is checked whether the average sound intensity has not been exceeded . in the case of shooting ranges, because there we have the so-called point sound, and a hypothetical number of specific decibels is added and it is calculated whether this base sound has not been exceeded . There, as a kind of hint, it suggests that you still need to subtract the so-called background sound, because it is not included in the calculation. It's very common , well maybe not very common, but sometimes it happens that someone says: "Okay, and I have 51 decibels." And then we check whether this or that background has been cut out in accordance with the regulation. Well, if this did not happen, then it can be demonstrated that the sound was actually reduced below 50 decibels. Well, I'll tell you, because for someone 50 decibels may seem very little, there is no point of reference. How much is 50 decibels? Because when we talk about this nuisance, we are often talking about something that is just a made-up problem. No 72 dcybel. According to the European Union regulation 72 dcyb is emitted by all trucks and buses and coaches, right? Well, ladies and gentlemen, this is drastically less, 50 decibels, than every truck passing by us . Is that how you understand it? Due to the above, in cities and villages, around 35,000 cars pass by my house every 24 hours, of which, I believe, about 30% are trucks. Well, I don't see this street being blocked and this road being blocked by thousands of people from Krakow to Katowice, just because cars are coming near us, emitting thousands of them every day, emitting 72 decibels. Because such entries are very common. And you live near a shooting range, right? Very often, if you don't live near a shooting range, it 's not a problem for you. Well, first of all, the nearest shooting range is about 650 m from my house. Maybe not even in a straight line, maybe not even 650. I don't see this as a nuisance. And secondly, and this is not my shooting range, I will say right away. And secondly, I live right next to, as I mentioned, a road that is used by 30,000 cars a day and emits 72 dB. In connection with the above, let's not demonize it, because this, because this also needs to be measured in some way, right? Well, of course we would all prefer that. I would also prefer to live in a place where I can only hear crickets. I would really prefer that. Well, that's life. Well, well, well. 99% of us don't live in such a place and for some reason only those same people become active only and exclusively in relation to shooting ranges, right? That's why it's hard for me to believe that this is some kind of action not moderated by any external forces, that the same people who have trucks, coaches, city buses driving past their houses in their yards, people cutting wood with saws, tractors, combine harvesters driving around, somehow all this, where the sound intensity factor is drastically higher, somehow don't mind it. But when they see a shooting range, for some reason they suddenly see a problem with it. Another problem is that even once, I think on one of the main television stations, I remember a journalist calling me because he wanted to do some kind of intervention program, and he said that someone working in the field had been shot with a .762 caliber. I said, "You know what, I have exceptional experience in this field, a lot. If this person claims he was hit with a .762 caliber and has scratches between his two fingers, because they were about here, you know, with all due respect, you have to know that's not true. He also gave me the distance, and I'm talking about this, at this distance, he would have been pierced. But even if it happened , even if it happened that a ricochet actually scratched him, scuffed him, or even damaged him, when such a critical event occurs, which is absolutely extreme, it's not even a fraction, a fraction of all the actions related to shooting, right? It's not even a fraction, a fraction of a fraction. Then national television comes and creates An interventionist program. At the same time, I'm a person, I live in the countryside and come from a large farm. At the same time, on average, a number of arms, legs, fingers, and so on are torn off each year while working on farms. I don't see any television stations coming, but when the same thing happens , when something disproportionately smaller happens every few years in the area of ​​shooting, the television stations immediately become active. It's not these people who get involved, contrary to appearances, it's these television stations that get involved, because if they did n't make a big deal out of it, there wouldn't be a problem. But which television stations are implementing this? You just have to look at which television stations are implementing these interventionist programs and consider how sovereign they are, right? How much do they intend to play on the sovereignty of the Polish state? It seems that now someone will say that I'm perhaps making some quasi-political references . No, it's enough to observe, right? Who is attacking the sovereignty of the Polish state? There is no Nothing is more valuable than sovereignty. There is no greater value than sovereignty. Palestine is a great example. Palestine lost 95% or 97% of its territory over 400 years, lost its sovereignty. So what good is a nation if it doesn't have its own country? Sovereignty is something constitutive. Things can be poor, things can be better, things can be worse, things can be politically one way or another , but sovereignty is the greatest value we possess. And now someone who attacks our sovereignty, for example, defense sovereignty, or who excavates the entire image of shooting and the shooting community just because they're useful, creates made-up stories, or even not entirely made-up stories, because some of these events do happen, but the proportions are distorted. They present themselves as if it were standard practice, that backfires occur and someone there constantly, I don't know, 100 bodies a day. But such a situation doesn't exist. Not even one, not even one hundredth. That's not true, not even a thousandth of it is. Well, if you create such a narrative , you exaggerate and, like a distorted mirror, you distort the proportions, you distort the image of society, right? And our society is increasingly leftist, I would even say leftist . No, no, because healthy leftism means there might even be something good in it. Piłsudski was, let 's remember, a socialist, but that's leftism, I would say, and unfortunately, we don't have something like that. After '89, we lost something like the awareness that the state is our collective duty. The state is our collective duty. The state is us, right? I'm not attacking a colleague who's training there to defend himself, because he'll be the first to go to the front and the first to die, right? And he'll die so that... Why do I claim he'll be the first to die? Well, 99% of the personnel of the first Ukrainian front are already dead. Well, those people who are now They're training, so these are the people who will be the first to go and protect, and they wo n't come back. In the long or short term, you have to be aware, they won't come back. So what, these people are being attacked. Such people are shown the greatest respect, and they're not being attacked, right? So what, what idea are these TV stations promoting? I mean, a lack of respect for the people who will go first and die so that later, the same editors, right, who attacked, can protect their part of sovereignty. I mean, if these journalists had a minimum of reflection, right, and a common-sense Polish approach, well, they would simply feel stupid . They would be ashamed to go on such programs, right? They would be ashamed, and I do, or at least they would show proportion. They would say that one person got a ricochet. But at the same time, I do n't know, 100,000 rounds were fired in Poland. and in a year, millions of rounds of ammunition. And there was only one such case. They should have said so. That would be honest journalism, but honest journalism like that isn't promoted. Why? Because someone has an interest in attacking Polish sovereignty. That 's my opinion. The question is, where do these inspirations come from for journalists to pick up on these topics, that every now and then an accident happens, and not even at a shooting range, but somewhere, say, by a hunter. And where do these inspirations come from? And I'll answer that for you, I've noticed it all over the place, because we handle so many of these attacks on shooting ranges, so to speak, in the sense that we protect shooting ranges from these attacks and that we see who's carrying them out. Very often, these are former officers of various services, which is shocking. Sometimes including the military, which is shocking to me, but a huge portion is shocking because even if their share is small in the total population of attackers, it shocks me that such people attack a shooting range at all. This is an example of a shooting range in Zimnodole, where a former police officer has been persistently attacking her for years. And there 's an example of this at another shooting range—I don't want to go into detail here because my colleague asked me not to reprimand him just yet—but a very well-known shooting range, I think we all know about— where she's about to be stabbed and attacked by a former officer from one of the services. So, fortunately, this group doesn't attack much, but they do attack. But who attacks most often? Women, women— that's both understandable and incomprehensible to me. Understandable because I understand that perhaps some women have never had contact with firearms and perhaps demonize the role of these firearms or their functionality. Perhaps they think they shoot themselves, or perhaps there are people there, some not-so-unstable people who use them. Meanwhile, it's the exact opposite, because to be a shooter, you have to undergo psychological and psychiatric examinations, which means these are the most stable people in our entire population. But what completely shocks me is the thoughtlessness and a certain Resulting from deficiencies in history education in primary school, in secondary school, who suffers the most in war? Who? No, men die quickly. Men die quickly, suffer a little, but die relatively quickly. Women and children suffer the most in war, and they are the target of this very word here, which I won't say because YouTube would probably cut it out, but unfortunately, it is women who suffer the most, right? So if women attack indiscriminately, not the entire female population, but a certain segment of this female population, they will attack us men, who will protect you from this misfortune? When foreign troops come out, right? When foreign troops come out, what do foreign troops do? Well, they go and do it. A herd of foreign troops is coming, disrespecting this territory, wanting to take it over, and seeing women and children along the way. So what do they do with it? Well, everyone can imagine, and history shows what they do. Well, I'm talking about this on purpose and emphasizing it to raise awareness in face-to-face family and friends, that Listen, if you don't respect us, there will be those who won't respect you. Well, this is very important. I have a 90-year-old father-in-law, who is 90 years old, and he grew up without a mother. And that's how it was. The front line passed through. And that front treated women in this place, just like the front line treats them. Brutal, right? And as a result of many days of such oppression, my father-in- law's mother died, right, from these critical, so to speak, experiences. Everyone can imagine what kind. And ladies and gentlemen, we men respect you very much. We respect you very much, especially in Poland. In Poland, men truly respect women, perhaps the most in the world, and we have the best intentions, but you have to understand that we cannot be attacked, because we are trained to protect you, not the other way around. It's very important that this resonates. Yes, it's true. Professor, I think the episode is preliminary. discussed. Thank you very much for visiting our studio. We know there will be questions, and we encourage you to comment on this episode. Perhaps you have further questions, more specific ones for the professor. Then there will be an opportunity to invite us back, and we will then expand on this topic. However, you already know a lot, you know that setting up your own shooting range is not an ordeal. Of course, if difficulties arise, as was the case with me, you have to deal with them, and it might be worth signing up for the national shield. Then you are not, then you will not simply be alone. Thank you again for visiting us. Thank you very much, Mr. Aleksandr. Thank you all. It was a great honor for me, and I will see you in the next episode. Take care. M.