BANGKOK — 12 August 2026, Prime Minister and Interior Minister Anutin Charnvirakul said on Wednesday that politicians should not carry firearms, stressing that public figures must set an example by complying with the law.
Speaking to reporters at Sanam Luang at 07:35 on 12 August, Anutin was asked about his instruction at a Bhumjaithai Party MPs’ meeting that lawmakers must not carry guns.
“It’s not just an order to MPs. No one can carry a gun now because there are no longer any valid gun-carrying permits in Thailand. All gun-carrying permits have expired, so firearms cannot be carried,” he said.
Asked about several party members who own firearms as part of their collections, Anutin said gun ownership was a separate matter, provided it had been declared in their asset accounts.
However, he stressed that politicians and anyone seeking elected or political office must be particularly careful.
“If firearms are found during a search and they are being possessed illegally, that is a violation of the law. Once the law has been broken, it could also be interpreted as an ethical issue,” Anutin said.
He warned that such cases could potentially affect a politician’s future, including eligibility to stand for election or hold political office, depending on how the matter is interpreted under ethics rules.
“As public figures, we have to set an example. When the law says firearms cannot be carried, people who represent the Thai people and are chosen by the public must set an example. There is nothing complicated about it. We are simply following the law,” he said.
Gun purchases also suspended
Asked whether the Cabinet resolution on 11 August to suspend the issuance of Por.3 documents meant people could no longer buy firearms, Anutin replied: “Yes, until there is an order to change it.”
He said the government needed to bring firearms ownership under control, noting that Thailand has tens of millions of guns despite having a population of around 70 million.
“This is not sustainable,” he said.
Anutin clarifies remarks on shooting home intruders
Anutin was also asked about controversy over his earlier remarks that people should not shoot intruders inside their homes, which had led to what he described as misunderstanding.
“There is no misunderstanding,” he said, explaining that his main message was that people should recognise the dangers of firearms.
“Firearms are of no benefit to anyone. Whenever a gun is used, whether in an unavoidable situation or for whatever reason, the matter has to be determined in court. You cannot determine it yourself, and the police cannot determine it either,” he said.
He explained that if someone shoots another person who allegedly poses a threat, the shooter could still face charges before a court determines whether the use of force amounted to legitimate self-defence.
“I may have communicated it a little too briefly,” Anutin said. “But my intention was that I do not want people to be around firearms because they have never done anything good for either the person who is shot or the person who uses the gun.”
A person shot by a firearm could be injured or killed, while the person who fired the weapon could face court proceedings, he said.
“Before there is a verdict that what you did was self-defence and that the force was justified, you have to spend time going to court, seeking bail and dealing with many other things,” Anutin said.
“I only wanted to remind people to think carefully. It is not a matter of whether people believe me or not because there is already a law. The law has not gone anywhere. The law has not been changed. It is best not to be around guns,” he said.
