The Italy Senate now has a bill in its hands that could eliminate nearly all legal constraints on armed self-defense inside homes and businesses—a legislative gambit that threatens to upend decades of Italian criminal law and turn the country's justice system on its head. Senator Claudio Borghi of the Lega party filed the proposal in mid-July 2026, and the political tremors are already reverberating across coalition lines.
Why This Matters
• Removes proportionality: The bill would permit "any reaction" to an armed intrusion, regardless of whether the response was proportional to the threat or whether the danger had passed.
• Retroactive effect: If enacted, the law could automatically free convicted defendants—including gioielliere Mario Roggero, currently serving time for killing two robbers—without presidential pardon.
• Coalition fracture: Even within the government, Forza Italia has signaled discomfort, calling the measure a step toward vigilante justice.
The Legal Mechanics Behind the Proposal
Italy's existing self-defense statute, Article 52 of the Penal Code, permits defensive force only when an individual faces an "actual danger of unjust offense" and only when the response is proportional to the threat. A 2019 reform, championed in part by Lega, introduced a rebuttable presumption of proportionality when someone lawfully defends life or property inside a home or commercial premises using a legally held weapon. Yet even under that framework, judges still scrutinize whether the danger was ongoing at the moment of reaction and whether the person acted with genuine defensive intent.
Borghi's text would delete those safeguards in cases involving armed aggression inside one's domicile or place of business. The draft language stipulates that "any reaction undertaken in the immediate aftermath by the person under attack shall be non-punishable, regardless of the proportionality of the means used, the persistence of danger, or the strictly defensive nature of the conduct." In practical terms, that means a shopkeeper confronting an armed robber could pursue, shoot, or otherwise incapacitate the intruder even after the threat had ceased—and face no criminal liability.
The proposal also opens the door to defensive action outside the building if the aggression originated inside, extending the protected perimeter to sidewalks, parking areas, or streets adjacent to the property. Constitutional scholars have already raised red flags, noting that the text collides with the principle that the state alone holds the monopoly on legitimate force. By severing the requirement that danger be "actual," the law risks authorizing punitive or retaliatory violence dressed up as self-defense.
Why Now: The Roggero Case as Political Catalyst
The bill's timing is no accident. Mario Roggero, a 79-year-old jeweler from Turin province, has been serving a sentence after a final conviction for killing two men and wounding a third during a 2021 armed robbery at his shop. Roggero fired multiple shots, including some after the attackers had turned to flee. Courts found that his response exceeded the bounds of legitimate defense because the imminent danger had passed by the time he continued shooting. Under existing law, Roggero's only path to liberty is a presidential pardon—a process that Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has publicly endorsed, instructing Justice Minister Carlo Nordio to prepare the administrative groundwork.
Borghi, however, insists a pardon is unnecessary if Parliament acts. "If this bill passes, Roggero would walk free immediately under the principle of unlimited retroactive abolition of the offense," he declared during a Senate press briefing. That doctrine holds that when a law decriminalizes conduct, courts must vacate prior convictions for that same conduct. Because the proposal redefines what constitutes punishable force, any defendant currently imprisoned for using excessive defensive violence in an armed home or business intrusion could petition for release.
What This Means for Residents
For anyone living or doing business in Italy, the practical stakes are high. If the measure becomes law, you would enjoy near-absolute immunity when confronting an armed intruder in your home or shop, even if you pursue the assailant into the street or fire after the person drops a weapon. The flip side is that neighbors, bystanders, or even accomplices who have surrendered could be caught in crossfire with no legal recourse against the shooter.
Property owners and merchants should understand that the bill does not permit preemptive strikes or booby traps; it still requires an armed aggression and an immediate temporal link between threat and response. Yet by erasing the proportionality test, it invites fact patterns in which a single pistol shot by a burglar could justify a hail of return fire, multiple stab wounds, or the use of improvised weapons—none of which would be second-guessed by prosecutors or judges.
Expats and foreign investors operating commercial premises in Italy need to weigh the reputational and liability risks. While criminal exposure would drop, civil lawsuits from injured intruders or their families remain possible, and insurance carriers may balk at policies that effectively underwrite unlimited force. Moreover, the European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly held that states must investigate and, where warranted, prosecute disproportionate uses of force. Italy could find itself defending the new regime in Strasbourg, with the attendant legal costs and diplomatic friction.
The Political Battlefield
Opposition to the bill is fierce and crosses ideological lines. Giuseppe Conte, president of the Five Star Movement (M5S), branded the proposal "total Far West," arguing it transforms self-defense into a "right to revenge" and strips the state of its monopoly on justice. "You're handing citizens a blank check to administer force and punishment—that's not law, that's anarchy," Conte said during a televised interview. He also accused the government of "scavenging" on Roggero's plight for electoral gain while failing to invest in police resources and preventive security.
The Democratic Party (PD) echoed that critique, with parliamentary leaders calling the text a throwback to "jungle law" incompatible with a modern constitutional order. "Using a final court judgment as propaganda fodder is beneath any democracy," one PD senator remarked, underscoring concerns that the bill would encourage vigilantism and erode public trust in judicial institutions.
Tellingly, fractures have emerged within the ruling coalition itself. Antonio Tajani, Foreign Minister and deputy prime minister for Forza Italia, publicly distanced his party from the initiative. "We are against the Far West and private justice," Tajani told reporters. "Roggero made a mistake when he exceeded the limits of self-defense. Security is the state's job, not the individual's." That statement puts Forza Italia on a collision course with Lega, raising questions about whether the bill can muster the votes needed to pass both chambers of Parliament.
Historical and Legal Context
Italy has wrestled with self-defense boundaries before. Gender-specific transport has tested the limits of Italy's anti-discrimination statutes before. A start-up called Pinker attempted to launch a women-only ride platform in 2024 but was ordered to cease operations for violating Article 7 of Law 45/2018, which guarantees equal access to TVDE services regardless of sex. Uber's legal advisers contend that an opt-in filter differs from a closed service because it still gives everyone the option to ride or drive under the standard model.
The 2019 overhaul was itself contentious. Civil-liberties groups warned that presuming proportionality in domestic settings would embolden trigger-happy homeowners and lead to tragic accidents. Statistics from the Interior Ministry show that defensive gun uses in Italy remain rare—fewer than 50 verified incidents per year—and that most intruders flee when confronted. Critics of the new bill fear it will shift the calculus, encouraging confrontation over retreat and escalating minor property crimes into lethal encounters.
Magistrates' associations have yet to issue a formal opinion, but individual prosecutors warn that removing the proportionality and actuality requirements will make convictions nearly impossible in cases where an aggressor entered armed, regardless of how the situation evolved. That could leave victims of excessive force—or their surviving relatives—without legal remedy, undermining confidence in the justice system's ability to arbitrate disputes fairly.
Next Steps and Timeline
The bill now enters the committee phase, where legal affairs panels in both the Senate and Chamber of Deputies will scrutinize the text, hear expert testimony, and propose amendments. Given the intra-coalition split, passage is far from guaranteed. Forza Italia holds enough seats to block the measure if it votes with the opposition, and even within Lega there are whispers that the language goes too far. Political observers expect the debate to stretch into autumn, with a floor vote unlikely before October 2026.
In the meantime, advocacy groups on both sides are mobilizing. Gun-rights organizations have begun a petition drive urging swift approval, while legal-reform NGOs are preparing constitutional challenges should the bill become law. The Italy Constitutional Court has invalidated self-defense expansions before when they collided with fundamental rights, and any future litigation would likely hinge on whether unlimited reactive force respects the principle of necessity embedded in the Italian Constitution.
For residents, the message is clear: keep an eye on parliamentary proceedings and consult legal counsel if you own a business or hold a firearms permit. The rules governing when you may—and may not—use force to protect yourself and your property could change dramatically in the months ahead, with consequences that reach far beyond any single high-profile case.
