Objectives:
The aim is to identify models of firearm access regulation in selected democratic states and to assess their consequences for the relationship between public security prevention and civic autonomy. The article explains how legal and institutional arrangements shape licensing discretion and the status of the citizen—as a source of risk or as a partner co-responsible for public security.

Material and methods:
A qualitative comparative analysis of a descriptive–interpretive character was applied, grounded in the neo-institutional paradigm. The study employed theoretical methods of analysis, synthesis, abstraction, and comparison to reconstruct dominant regulatory logics. The research material included legal acts, the institutional architecture of licensing systems, and secondary statistical data on civilian firearm ownership in eight democratic states.

Results:
Six models of firearm access regulation were identified: preventive–restrictive, preventive–discretionary, preventive–procedural, liberal–procedural, constitutional–autonomous, and hybrid. The analysis demonstrates that the effectiveness and social legitimacy of these systems depend less on the level of formal prohibitions and more on procedural coherence, transparency of licensing criteria, limitation of arbitrariness, and stability of institutional practice.

Conclusions:
Regulation of access to firearms should be understood as an element of the public security architecture rather than merely an instrument of prevention. The findings indicate that any prospective reforms should primarily take an institutional–procedural form, strengthening decision-making predictability and a partnership-based conception of the citizen within the security system.