How we verify

Every article on gunlaws.global is AI-assisted, and every article is put through the same five-stage pipeline before and after it is published. We describe that pipeline in full here, including its limits, because a firearms-law reference is only worth reading if you can see exactly how the claims on it were produced and checked.

1. Research with live web search, citing primary law

Each article is drafted by a research agent that searches the live web at the time of writing and works from primary sources: statutes, ministerial and police regulations, official government registries, and the licensing pages of the authority that actually issues firearms permits in that jurisdiction. The agent is instructed to anchor every substantive claim — who may own a firearm, what licence is required, the rules on carry, transport and import, and the penalties — to a named source, and to prefer the text of the law over secondary summaries. Where the primary text is only available in the local language, that source is still cited; we would rather point you to the authentic statute than to an English blog post about it.

2. Automated citation linting

Before an article can enter the audit stage it must pass an automated citation lint that mechanically checks its structure and its sourcing. The lint enforces:

• the standard seven-section structure every article shares, so coverage is consistent from country to country;
• at least eight footnotes, each of which must resolve to a real, reachable source — dangling references and orphaned definitions fail the gate;
• at least one official or government source (the licensing authority, the statute database, or an equivalent primary publisher), not merely news and forum links;
• footnote-to-source correspondence — the claim a footnote is attached to has to be supported by the source it points at, so citations cannot be decorative.

An article that fails the lint is not published; it is sent back for correction and re-checked.

3. Independent second-model audit of every article

Passing the lint is necessary but not sufficient. Every article is then audited by a second, independent AI model — a different model from the one that wrote it — acting as an adversarial legal-content reviewer. The audit reads the article against its own cited sources and looks for claims that are wrong, out of date, overbroad, or unsupported by the citation attached to them. The auditor records a verdict for every article, together with its specific findings.

When the auditor flags an article, that article is regenerated with the audit's findings fed forward into the rewrite, and then audited again. Only articles that survive this loop are treated as audit-passed. An article that still fails after the regeneration pass is flagged for a human and is held out of search indexes and out of our sitemap until it is fixed — we would rather show you nothing than show you a claim our own review could not stand behind.

4. Community corrections, human-moderated

Automated review has a ceiling, and readers who know a jurisdiction first-hand routinely know things a model does not. Anyone can suggest a correction to any article. Every suggested change is reviewed by a human moderator before it is published — nothing goes live automatically — and accepted corrections are written back into the article as a new version. This is the same virtuous cycle that makes a wiki more accurate over time, with a human gate on every edit.

5. A public revision history for every article

Every change to every article is recorded, and the full revision history is public: you can open any article's history and see what changed, when, and — for community edits — that it passed moderation. Nothing is edited silently. If a claim on this site is ever wrong, the record of how it got there, and how it was corrected, stays visible.

Honest limitations

We hold ourselves to this process precisely because the subject is unforgiving, so we will be equally plain about what it does not guarantee:

• Articles are AI-assisted. The first draft of every article is written by AI. Our defence against AI error is the linting, the independent audit, the human-moderated corrections, and the public history above — not a claim that AI does not make mistakes.
• This is not legal advice. These pages are an informational reference, not a substitute for a lawyer or for the authority that regulates firearms where you are. Do not rely on them for a decision with legal consequences.
• Laws change. A page is accurate as of when it was last checked, and firearms law moves — sometimes overnight. Always confirm the current rule with an official source before you act.
• Summaries lose nuance, and some pages will be wrong. Compressing a body of law into a plain-language summary drops edge cases; some articles will be incomplete or mistaken.

If you spot something wrong, please tell us — the fastest way to fix a page is to suggest a correction. See our legal notice for the full disclaimer.