She was at leisure, not in the exercise of her duties
Nas vésperas de uma eleição presidencial, uma deputada federal brasileira sacou uma pistola carregada em via pública, perseguindo um homem a poucos metros de uma seção eleitoral — ato proibido por lei. Meses depois, o Supremo Tribunal Federal formou maioria para torná-la ré, colocando em xeque a extensão dos privilégios parlamentares e lembrando que a lei, em tese, alcança a todos, independentemente de suas alianças políticas.
- Uma deputada aliada de Bolsonaro sacou uma pistola 9mm e perseguiu um homem em São Paulo a menos de 100 metros de uma seção eleitoral, exatamente no período em que a lei proíbe o porte de armas nessa área.
- O episódio, registrado em vídeo, contradiz a versão da própria deputada e desencadeou uma sequência de medidas judiciais: suspensão do porte de arma, apreensão das armas e, agora, a iminente aceitação formal da denúncia.
- Seis dos sete ministros votaram pela abertura da ação penal, reconhecendo indícios suficientes de porte ilegal e constrangimento ilegal, deixando a tese de legítima defesa para ser debatida no julgamento de mérito.
- Um único ministro divergiu, argumentando que o crime não guarda relação com o exercício do mandato e, portanto, deveria ser julgado pela Justiça estadual — tensionando o debate sobre o alcance do foro privilegiado no Brasil.
- Com o placar já definido antes do encerramento da votação, Carla Zambelli se tornará ré no STF — um desfecho raro para uma parlamentar em exercício e um sinal de que nem mesmo a proximidade com o poder garante imunidade às regras comuns.
Em uma tarde de agosto, o Supremo Tribunal Federal brasileiro caminhou para uma decisão incomum: seis de seus sete ministros votaram para tornar ré uma deputada federal por porte ilegal de arma e constrangimento ilegal. A deputada era Carla Zambelli, uma das mais fervorosas aliadas do ex-presidente Jair Bolsonaro.
O episódio que originou o caso foi captado em vídeo. Em outubro de 2022, poucos dias antes do segundo turno das eleições presidenciais, Zambelli sacou uma pistola 9mm no bairro dos Jardins, em São Paulo, apontou-a para um homem e o perseguiu até um estabelecimento próximo. Ela alegou ter sido derrubada pelo homem, que teria manifestado apoio a Lula. As imagens mostraram que ela tropeçou sozinha. O agravante jurídico estava no contexto: a cena ocorreu a cerca de 100 metros de uma seção eleitoral, dentro da janela de 48 horas anteriores à eleição em que a lei proíbe o porte de armas nessa proximidade.
A denúncia foi apresentada pelo Ministério Público Federal em janeiro de 2023, pedindo também a cassação definitiva do porte de arma e indenização de 100 mil reais por danos coletivos. Ao longo dos meses seguintes, o ministro relator Gilmar Mendes suspendeu o porte de Zambelli e determinou a apreensão de suas armas — medidas posteriormente referendadas pelo plenário. Em agosto, os ministros votavam sobre aceitar formalmente a denúncia.
Gilmar Mendes considerou os indícios suficientes, destacando o porte ilegal em contexto eleitoral proibido, com perseguição e sujeição da vítima. A tese da legítima defesa, central para a defesa, ficaria reservada ao julgamento de mérito. Cinco outros ministros acompanharam o relator.
A única voz dissonante foi a do ministro André Mendonça, para quem o STF não teria competência para julgar o caso. O foro privilegiado, argumentou, protege apenas atos praticados no exercício do mandato — e Zambelli não estava em nenhuma função parlamentar quando sacou a arma. O caso deveria ir à Justiça estadual.
Com o placar já consolidado antes do encerramento formal da votação, o desfecho era claro: uma deputada em exercício seria julgada pelo tribunal mais alto do país por ter apontado uma arma para um cidadão durante o período eleitoral — um teste concreto sobre os limites do privilégio parlamentar e sobre a igualdade perante a lei.
On a Friday afternoon in August, Brazil's Supreme Court moved toward a historic decision: six of its seven justices voted to indict a sitting federal deputy for brandishing a loaded pistol in public. The deputy was Carla Zambelli, a fierce ally of then-president Jair Bolsonaro, and the incident had occurred just days before the 2022 presidential election.
The facts were stark and captured on video. In late October 2022, in the upscale Jardins neighborhood of São Paulo, Zambelli drew a 9mm pistol, pointed it at a man, and chased him toward a nearby snack bar. In the footage, the man runs while Zambelli and several companions pursue. Later, Zambelli claimed the man had expressed support for Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and had knocked her down. The video told a different story—she had stumbled during the confrontation. What made the moment legally explosive was its timing and location. Brazilian law prohibits carrying firearms within 100 meters of a polling station in the 48 hours before an election. The incident occurred roughly 100 meters from the nearest voting location, during that exact window.
In late January 2023, the federal prosecutor's office filed charges against Zambelli for illegal firearm possession and unlawful restraint. They sought a permanent revocation of her gun license and damages of 100,000 reais for collective harm. By December, Supreme Court Justice Gilmar Mendes had suspended her firearms permit. In January, he ordered her weapons seized. By February, the full court had upheld those emergency measures. Now, in mid-August, the justices were voting on whether to formally accept the charges and make her a defendant.
Gilmar, the case's rapporteur, found the evidence sufficient. He pointed to the "clear indicators of illegal open carry of a firearm on the eve of elections, in a prohibited and dangerous situation, with pursuit and subjection of the victim." The facts were there. Whether Zambelli had acted in legitimate self-defense—her defense team's central argument—would be decided later, at trial. Gilmar also rejected her lawyers' complaint that the prosecutor should have offered a non-prosecution agreement. The prosecutor had acted within its legitimate discretion, he wrote. Five other justices agreed: Alexandre de Moraes, Cármen Lúcia, Cristiano Zanin, Luiz Edson Fachin, and Luís Roberto Barroso.
One justice dissented. André Mendonça argued that the Supreme Court had no business hearing the case at all. Under Brazilian law, parliamentary privilege—the right to be tried in a special court—applies only to crimes committed in the exercise of a deputy's official duties. Zambelli was not at a campaign event, not giving an interview, not meeting with constituents. She was at leisure, Mendonça wrote, and the fact that the confrontation may have begun over political disagreement did not transform it into an act of parliamentary function. The case belonged in a state criminal court, he concluded, not the nation's highest tribunal.
The virtual vote would not close until Monday, August 21st. But the direction was clear. Zambelli would face trial in Brazil's Supreme Court for drawing a gun on a citizen during an election period—a rare and consequential moment for a sitting lawmaker, and a test of whether even the closest allies of a former president could claim immunity from the ordinary rules that bind everyone else.
Notable Quotes
The facts show clear indicators of illegal open carry of a firearm on the eve of elections, in a prohibited and dangerous situation, with pursuit and subjection of the victim.— Justice Gilmar Mendes, rapporteur
The discussion did not revolve around her actions as a deputy, nor about her election as a parliamentar. She was at leisure, not in a work commitment.— Justice André Mendonça, dissenting
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that this happened during an election period specifically?
Because Brazil has strict rules about firearms near polling places in those final 48 hours. The law assumes that weapons in that context, in that moment, pose a particular danger to the democratic process itself. It's not just about the individual victim—it's about the integrity of the vote.
But she had a gun license. Doesn't that give her the right to carry?
A license lets you carry a gun. It doesn't let you point it at someone in public, especially not in a place and time when the law explicitly forbids it. The license is one thing; the use is another.
Her defense says she was defending herself. Why doesn't that end the case?
It might, eventually. But the court had to decide first whether there was enough evidence that a crime even occurred. Self-defense is a legal justification, not a denial that something happened. That argument gets its full hearing at trial.
One justice disagreed with the others. What was his concern?
He thought the Supreme Court shouldn't be hearing it at all—that it should go to a regular state court. He argued that what she did had nothing to do with her job as a deputy, so she shouldn't get the special privilege of being tried in the highest court.
Is that a strong argument?
It has logic to it. But six justices disagreed. They seemed to think that when a sitting deputy uses a gun to threaten someone during an election, that's serious enough to warrant the Supreme Court's attention, regardless of whether it was technically a parliamentary act.