A new weapons law

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are now debating the government's bill and the Committee on Justice's report A new weapons law. The bill has long been debated, and many of the issues addressed in the bill and the report are rooted in a long-standing commitment, not least from the Sweden Democrats in opposition.

I have personally been part of this entire journey, and the first weapon-related issue I handled was the EU's firearms directive, which came in 2016–2017 after a number of horrific terrorist attacks in Europe. The EU argued then that common rules and restrictions for legal weapons ownership in the EU were needed to counter gang crime and terrorism in Europe. I remember jumping when I heard the background to why they wanted EU-wide rules and restrictions for legal weapons ownership. As the only party, the Sverigedemokraterna demanded a rejection of the subsidiarity test. We argued that a common EU responsibility was not required, but rather that each country best decides which rules it wants for legal weapons ownership.

After that, together with several other parties in the opposition, we submitted many motions to the government in order to simplify legal firearm possession. These were double, triple, and quadruple motions, not least regarding the five-year licenses, which are also addressed in the bill. But despite repeated motions from the Riksdag, the then Social Democratic government refused to even investigate the issue. This can be taken into account because the Social Democrats in today's report have a reservation where they continue to oppose a simplified approach to the five-year licenses.

The Sverigedemokraternas purpose has been all along that one should not punish legal weapon possession and not blame legal weapon owners for problems linked to mass immigration, segregation, and gang crime. These are two separate things that require completely different approaches. In the proposal for the new weapons law, we also see that different weapon-related offenses are distinguished. When they are linked to a gang-related environment, they should obviously lead to punishment, but when it concerns offenses linked to licenses, it should really be emphasized that this is not as serious as the gang-related weapon violence.

Many of the issues addressed in the bill have, as mentioned, been debated. A ban on certain semi-automatic rifles has been discussed back and forth, not least against the background of the attack against Risbergska in Örebro where a person committed horrific crimes with legal weapons. Several of us, however, felt that the debate went a bit awry and that one acted a bit too quickly. Time gave us who expressed criticism partially right because one backed down from the proposal to demand back all weapons of this type where a license has been granted. But the compromise we reached means that one still will not grant certain semi-automatic weapons for hunting.

There can be different opinions on this, and I think there are good arguments on both sides. The arguments that these weapons would be particularly prone to theft or more dangerous than other weapons do not carry much weight in my book. But other arguments, for example, maintaining general respect for hunting by not allowing certain types of weapons for hunting, I have some respect for.

Personally, I have full confidence that those who are permitted to possess weapons for hunting can also handle weapons that look a bit different and more modern, and I believe that the issue will be overplayed in 10–15 years. I find it difficult to respect that just the appearance of a weapon evokes such strong reactions.

We also see several other relaxations in the new weapons law. This concerns, among other things, more flexible storage rules and the introduction of the EU firearms pass for both sport shooters and hunters. In addition to what I have already mentioned, an expanded weapons wardrobe shall also be moved forward.

Some things are in law, others in regulation. But overall, significant relaxations are being implemented. That is also the impression I have. One may have views on whether everything in the regulation will be implemented in a satisfactory manner by the Swedish Police Authority, which handles these matters. But this will be closely monitored by the Riksdag.

Overall, I see that the relevant shooting organizations, not least for pistol shooters and hunters, view the collective changes we are moving forward with positively.

I move, in conclusion, for approval of the committee's proposal and, above all, for the rejection of the reservations from the Socialdemokraterna with several left-wing parties, which aim to make life more difficult for legal gun owners.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Adam Marttinen for an open and honest speech.

I also thank you for the historical description; it deserves remembrance on such a day. All this began, as said, with the EU's weapons directive, and the Center Party voted, just like the Sweden Democrats, no to the EU's weapons directive in the EU Parliament, which not all parties in this assembly did.

Terrorists do not apply for weapon licenses. We must keep this perspective with us at all times, but in this proposal, the government has actually lost sight of it. It is not just about the Tidö parties breaking their election promises. It is also about how we view hunters and sport shooters, just as the member said from the rostrum. These are law-abiding groups that we should have on our side in the fight against terrorism.

But do we achieve that with this proposal? No. It is said that the proposal entails simplifications for weapon owners, but I am highly doubtful whether there will be any simplifications at all. Instead, the proposal entails direct complications for individual weapon types which, just as the member said, are considered dangerous mostly because of their appearance.

The reform regarding the AR15 is not about hunting ethics, it is about something else entirely. As mentioned, it is based on the Örebro incident, where that type of weapon was not used at all. To be honest, all weapons are dangerous in the wrong hands.

I have a question about five-year licenses, which the member and I have discussed many times, as have everyone here, and where we were previously on the same side. Does the member really think today's proposal to abolish licenses and instead introduce supervision is a simplification?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! The short answer to the question is yes. Then it simply depends on which criteria are established for when and how documentation shall be requested in the supervisory procedure. This is addressed in the ordinance, and there the government has given a specific assignment to the Police Authority, which still handles weapons licensing issues.

If we win the election once more, perhaps we will move the firearms licensing issues to an entirely new agency, something that is currently being investigated at the ministry. It is a difference compared to if the Center Party's side of politics wins, for then I believe these issues will remain with the Swedish Police Authority. But it is a matter that is handled by ordinance.

We are completely convinced that if the responsibility is shifted from the individual to the Swedish Police Authority, in this case, the individual owner no longer has any responsibility to submit certain pieces of information and subsequently potentially also commit a crime. We are now removing that responsibility and the burdensome consequence, and I think that is a simplification in itself.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party has until this day been on the same side as the Sweden Democrats when it comes to hunting and weapons policy, but we are no longer. It is completely obvious, because the values and promises that the Sweden Democrats have worked for have not been fulfilled. It is rather the opposite, in my opinion.

The five-year licenses were also based on the EU's weapons directive and that the EU wanted to pressure those countries that had no control at all. To be honest, the EU has constantly said that Sweden has a good system. We can perform checks every day on persons who hold weapons and compare them with the criminal records. The Tidö parties have stood here and discussed this for many years, but now, all of a sudden, one must still have some kind of control.

What we are doing today is signing a carte blanche. We are going to have a supervision, which will probably be carried out by the police, which we do not think should have the licensing at all. It is another election promise that has not yet been fulfilled, but we hope that it will come. I agree that there should be a separate supervisory authority.

De facto, it is a blank paper we are signing. The police or some other authority shall perform the check of whether persons are suitable to hold a license. At the current stage, we cannot say anything about criteria for this, requirements for documentation, processes, or deadlines. I do not think it becomes a simplification, but rather it creates increased concern for how this will land.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I still think it is a fairly balanced expression from Helena Vilhelmsson – that one can feel a concern. I think that one should have respect for that. That is why I think it is important that the Riksdag, in this case, where I am a part of the assembly, keeps its eyes on this issue and ensures that the directives that go to the Police Authority become favorable for legal weapon possession, not the other way around.

The entire purpose from our side of politics, that is, the Tidö parties, is that it should be simpler. That is something one can have confidence in. Then I can think that as a member of the Center Party, one should be more worried that one, in fact and in principle in the election campaign, wants to appoint Morgan Johansson as Minister for Justice and let him handle the directives to the Police Authority when it comes to how it should handle recurring checks of legal weapon possession. I honestly think that one should feel greater concern about that than about whether our side of politics, the Tidö parties, will handle this in a satisfactory way. I have confidence that it will turn out quite well.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to apologize to the Speaker for not standing when he entered completely discreetly. I was deeply lost in thought.

Adam Marttinen has accounted for the emergence of the weapons legislation and also the concerns that this chamber, our committee and several governments have had regarding the implementation of the weapons directive. Then he went on a rant about mass immigration as well. He is, after all, Sverigedemokrat.

A number of questions arise in connection with this. We have now had the EU's weapons directive for a number of years. It was a powerful reaction from the EU family against horrific terrorist attacks on European soil. The EU directives have, according to all available evaluations, contributed to a safer world, a safer Europe, and in the long run also a safer Sweden.

You mentioned, Adam Marttinen, that you were against the subsidiarity test as soon as it first appeared. Now that we have the weapons directive in place in Europe, I have a question, not least from the perspectives that Helena described – that we have reached a consensus between the countries, where weapons are mobile matter and objects that are moved across borders: Does Adam Marttinen still consider that the EU's weapons directive and the measures taken against terrorism should not have been implemented?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! In principle, I do not think that the EU should have detailed governing rights over Swedish weapons legislation. I consider that to be a deeply problematic approach, linked to my view that Swedish weapons legislation should be based on the interests of the Swedish people.

Then it can always be discussed in what way Sweden is affected by other countries having more deficient legislation linked to legal gun ownership. In that case, there may be a point to establishing certain minimum requirements at the EU level for how authorities should handle legal gun ownership. Principally, however, I believe the starting point should be that Swedish gun legislation shall be based on the interests of the Swedish people and be decided in the Swedish Riksdag, without top-down management from the EU.

There are different points of entry here. My strong objection is that the entire EU Firearms Directive 2017 took its starting point in stopping terrorism and gang crime. The solution became that one targeted the legal weapon owners. There, I believe that one landed completely wrong in the entire framing of the purpose of even engaging in the issue.

It would have been more relevant to discuss, for example, how we should prevent violent Islamists from entering Europe. How do open borders affect trade and goods and the conditions for smuggling weapons into Sweden? There are other issues that can be discussed linked to how violent extremism and terrorism should be combated. Going after legal gun owners and focusing on that is obviously more convenient for some than discussing the real reasons why we have Islamists shooting people in Europe.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! The EU's firearms directive was one of many tools developed to try to prevent that type of terrorist attack and horrific events. Only in our country and in this chamber have we made countless decisions to, for example, stop terrorist travel and prevent that type of people from coming here and carrying out their deeds. There, the firearms directive is one of many tools in the toolbox. It is therefore not solely about that.

At its core, it is about whether we need to have a weapons legislation at the European level that takes into account that even people with evil intentions can obtain a license and acquire weapons through legal means, just as in the case we had and which is the reason for the process we have for the weapons legislation, namely the incident in Örebro. I will return to that later. So it is – these are not just any goods.

Adam Marttinen used in his speech the concept that one "punishes" or "makes suspicious" legal weapon owners. So we would never reason around driving license holders. Just because one is forced to inspect the car every year does not mean it is a punishment. It is so that one can handle a potentially dangerous thing like a car in a good and sensible way.

Nor neither do we see the fact that we have good order regarding medicine management and pharmacy activities in our country as a punishment of people who are in need of medicines. We know that medicines in the wrong hands and in the wrong contexts can be harmful.

It is not a punishment or a suspicion of the people who are ill or of those who need to drive and have a driver's license. But just in the issue of weapons, you use very strong words when we need to regulate or have order and clarity in an industry.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Petter Löberg must, of course, stand by his own comparisons, and the Social Democrats must be allowed to cover them.

I think it is deeply problematic to discuss measures against legal gun ownership and see it as a measure to combat terrorism and violent extremism and gang gun violence and organized crime, because the connection between them is so incredibly weak. It becomes a bit strange that one has such strong tones against legal gun ownership in those contexts.

It is more fruitful, I would like to say, to work against the actual causes of why people shoot people dead. It is illegal weapons. It is violent Islamists, who constitute the greatest terror threat in Europe. What are they doing in our respective countries? What kind of politicians are it that let in such people who want to shoot people dead in Europe? Those are the questions we need to discuss if we are truly going to tackle, for example, terrorism, violent extremism and gang-related crime, which to a large extent – say 99 percent – is due to the fact that we have had mass immigration to Sweden and Europe.

One can have slightly different perspectives. I note that the Social Democrats have their entry point in this debate and that we have another.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of our reservation 2 regarding transitional rules.

This is an important debate and a debate that we have had many times before, it feels like. It is a favorite in repeat. But it is also a debate that can sometimes go wrong, as there are parties that use terms such as that one "suspects" hunters.

I have stood here a number of times and spoken about the need for good wildlife management, the importance of weapons to ensure that wildlife populations are at the right level and other things, and what importance that has for individual individuals. It is also not about making things difficult for sport shooters. It is not about pitting the countryside against the city or the Riksdag against hunting associations. It is about something more fundamental, namely what responsibility society has when it comes to regulating objects that are fundamentally constructed to extinguish life. So it is – a weapon is a very special object that is not like any other objects whatsoever. The very existence of the thing depends on that it is to extinguish life, period. It is to incapacitate or kill. That also means that we should approach these issues with the utmost humility.

Sweden has a very strong hunting tradition, and we shall, of course, safeguard it. We have serious sport shooters, and we shall, of course, facilitate things for them and ensure that they can carry out their activities in a good way. It is not about hunting those who behave themselves and handle weapons legally.

We have been able to see that regulations for, for example, gun safes have contributed to the number of thefts decreasing dramatically. There were those who were against gun safes as well. Today, it is a natural part that allows us to handle weapons more safely and that fewer weapons end up in inappropriate places.

It must be said clearly that this is not about creating suspicion. It is about us having a regulatory framework that is adapted to needs in order to create safety, transparency, security, and legal certainty. It shall fulfill those goals but also uphold the respect that these are not just any objects. We shall have a regulatory framework that is strict, understandable, and consistent.

We previously had various amounts of different authorities within the Police Authority, as is known, and we shall discuss that this afternoon. It also meant many different interpretations. I believe that the legislation that is moving forward with this bill can contribute to a clearer uniformity from authorities when it comes to the interpretation of these regulatory frameworks. It also becomes a certain simplification that makes one avoid accusations of engaging in activism within authorities and other such things. Fundamentally, this is a refinement and a good proposal for clarifying the regulatory framework.

Adam Marttinen described the previous EU weapons directive. I remember when Sten Bergheden and I had engaged in a mud-slinging match in the committee regarding its implementation. On the way out, at the trash can, I said to Sten: Can't we just try to solve this somehow? This isn't holding up. We risk a multi-million fine if we continue to mud-sling and make politics out of this, which actually is about solving something that we are forced to solve.

Then came this weapons investigation and the reference group, which we have both sat in. This is actually the final point of that work.

We Social Democrats have two objections to today's bill.

One concerns the transitional provisions regarding the weapons that we have discussed over the past year following the horrific mass murder in Örebro. It is about the fact that we Social Democrats do not believe that the weapons for which permits and licenses were granted in the gap between the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's new regulations and the new legislation should remain out there. Either you decide that the AR15 is a natural part of Swedish weapon ownership, or they should not be out there. It must not be this half-measure.

If it is decided that these weapons do not belong to the natural part of Swedish weapons management, they should naturally be redeemed in a proper manner. In that case, the owners should receive what the weapons are worth or what they have paid for them and also for accessories and other items in a good and orderly way. But here we end up in a situation where we will have thousands of weapons remaining out there for the foreseeable future. The idea is that they should slowly but surely disappear and that we should not grant permits for new such weapons for hunting needs. It is a very strange arrangement, and we have a very sharp objection to that.

The second question concerns the five-year licenses. Member Vilhelmsson described the difficulties when one has a supervisory procedure that can be very arbitrary and perhaps also depends on whether one has a committed official on site who really pushes these supervisory cases hard. Then one once again has a situation where it varies.

We believe that we should have more dedicated legislation so that every five years those who have these weapons are checked, and ensure that those persons actually are doing well and that they are still active and use the weapons for their intended purpose.

That one simply does a small test every five years is not too much to ask. All of us sitting here who own a car know that one does so with the car every year. It is nothing strange to do so every five years when it comes to weapons.

The backdoor or door that existed when permission was granted for AR15 or military-like semi-automatic weapons has caused even these individuals to be caught in the crossfire. They have acted based on the guidelines and signals provided by the authorities. Fundamentally, it is not their fault that they have the weapons at home, but it is fundamentally a failure on the part of society that we need to rectify in a clearer way. Sooner or later, we will probably have to do it anyway, unfortunately.

Mr. Speaker! We want a modern weapons law and simplify it where it is reasonable. We also want a clear weapons law that can even have quite sharp guidelines where that is required. It should also take into account the technical development.

We are not in the same place when it comes to weapons and many other such things as we were ten years ago. Today, there are 3D printers that can print magazines in a completely different way. Today, we may have other problems ahead of us, not least in our committee where we handle problems with drones and the threat images surrounding them. We must constantly be at the technical forefront when it comes to these things.

The Social Democrats' line is respect for hunters and shooters and respect for people's safety. We must find the right balance between these two – there can sometimes be conflicting interests. In the long run, it is wise: We shall have control where it is necessary, and we shall have consequences where the government has chosen to back down and where people have been caught in the crossfire.

There are moments when we in politics must show that we are capable of drawing lines between what is reasonable and what is not reasonable. This is such a moment. Weapons designed for war, for example, do not belong in hunting grounds. After Örebro, it is completely obvious that such weapons do not belong in a society that fundamentally wants to be safe.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! The member made an interesting contribution, and I have some reflections. I had not initially intended to take the floor regarding this part, but I still want to ask some questions to Petter Löberg in light of some of his statements.

Mr. Speaker! Petter Löberg spoke about the leakage theory and that it still exists. He spoke about how weapons held by hunters and shooters in the legal environment risk being spread and that one therefore wants to limit certain types of weapons in Sweden.

Petter Löberg also pointed out that it is easy today to take a hunter's exam and to acquire these weapons. I can inform Petter that the criminals neither take a hunter's exam nor learn to shoot in a shooting club. They go out onto the street and pick up these weapons to commit criminal and violent acts here in Sweden. That is where the problem lies. We have no problems with the legal weapons. They are in gun cabinets at the homes of hunters and shooters. The leakage theory – that it would be easy and that weapons disappear into the criminal environment – is incorrect, which has been proven for a long time.

Mr. Speaker! The question concerns the fact that Petter Löberg represents a party that has long championed the issue of banning semi-automatic weapons in the EU. Now, there is also a desire to ban and recall AR15 weapons in Sweden. I therefore wonder: Does Petter Löberg share the Social Democrats' position in the EU, that is, that semi-automatic weapons should be banned, and how is the recall of the AR15 weapons held by hunters in Sweden to be carried out in practical terms?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! It was extremely interesting that Sten Bergheden spoke about crime and leakage theories, because I did not mention anything about that in my speech. I did not speak at all about crime out in society or about shootings and explosions, because that is primarily not related to this matter. That is not the discussion we are having. The weapons laws that we are talking about here concern the owners of legal weapons. I have not spoken about any leakage theory today, so I cannot really answer where he got it from. But we can gladly talk about it.

There are also problems with legal weapons. To believe otherwise is to be extremely naive. Legal weapons are used in suicide – we all know that. In very many cases per year, people choose to take their own lives with the help of a licensed weapon that has been a core possession throughout their lives. One can also take one's life in other ways – everyone knows that. The issue of suicide and weapons is a problem that we must be aware of and humble ourselves before.

Another part is threats, even with legal weapons, or the feeling of being afraid because of violence in close relationships. I do not believe that owners of legal weapons are any more or less prone to engaging in threats and violence in the family. This is a major societal problem that I believe we together have great ambitions to combat. This is the hidden part of violence in society, namely men's violence against women.

There are many weapons out there that are also a latent threat. This applies in particular to the so-called extended suicides, which are nothing other than murders. In such family tragedies and crimes, it is often a matter of legal weapons. It occurs, therefore – it is not a completely marginalized phenomenon.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Petter Löberg did not answer the questions I asked in his contribution. There were surely natural reasons, as they are difficult to answer.

In the reservation, which you have written together with Miljöpartiet and Vänstern, it states clearly that semi-automatic weapons of the type AR15 and similar that are already in circulation shall be redeemed, given that permits have previously been granted for hunting. I then ask: When and how is this going to happen, and which additional weapons have you counted on redeeming if you were to win the election this autumn? I think the voters have the right to receive an answer to that question.

Does Petter Löberg support the Social Democrats' work in the EU to try to ban all semi-automatic weapons? Will this happen? Three parties support the proposal to redeem semi-automatic weapons of the type AR15 and similar – it is clearly stated in the reservation. I think the question deserves an answer from Petter Löberg.

I would also like to raise the question of the next steps. It concerns the five-year licenses that you want to reintroduce but which we now intend to remove here today through a decision.

So, you think it is reasonable that the police should require a shooter to be active within a certain timeframe in order to be able to keep their pistol for shooting. Is it reasonable that a person who is just building a house, starting a family, or becoming ill and therefore cannot meet the requirements must return their pistol? Or are there other measures that can be taken in that situation so that the pistol shooter can keep their weapon until they become healthy, the children have become old enough, or the house is finished? Where do the Social Democrats stand on that question?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! On the first question, the answer is naturally yes, because that is what is stated in our accompanying motion. We believe that this type of weapon should be redeemed and that it should be done in a fair and economically non-disadvantageous way for those who are affected and who have been affected by the shortage that we are all aware of. Furthermore, you yourselves want to remove these weapons – AR15 or military-like weapons – in a hunting context, for that is what we are talking about.

In the EU, there is a different discussion, but in our chamber, we are talking about the legislation that has been presented in the bill after investigation and which we have jointly refined. It concerns permits for semi-automatic weapons of a military-like type in hunting contexts. We Social Democrats are very clear that we do not want the type of AR15 weapons that we have talked about here. Then, AR15 is a brand – a branding. It has become a symbol, because it is a weapon that has been used in school shootings and terrorist attacks all over the world on a very large scale.

There are weapons of this military-like type that do not belong in the hunting grounds. It is not only we Social Democrats who think so. A very large proportion of Sweden's hunting associations do not think that these carbine-like weapons of a military-like type belong in hunting and the forest. They belong in other contexts – in military contexts or in dynamic sport shooting or similar – but not in connection with hunting. There, we need to have other solutions.

We want it to be a fair submission and for it to be clear and distinct. Here we are discussing semi-automatic weapons for hunting purposes – nothing else. That is my answer.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! This will probably take some time.

I want to say first that we have just over 600,000 legal gun owners in Sweden who engage in hunting, shooting, and collecting in an entirely exemplary manner. We shall try to facilitate things for these people in the new weapons legislation.

We will now debate the new proposal. I want to say first that I am glad that it is finished. I am not as happy that everything did not turn out exactly as I wanted, but this is nevertheless the compromise that we have reached and been able to unite around, and we move forward with the proposal to facilitate in the parts where it is possible.

It also means that my work and our work is not finished. The weapons investigation failed, despite clear directives, to investigate all the proposals that the Tidö parties and the Center delivered in opposition, but given how the investigation ultimately landed, it is probably good that the investigator did not manage to get to some of the directives, as there would have been a great risk that even those proposals would have only served the police's interests.

Despite clear directives and the fact that a large majority in the reference group clearly spoke about our positions, the investigator did other things. Not following the directives and not carrying out all directives is remarkable, as is not listening to a majority in the reference group and additionally lacking knowledge of weapons. The investigation also landed in a number of pure factual errors, and it is quite clear that the investigator let the police steer parts of the investigation. There are inaccuracies and sometimes pure factual errors, as well as proposals that the investigator himself could not even explain how they would be applied.

The leakage theory was included in the investigation texts, despite long experience in Sweden that this does not exist. To recall and forcibly purchase AR15 weapons was also proposed, but, to my delight, the government did not listen to that specific proposal.

Mr. Speaker! To recall positive agency decisions is completely unreasonable and does not belong in Swedish legislation. An agency that has made a decision must also stand by it. Prohibiting certain weapons was also not included in the investigation mandate, but here the investigator listened only to the police's requests. The fact that it was an investigation that did not follow the directives and did not even have solutions for some of the proposals submitted meant that we and the government had a major job in trying to rectify all of this.

That the shooting in Örebro was then mixed into the assessment of new legislation further complicated the situation. Mixing up a mentally ill person in Örebro with the country's legal hunters, shooters, and collectors is not acceptable, and I am strongly critical of what was done after the Örebro shooting.

Mr. Speaker! It is also remarkable that the police, who have the primary responsibility for weapon licenses in Sweden, could not identify which weapons were used in Örebro, even though the person and the weapons were at the scene. The police needed three days to sort this out. I am convinced that someone with knowledge of weapons would have solved this in half an hour.

To then go out and ban weapons that were not even present during the terror crime in Örebro does not create trust. One should, of course, have taken it easy and investigated everything in the usual order before acting. It is a lesson that we must take with us from this.

Mr. Speaker! The Tidö parties should have exercised more restraint here. That the Social Democrats tried to score political points on the events in Örebro in this way and that they tried to demonstrate decisiveness does not surprise me at all, but the Tidö parties should have had more backbone. I believe, however, that everyone has learned a lesson from this for the future.

It may be good to know that the type of AR15 that is now being prohibited for use in hunting in Sweden is used for exactly that, hunting, in many other countries in the EU. It has for a long time been used in Sweden for shooting, and there are no cases where the weapon has been misused in Sweden. AR15 is also a weapon that is particularly difficult to modify and convert into a fully automatic weapon, so the claim that it would be easy to convert this weapon is directly incorrect.

Mr. Speaker! It is very good that the government has backed down from the requirement for compulsory purchase. That action would have been highly remarkable and created a number of legal problems. It would also have created a new legal practice with completely unforeseen consequences. I would therefore like to extend a big thank you to the government for listening to those who were critical of this proposal.

That the Social Democrats, the Green Party, and the Left Party act as they do and without knowledge is nothing new, and that must stand for them, but that is not how a responsible government should act. That the left-wing parties also want to disregard current practice and forcibly purchase certain weapons can only be interpreted in one way: That they disregard current practice and what is yours and mine shows that they can do exactly as they please.

What is it that S, V and MP will want to expropriate next? Property rights do not rank high on the Government's priority list, but they are clearly working more with the motto "we can take your property when we want." This is a staggering action.

Mr. Speaker! What does this bill contain? Well, the government – and the Tidö parties – have actively worked following the investigation to try to use what can be used from the investigation and to remove certain parts and improve other parts. I will now address some of the changes.

There will be clearer requirements on what the police shall assess regarding suitability before anyone is granted a license. This reduces the police's own discretion.

We remove "special reasons" for obtaining a pistol, for example, and replace it with "clear specific reasons." This reduces the police's own discretion.

A clear improvement is that the country's hunters will now be able to expand their weapon wardrobe from today's six weapons to ten weapons. This will make it easier for many hunters who are active and hunt different game and for whom the need for adapted weapons increases. It is also good that there is room in the wardrobe if a hunter inherits a weapon and wants to keep it for various reasons. The weapon wardrobe becomes clear, and thus the police's own discretion is reduced.

We also remove the special assessment that exists today between the fourth and the fifth weapon, as just these weapons were to be given an extra justification. This has been cumbersome and created ambiguity for the police regarding what should be required and assessed to grant the fifth or sixth weapon. The investigator had a proposal that this should be moved forward and be placed between the eighth and the ninth weapon in the new weapon wardrobe. We scrapped that. We removed it completely, so today ten weapons apply straight away. That the rule has been removed will facilitate both for the police and for the country's hunters. This also reduces the police's own assessment and opinion.

Mr. Speaker! We are now also clearly introducing the EU firearms pass, which shall apply in Sweden. It will make it easier for both hunters and shooters to be able to travel to Sweden and participate in hunting or shooting in a faster way. Previously, the waiting times for these permits could be several weeks at the police, and it sometimes meant a risk that competitive shooters missed competitions in Sweden. This is now good and will be addressed. It reduces the police's workload and the police's own discretion.

We are also removing the five-year licenses, which both created a lot of work for the police and placed completely unreasonable requirements on the shooters to demonstrate a need for the weapon. It risked becoming insecure assessments.

Mr. Speaker! In the future, a certificate from the association regarding membership and activity in the shooting club will suffice. Previously, one had to present competition results and justify one's need to the police in a very bureaucratic and complicated way, which received extensive criticism. The new supervision and the certificate will now be clear and will facilitate things for the shooters. It reduces the police's own discretion. We are now working together with the shooting organizations in Sweden to develop exact formulations on how this shall be applied.

We are also making it possible to store weapons at another location. Previously, the police have interpreted the law as that one had to store the weapon exactly where one lives. This interpretation has been condemned by the court, and it will now be possible to store weapons at a place other than where one lives. The police's interpretation has therefore been purely incorrect for a long time.

Mr. Speaker! We scrapped the investigator's proposal regarding the so-called valve, which would have given the police a completely unreasonable opportunity to deliberate on and reject applications. We have a regulatory framework for which weapons are permitted for hunting, and the police do not need any extra valve.

Furthermore, it has been shown for a long time that the police's knowledge of weapons is, generally speaking, deficient many times over, and this must improve. Those who handle weapon issues must have a higher level of knowledge. Today, the police employ weapon handlers who lack knowledge of weapons, Mr. Speaker, which is, of course, completely unreasonable. Therefore, it is very good that we completely succeeded in removing the so-called valve, and thus the police's own judgment, from the new weapons legislation.

Mr. Speaker! We also clearly distance ourselves from the texts in the investigation concerning the leakage theory. Leakage does not exist, which has already been proven. The police and the investigator's claims that weapons leak from legal weapon owners to criminals without legal permits completely lack any basis.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to magazines that fit in military weapons, those assessments will become an enormous problem to resolve. I have pointed this out clearly several times, and I am quite convinced that in the near future we must review the regulatory framework surrounding the magazines. I am convinced that we may need to rectify this.

Mr. Speaker! We are also adjusting the legal text so that minor offenses committed by legal weapon owners will be judged more leniently in the future, which is good. This can certainly be adjusted even further in the future.

Mr. Speaker! We are also working on refining the police's activities. The police today perform many tasks that could be handled by another agency. Therefore, we have investigated the possibility of a new wildlife authority, where, among other things, the licenses could be moved from the police. That proposal is now being prepared at the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure.

The police are to handle a multitude of tasks today, and even though they have received enormous budget reinforcements, they do not have time to prioritize all their tasks. Shooting ranges stand unattended, and there are still long processing times for weapons. The license cases, approximately 70,000–90,000 per year, take time and resources from the police's other tasks. It would therefore be welcome if the police were relieved regarding some tasks.

Mr. Speaker! What happens next? Even though we today formally declare several announcements as concluded, we still have the ambition to resolve several of the issues that are still not finished.

It is about, among other things, a clearer division of the weapons legislation – one for legal weapons owners and one for illegal weapons owners, i.e., people in criminal environments. It needs to be reviewed.

With today's legislation, there is also a great risk that courts will judge hunters and shooters too harshly based on any potential minor inaccuracies.

Being able to exchange weapons over the counter, that is, exchanging one shotgun for another directly at the gun dealer, would reduce the workload for the police or the wildlife authority and make it easier for hunters to more quickly exchange their weapons before the hunt. This is an improvement that must be investigated, and a proposal on how it can be solved needs to be developed.

More weapons can be made license-free. It is not only muzzleloaders from before 1890 that can be license-free in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! We also need to review and facilitate for shooters when it comes to weapon wardrobes, scoring systems, and storage. Today, the regulations can prevent many skilled shooters from continuing with their sport. The regulations for the country's collectors, who make a very large cultural contribution, may also need to be further improved.

There are also a number of different parts in the announcements that the investigator did not investigate, and we obviously need to look further into those if we are given the confidence to lead the country after the next election.

Mr. Speaker! What lesson can we draw from this? One lesson is that those who investigate a weapons law must have knowledge of weapons, that is to say, it is not enough with only legal competence. Another is that the investigator must be able to listen to all affected parties, not just the police and prosecutors, and take into account the problems that exist.

Furthermore, the investigator must follow the directives in the investigation and carry them out. The investigator also cannot skip certain directives and then make up their own. We also need to look at ensuring that investigations are conducted in greater consultation with all involved parties.

Mr. Speaker! What are the dangers that we all must consider with the new legislation? Well, there are at least two dangers ahead. The first is that if the police continue to misinterpret the spirit of the legislation, that is to say, to facilitate for the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors, the legislation must be reviewed immediately and further adjusted and clarified. The second great danger is if there is a new Social Democratic government this autumn. They have, in fact, opposed all the improvements we want to make. They want to reintroduce the five-year licenses, and they want to forcibly redeem weapons.

How do we solve this then, Mr. Speaker? As I see it, it is quite simple: We ensure that the weapons cases and license management are moved from the police to a new wildlife authority, and we ensure that we vote for the Moderaterna or other Tidö parties in the election so that we avoid a social democratic government that wants to worsen things for the country's hunters and shooters.

Mr. Speaker! The choice stands between today's government, which seeks to improve things for the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors, and a Social Democratic government, which has said no to all improvements and furthermore wants to further complicate things for the country's hunters and shooters. The new legislation that now enters into force applies from June 1, 2026.

In conclusion, I would like to vote in favor of the government bill and the committee's proposal in the report, and against all reservations.

Forgive me for exceeding my speaking time, Mr. Speaker!

(Applause)

(TALMANNEN: I can state that Sten Bergheden exceeded the allotted speaking time by almost 100 percent.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I also want to begin by apologizing for not standing up when the Speaker greeted the chamber before the start of the debate; I was also deeply lost in thought. It shall not be repeated.

Thank you for the long speech, Sten Bergheden! It is usually long, anyway, so it is probably not the first time the speaking time has been exceeded. But it was interesting, because it was an honest speech – an honest statement – about what has happened and what has not happened in this process.

Sten Bergheden asserts with emphasis that leaks do not exist, according to the government. It is somewhat interesting because for a very long time there has been a serious proposal moving forward that leaks actually exist and that one should therefore introduce the so-called valve.

I believe it was Gunnar Strömmer who said the following in an article in Svensk Jakt: We are not proceeding with the proposal regarding the so-called valve. The intention behind the proposal was good, that is, to clarify in an explicit provision that the interest of public order and security shall be able to be taken into account. The Council on Legislation questioned the formulation of the provision and called it unclear and unpredictable. After careful consideration, we are not proceeding with that proposal.

This is fantastic in itself, because otherwise, this is going against the Council on Legislation, the Tidö government's best branch, one could say. The government usually nonchalantly ignores the Council on Legislation.

Not proceeding with a proposal that one has submitted themselves because it complicates matters is not per se to simplify. This raises certain questions and creates some concern. It was said, namely, that one is not proceeding with that proposal right now. Will one proceed with that proposal later? Or can Sten Bergheden also continue to emphasize that there is no leakage and that the government does not stand by that theory? It does appear in the proposition that leakage actually exists.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Helena Vilhelmsson!

The chairman makes it very simple for me: There is no leakage. That is what we are clear about from the Tidö parties' side. That part is therefore completely struck out. We know that the theory is included in the text, and that is why I mentioned it here – to be clear that we do not stand behind that theory because it is not correct.

Regarding the second question, that is, whether the proposal for a safety valve would resurface: No, that proposal will not resurface with any Tidöre government. It lies very, very far down in the wastebasket and is on its way to recycling. That part will therefore disappear completely.

However, I am a bit worried, because the proposal is still included in the investigation. Should it be a Social Democratic government that thinks we should give the police more power to make assessments and so on, I am afraid that people will start digging at the recycling station to look for the proposal about a valve. I would see that as a major problem. I hope, however, that the proposal never reappears, and we do not intend to contribute to it doing so in any case.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! That sounds good.

Sten Bergheden mentioned that despite everything, it stands in the government's bill that the proposals in the bill collectively are expected to reduce the risk that legal firearms are diverted to the illegal weapons market or otherwise used for crime compared to today. Listen to that: compared to today. That is, it stands in the bill that a certain shift occurs from legal to illegal weapons holders – to criminals. That is a very serious claim.

Now Sten Bergheden says that is not the case. He is welcome to clarify what it is that has happened from the time the bill was submitted until today that makes us not have to be worried about this.

Sten Bergheden can also elaborate on how he views any potential concessions for the sport shooters. I am somewhat skeptical as to whether this proposal really entails so much in terms of concessions for the sport shooters. I think, on the contrary, that it is a deterioration. The sport shooting organizations have received an order to submit a certificate showing that they have a need to possess certain weapons. These are the same expectations that are placed on individual weapon holders. An association is an association and has weapons for other reasons – precisely because it is an association. I do not think this is a simplification.

It was spoken about the weapons wardrobe, but it is determined by regulation. This could actually have been implemented a long time ago. Furthermore, no expansion of the weapons wardrobe is underway for sport shooters, as I understand the regulation texts, but only for hunters.

Finally: It is true that it will become easier with storage because we have a judgment in the Supreme Administrative Court. This is by no means the government's merit.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! The leakage theory is not included in the committee's position. It has been struck out from that entire part and is not included in the decision that applies. The leakage theory is dead.

Regarding the second part, Helena Vilhelmsson raised what need a shooter has. Today, one must show competition results, activity in the club, and that entire part. Every shooter has a responsibility towards the police to account for this. If one has temporarily been ill, had a child, built a house, or something else, one can, as I mentioned in my speech, be forced to get rid of one or two weapons because one has not been sufficiently active in that specific shooting discipline. One can, however, keep the other weapons if the five-year license has not expired.

Now we will change this so that all licenses become temporary licenses. However, one must obtain a certificate from one's shooting club showing that one is still a member and is still active in the club.

There are many who work in an association and who take care of club matters, arrange for shooting ranges and fix and tinker. They might be older. They might have one or two pistols. They participate in the club championship – they always come in last, but they are always there helping and tinkering.

These persons shall be able to keep their pistol in the future, and therefore we want it to be clear: If one is a member and active in the shooting club, and if the certificate arrives at the police, the police shall not sit and investigate what one has done in the club or what need one has. It shall be sufficient that one has a certificate from the shooting club. It is this that we are now working out together with the sport shooting clubs.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Samuel Gonzalez Westling (V)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by saying that the hunting community and sport shooters in Sweden enjoy high confidence when it comes to handling and storing weapons. Furthermore, it is extremely rare that licensed weapons are used in criminal acts. Therefore, no shadow should fall over either hunters or sport shooters as a collective.

With this said, it is however important to be extremely clear: weapons are weapons, regardless of the purpose of possession. That we as a society have an interest in regulating them is therefore not particularly strange. Weapons can be used to cause very great harm; this is particularly clear in the time we are living in now.

Very large parts of the public are afraid of deadly firearm violence, and we as legislators need to be responsive to that. It is therefore pleasing that the government has also understood this, and on the whole, we stand behind the bill that the government has presented.

Weapons are unique because their primary purpose is to harm or kill, regardless of what the purpose of possession may be. This applies to both hunting and sport shooting. For that reason, it is important for us as legislators to be careful about what type of weapons we are prepared to allow in society. Society may have more tolerance for certain weapons than others. Certain types of semi-automatic weapons are of such a character that tolerance must be low. We therefore welcome the government introducing a ban on new weapons of that character.

We must do everything to prevent pure massacres and acts of terror at as early a stage as is possible. I am thinking of such as what happened at Risbergska in Örebro or at Utøya. What happened there was not directly caused by semi-automatic weapons, but it perhaps would never have happened if they had not existed and been legally owned.

Attacks of this type are usually due to the current spirit of hatred towards immigrants in general and Muslims in particular that prevails today. This type of crime is unfortunately something that is largely justified in the rhetoric that the parties on the right side employ. They paint with broad brushstrokes large groups of people as responsible for all of society's injustices. It concerns people whose only crime is that they were born somewhere else in the world or have a certain religion.

When the money is not enough to finance school or healthcare, immigrants are used as scapegoats. When life becomes difficult for the common man, it is the immigrant who is made to bear the responsibility and the blame. It is a loathsome rhetoric that we unfortunately recognize from the very darkest parts of human history.

The Moderates and the Christian Democrats have, in a very short time, wandered far into this dark path. The Liberals' rhetoric stretches back even further – we remember how they already 25 years ago tried to capitalize on xenophobia.

The Sweden Democrats are, however, worst in this regard. After having tried to temper the very worst excesses upon their entry into the Riksdag, they have flourished completely during the most recent parliamentary term. Given why, and by whom, the party was once formed, it is perhaps not particularly surprising.

We recognize how this type of rhetoric creates a social climate where hatred and threats flourish. The truly appalling thing about all of this is that it finds fertile ground precisely because the people in Sweden sense that things are not as they should be.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that we in Sweden today have the most radical and right-wing nationalist government in the entire Western world. One could see to helping the growing proportion of the population who cannot afford to pay for the most basic things and who see how an ever-increasing proportion of incomes disappears with high food prices, skyrocketing electricity prices, and high rents. This is a government that has a majority in Sweden's Riksdag and which could solve the problems that people face if they only wanted to, but they do not want to. They would rather blame the powerless, the weak, and those who are already vulnerable – the immigrants. It is despicable.

I said earlier that it is events such as the terrorist attack at Risbergska that are the basis for why we must ban certain types of semi-automatic weapons. It is also one of the reasons the government cites for introducing the ban on new such weapons. It is not about the weapons themselves, but about the fact that there are people who are prepared to commit this type of wrongdoing.

That is why it is also strange when, from the government's side, there is a desire to remove the five-year permits. We need better and regular controls to know that one actually has a need for the weapons one owns. In a society, we must all be prepared to make sacrifices. When we see that there are risks, we must act. Therefore, we in Vänsterpartiet consider it a major shortcoming of the government that they do not want to buy back the already existing semi-automatic weapons. I move for approval of reservation 2, which aims at exactly that.

I wish that we did not live in a time when we needed to be afraid of atrocities such as those that occurred at Utøya or Risbergska. But we do. For everyone's safety, it is therefore reasonable and downright necessary to limit the prevalence of semi-automatic weapons, Mr. Speaker. It takes only one person and one act for it to be too much. It is our responsibility as legislators to make society safe.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are finally debating a new weapons law, even though the previous speaker spoke about something completely different for the most part of their contribution. It perhaps shows the prioritization that certain parties make. I regret that the Left has let go of the knowledge about weapons that existed during the previous parliamentary term.

We can observe that the weapons law we are now discussing focuses on the needs of law-abiding hunters and sport shooters with significant improvements and simplifications. This perspective stands in sharp contrast to what the previous, Sledda government delivered during the last parliamentary term. It was often about trying to restrict and complicate things for those who behave themselves, i.e., the more than 600,000 weapons owners who today have a license to handle weapons and also do so responsibly. During the last parliamentary term, proposals for changes in a restrictive direction were often presented in the chamber. But then they lost due to the will of the majority in the chamber to simplify for the weapons owners.

Not everything is perfect in this law, and much work remains to be done. But the law has nevertheless brought us a good way forward. I am pleased that the Christian Democrats and other parties in the government cooperation have seen the gun owners as a resource and not as a problem, which is demonstrated by this changed weapons law. Therefore, it is natural that I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and thereby rejection of the opposition's motion requests in the matter.

Mr. Speaker! Weapons are a continuous source of debate, and there is certainly no lack of opinions on how they should be handled and regulated in our society. Sometimes one sees in the debate a direct connection to the abhorrent violence occurring on our streets, often with gang connections. There is a great risk that even we ordinary citizens might end up injured or killed if we find ourselves in the wrong place at the wrong time. There is a great consensus in this chamber that we must break violence's grip on our society, so that safety can be restored.

Despite this intention, we must be able to hold two thoughts and directions in our heads at the same time and conduct a serious discussion. Weapons and the handling of them is an important issue that should be discussed without overreactions and without taking drastic measures when they are not needed. Weapons are used in a responsible manner in our society today. This is done by hunters and sport shooters and naturally also by the defense and the police.

Today's debate concerns a new weapons law. It can therefore be easy, especially for parts of today's opposition, to call for stricter rules for all weapon owners in order to meet the increase in firearm violence. But the simplified path is both counterproductive and incorrect. We Christian Democrats naturally believe that large efforts are needed from all parts of the justice system and also necessary legislative changes to tackle criminals' possession of weapons and explosives. But if, in the aim of appearing proactive, the efforts are directed so that they primarily hit the Swedish hunting and shooting movement, which was actually a fact when S was in government, it is a simplified and incorrect way.

The problem is developing alarmingly with an increased use of weapons from conflict zones and, for example, starter pistols and 3D-printed weapons. We must give the police tools to meet this, but we must do it in such a way that it does not create problems for ordinary hunters and sport shooters who handle their weapons responsibly and have them securely stored in approved gun safes.

Mr. Speaker! We have today in Sweden a large number of registered weapon owners, approximately 620,000, according to information. Already today they are regularly checked, often daily, through various control functions. I have said this in previous debates, and it has been mentioned earlier in today's debate, but it is necessary to repeat: It is not primarily legal weapons that are the focus for criminals or that are used in shootings and other serious crimes in Sweden, but rather illegal weapons that enter Sweden through illegal means are used.

A few years ago, it was noted that approximately one weapon per year that came from hunting or sport shooting was used in serious crime. According to the Swedish Crime Prevention Council, gun violence has increased by 200 percent over ten years. But it is important to point out that the same investigation shows that 98.5 percent of the weapons seized in crimes are smuggled and have never been registered.

Brå has also reviewed the developments regarding legal weapons in cases of lethal violence. It is still the case that few legal weapons are involved. Naturally, it occurs – during the years 2014–2021 in 19 of 307 cases. But just as mentioned in the debate, in the majority of these cases, it concerns violence against relatives. Drugs and mental illness also frequently occur in these cases. What society should do is therefore, through various interventions, ensure that persons who are unsuitable as weapon owners do not get to keep and continue to handle weapons, not to make it difficult for all law-abiding and responsible weapon owners. For us Christian Democrats, it is therefore self-evident not to lump hunters and sport shooters together with those who behave the worst in society.

Mr. Speaker! Now we are laying the foundation for a completely new weapons legislation which entails clear reliefs for Sweden's law-abiding hunters and sport shooters. We are abolishing the five-year permits and replacing them with a supervision procedure. We are lowering the requirement for single-hand weapons. We are simplifying the rules for storage and certain weapon parts replacements. We are simplifying the import procedure via a European firearms pass, and this shall also apply to hunters. We are expanding the weapons wardrobe so that a hunter can have up to ten weapons without having to justify the need. There is also an expansion of the number of barrels in the weapons wardrobe. This is regulated in a weapons ordinance which will be presented and which applies from the same time as the law. At the same time, as mentioned, we are not proceeding with the so-called valve, an unclear provision that risks creating unpredictability in the permit review.

The new law is proposed to enter into force on 1 June 2026. It is a comprehensive reform that strengthens legal certainty, reduces unnecessary bureaucracy, and protects both safety and the major popular movements that hunting and shooting constitute.

There are still several important issues in the weapons area that need further clarification. Therefore, we in Kristdemokrater see positively that the Tidöregeringen intends to appoint a new inquiry. This concerns, among other things, the possibility of weapons exchange over the counter and a criminal law division of crimes that have typically been committed by illegal weapons holders.

This government listens to the needs of today's law-abiding gun owners. This is done constructively and without losing focus on meeting the gun violence that occurs with unregistered, illegal weapons in our society. I can state that these legislative changes did not become a reality under the previous government and that they could not become so with the direction that it had.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to conclude by highlighting that in this area, like many others in the political landscape, there is a lack of consensus on the opposition's side. But in general, the Social Democrats, the Left Party, and the Green Party want to make things difficult for law-abiding gun owners in Sweden and limit their opportunities. This is also shown in this matter through a number of reservations. They thus maintain the line from the previous parliamentary term. They create pseudo-arguments based on experiences on forest walks instead of looking at reality, which is that gun owners in our country are responsible in the handling of weapons and that we have an extensive control system.

What the Tidö parties are now achieving, S failed to do during its period. It can be stated that S, during its time in government, presented a number of proposals here in the chamber that fell, because there is a majority that looks at the owners' possibilities and conditions regarding weapons.

That the opposition as it exists today should find a common path in the future – hopefully a distant future, if I may wish – together with the fourth opposition party Centern seems almost utopian.

In light of the fact that C stands on the same side as the government in many weapons issues and also sees the need and necessity of a changed and simplified weapons law, a consensus with other opposition parties in this area seems impossible. That the needs and wishes of gun owners would be met in a future red-green government chaos is, unfortunately, probably only a utopian dream.

My message to the gun owners is therefore: Let us avoid a failure of the weapons legislation, and give us in the Tidö cooperation continued confidence for a responsible and realistic weapons policy even after the election in September.

Mr. Speaker! This debate shows that it is possible to choose a direction regarding weapon ownership that ensures simplification for law-abiding and responsible weapon owners. We have a government basis that pursues a new path for the Weapons Act.

I want to say as a closing remark in this debate that we Christian Democrats will continue to argue and act to implement further changes that facilitate things for law-abiding gun owners. I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of all reservations.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! We are here today to debate a new weapons law. It is a welcome law that the Center Party largely supports, but I and my colleague Helena Vilhelmsson will highlight some aspects.

When one talks about weapons today in Sweden, one ends up in two different contexts that have quite little to do with each other, apart from the fact that there are weapons involved in both contexts.

We have over 600,000 hunters, sport shooters, collectors and dealers who together have almost two million weapons. The majority are Swedish hunters. They seek licenses and educate themselves. They have requirements on them regarding storage and handling. They engage in wildlife management. It is a large community, and many times it is a lifestyle.

Then we have the second context. It is the criminal world with the gangs' shootings and deadly settlements – another kind of lifestyle. It is a world that we discuss in many contexts here. It is much of what the new legislation in the field of justice aims at, and that is partly also this weapons law.

It is important to state right at the outset, as many have done in previous speeches, that the gangs' weapons are not the legal weapons covered by today's bill, but that the gangs' weapons are exclusively illegal weapons. It is not the hunters' legal weapons that are placed in the hands of children, but it is illegal weapons.

Mr. Speaker! I am not a hunter, and I do not have any weapons myself. I grew up with hunting and wildlife management in the family. I am, however, a prosecutor and am careful, even as a politician, that we present proposals that are effective, logical, and reasonable, and that solve the problem that has been identified.

We have a major problem with shootings in Sweden. But I do not want anyone to give the impression that it is the weapons of hunters, sport shooters, or collectors that are being used by the gangs. I therefore want to highlight the ban on semi-automatic weapons that is proposed in the proposal.

These semi-automatic weapons, including the AR-15, are reported to be so dangerous and pose such great risks of falling into the wrong hands that the government and SD – yes, all other parties – want to ban them, even though these legal weapons are not used by criminals at all.

Then one thinks that if you have banned them, you need to collect the 6,000–7,000 AR-15s that you have now assessed to be so dangerous. But that is not the case. At the same time, Sweden's hunters shall be allowed to keep the 6,000–7,000 AR-15s that they already have, despite that it has been claimed that they are dangerous and involve risks.

If the hunters still want to hand in those weapons, we from all the other parties have been prepared to give them closer to a quarter of a billion kronor for it. It is perfectly reasonable when redeeming private property. But it is still a prioritization of our tax money to spend a quarter of a billion kronor on it.

Centerpartiet says no to this. We are the only party that is against a ban on semi-automatic weapons for hunting, and I can explain why. But first, I shall speak about something else.

The fatal shootings have hit Sweden hard in recent years. The criminal gangs and organized crime have claimed lives and are creating insecurity.

Events and crimes have meant that the Center Party has stood behind the historically large investments in the police and the rest of the justice system. We have been in favor of stricter penalties and the introduction of new tools and methods, all to combat that crime. We are also in favor of giving social services and municipalities an expanded crime prevention mandate.

For the Center Party to say yes to a proposal, the measures must be effective, legally sound, and evidence-based. It is precisely for those reasons, which I now return to, that we are against the proposal to ban hunting with semi-automatic weapons.

We have also looked at what the referral bodies that have reviewed the proposals have said. Jägarnas Riksförbund and Svenska Jägareförbundet oppose the proposal to ban semi-automatic weapons. They argue that it will have no effect on gun violence. It is important to listen to that.

We must remember that we have had semi-automatic weapons for hunting in Sweden since the 1980s, and also these AR-15s during the period 2023–2025. There are up to 7,000 AR-15s in our country.

We have previously heard in the debate about the so-called leakage theory. It goes out on that legal weapons leak to the criminal world. We have heard several sources. On a number of occasions, I have asked direct questions to the police commissioner Petra Lundh: Are it legal weapons that are seized? Are it legal weapons that are used by the gangs? Every time I get the answer: No.

The Center Party stands up for the law-abiding gun owners. We have consistently said no to treating shooters and hunters as a security problem just because society and the government fail to handle organized crime.

However, we must, as several have pointed out, have continued secure licensing. We welcome that in this proposition, a practice of the circumstances to be considered during the suitability assessment is codified.

In conclusion: It has been spoken here previously about a consensus with different blocs and how we are to get different government options through after the election. I want to be clear that it is only the Centerpartiet that does not think we should take almost a quarter of a billion kronor of our common tax money and a lot of hours of the police's valuable time to remove a weapon that is not used in the deadly shootings. I would say that it is not at all a serious and responsible use of either tax money or the police's valuable time.

However, we need to invest both time and money to remove the illegal weapons that claim human lives, cause children to be recruited into crime, and create insecurity. But the solution is not the one currently on the Riksdag's table. I move for approval of reservation 1.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We have in many respects a common view. I heard that the member in his speech also said: It is not the weapons of the legal gun owners that are the problem in society.

We can observe that during the previous parliamentary term, there was a great consensus in the Riksdag. The then S-government came forward with proposals for the over-implementation of the European weapons directive. Center voted no, together with us in KD, the Liberals, and SD. We did not want it. We did not see that connection. It is a connection that is often created in a fantasizing world, often from S, that the dangerous weapons are those that stand in the gun cabinets and that it is these that cause the violence on the streets. We Christian Democrats and the Center Party have the same view on this.

I can also state that the Centre Party – as it appears – chooses to seek a government cooperation in the future with parties that, even in this report, reserve themselves against the simplifications and instead head in another direction. We have experience from the previous mandate period of a Minister for Justice who preferred to create problems and restrictions rather than do anything about the real problems.

My questions to Member Liljeberg are therefore: What prospects does the Member see regarding the ability to conduct a center policy – which one can say in many ways is a Tidö party policy – in such a government base? And what red lines exist? If the Social Democrats want to proceed and ban semi-automatic weapons, which have been permitted for 30–40 years – is that a red line for the Center Party?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question!

This matter of bloc politics and which laws one belongs to is no simple thing. We have, for example, in the debate here today, heard leading representatives for the government's policy themselves say: Actually, I don't quite agree with what is being put on the table, but I would have wanted a different proposal. It shows how difficult it is to agree on exactly all issues, regardless of whether one belongs to a party that sits in the government or not.

In the upcoming election, the Centre Party is running on the Centre Party's policies. In those, we highlight the countryside, and we highlight the hunters' lifestyle, which we do not want to ban in the way proposed in the report.

I therefore request to pose the question back to the member, as we see a breadth in very many issues even within the Tidö basis that has now been presented.

Regarding red lines ahead of the election, the only red line that the Center Party has in the area of justice is that we say no to lowering the age of criminal responsibility from 15 years to either 14 or 13 years. I have understood that the Christian Democrats have not been leading the work to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 13 years, so let me ask the members: How does KD view such an issue in a future and continued government cooperation with Tidö?

(TALMANNEN: In this debate, which concerns a new weapons law, I now give the floor to Ingemar Kihlström, Kristdemokraterna.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! That was also the thought I had in mind; we can conduct that debate in other forums.

Let me however state that it does not always turn out exactly as one wants in a government cooperation. We have heard representatives speak here, and had I personally been in the inner rooms, the question of the AR-15 would not have been handled in this way. But now we have nevertheless put it forward in a situation that involves a step forward, and no one who has bought and owns a weapon today needs to forcibly surrender it.

I am still a bit concerned about the potential chaos that could arise. We can supplement the whole thing by saying that the Center Party has another red line, if I have understood the matter correctly: the Center Party does not support a government where the Left Party has ministerial posts.

I am thinking then that C in this matter has a position that lies very close to the Tidö government's. During the previous parliamentary term, even V had a position that lay very close to gun owners and sport shooters, but that seems to have been changed now with a change of member.

I still believe it is relevant for the voters to see that this is not a small issue. As we have said, it concerns 620,000 weapon owners. Do they have to risk that Morgan Johansson, as Minister for Justice, will once again present restrictive proposals where he really shoots mosquitoes with a cannon, if one were to take that metaphor, instead of going to the heart of the matter and tackling the problems?

I ask the question again: What prospects does Member Liljeberg see regarding the possibility of pushing through the policies that we largely share, and where it would be more natural to cooperate with us on the Tidösidan, in a potential government cooperation with parties that want to act in a completely different direction?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! I shall do my best not to engage in too grave a digression.

When it comes to today's topic and one wonders how C can cooperate with the other parties, we can state that C in this case has its own position, which we do not share with any of the other parties, in the sense that we do not distrust Sweden's hunters when it comes to their ability to handle the semi-automatic weapons.

That is a question in itself, where we wonder how Tidö will proceed. They do, however, seem to be able to cooperate with everyone else on that issue as well.

We received once again an example from the member that one does not agree with everything even if one is part of a coalition. To summarize the question of a government cooperation: The hunters' lifestyle and the lifestyle one has in the countryside is important, and we therefore need to achieve a much more vibrant countryside. If we are to stay within the legal scope, I can mention the problems we see with the police presence being withdrawn from the countryside under a Tidö government. That is not something the Centerpartiet signs off on.

We also see a concern in that the Council on Legislation rejects many of the government's proposals in the field of law, which is important for our entire country, and the same is true for the Climate Policy Council and the Fiscal Policy Council.

With this, I want the following to be said: C goes to the election with its own policy, and then after the election we will see what we can put together. The hunters' situation is important, but there are also larger issues: Jobs shall increase, emissions shall decrease, and all of Sweden shall live.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! Many here today are raising issues and things that perhaps do not really have to do with the law we are now debating.

It is interesting that many are talking about the gang shootings and the illegal weapons. That is not what is being addressed in this law either. It will probably not be used by the law enforcement authorities to combat the gun violence we see in society today. The law is about how we should handle the legal gun owners.

Sweden's weapons laws are among the strictest in the world and are based on the principle that weapon ownership is not a right but an opportunity. Therefore, a permit is required. Today, there are two main purposes that can grant a permit to own a weapon – hunting and sport shooting. The requirements placed on the person who wants a weapon are that the person is law-abiding and mentally stable and does not have a documented abuse. Furthermore, all weapons must be registered and stored in a secure manner. I believe we all agree that this is good.

Mr. Speaker! There is, however, a legitimate need for a strong control of the legal weapons that are out in society and in our homes. That control must never become worse than it is today or has been previously, but it must also not become such that it negatively affects the responsible and law-abiding weapon owners.

Hunters and sport shooters are groups that are very concerned that their handling of their own weapons shall take place in a good and safe manner. All of us who know hunters or sport shooters or who perhaps ourselves practice some form of hobby that involves weapons can attest to this. I have personally handled both single-shot weapons, double-shot weapons, semi-automatic weapons and fully automatic weapons for over 35 years, and I know that weapon owners are very careful about being correct in their handling of the weapons.

Sport shooting in Sweden is a major sporting movement that engages many and which also constitutes a significant contribution to the defense capability. The Liberals want that Swedish sport shooting shall have good conditions to continue to be a viable popular movement.

We have a strong hunting tradition here in the country, and we will definitely safeguard it. Our hunters help, among other things, to keep the population of moose and wild boar at reasonable levels so that forests and agriculture are not affected.

Mr. Speaker! As we now review the Weapons Act, it must be done with exactly what I have kept in the back of my mind: Our hunters and sport shooters are serious and responsible gun owners. The new law should not make things more difficult for them, but on the contrary make it easier for them, however, without in any way compromising control and safety.

To preempt: I am aware that there are weapon owners who would have liked to see even more changes and even more relaxations, but I still think that the new law has addressed what is today a problem for the legal weapon owners.

I thought I would briefly give a few examples of simplifications we are making in the new weapons law.

I will begin with perhaps the most important point: All weapon owners I know speak about the so-called five-year licenses. There we are now changing so that a weapon owner does not have to apply for a license again after five years. This has been both cumbersome and administratively messy and has in some cases caused problems for legal weapon owners when their applications arrived too late or when the Swedish Police Authority had not had time to review and grant them in time. There have even been cases where legal weapon owners have been convicted of illegal possession of weapons due to an administrative error.

Now we are changing the rules so that the weapon owners do not need to apply again after five years. It is sufficient for the weapon owners, at the request of the Swedish Police Authority, or whichever authority it becomes, to submit a basis confirming that they still have a need for their license. The license will therefore continue to be valid indefinitely and not be time-limited.

Another change the government is making is to simplify the rules for the storage of weapons. It will now be easier to store weapons with someone else, albeit with continued high requirements for supervision and control over both weapons, ammunition, and weapon parts.

The new law also makes it easier to obtain a license for one-handed weapons, in everyday language, pistols or revolvers. We are moving from extraordinary reasons to special reasons for that need.

The new law also makes it easier for foreign hunters and sport shooters to enter the country and participate in hunting and competitions. When Swedish shooters go out to Europe, they use the EU's so-called weapons pass, but when foreign sport shooters come to Sweden today, they must also have a permit from the Police Authority and so on, which takes time. Now we are changing it so that the rules for the EU weapons pass also apply to the entry of other EU citizens to Sweden. That is good.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we raise the number of weapons that hunters and sport shooters can have in their weapon wardrobe to eight weapons. One can also be allowed to have more if one can demonstrate a need for this.

All in all, I think that the new weapons law has addressed what needed to be addressed and is a good law.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Miljöpartiet stands in large parts behind the government's proposal for a new weapons law. We particularly welcome that the rules for suitability assessment are clarified and that, for example, age, knowledge, skills, law-abidingness, and medical circumstances shall be taken into account in an assessment. We also stand behind that the government puts forward a new supervision procedure, that a ban is introduced against certain semi-automatic weapons, and that those who surrender their semi-automatic weapons are fully compensated.

Miljöpartiet, on the other hand, had wanted to go further than the government and also ban and buy back the semi-automatic weapons for hunting that are already in circulation. We therefore do not stand behind the government's proposal for voluntary buyback of certain semi-automatic weapons but instead advocate for the commission's proposal, and what the government itself previously communicated, namely that all semi-automatic weapons that are banned shall also be bought back – obviously against full compensation.

Since August 1, 2023, it has been permitted to obtain a license for semi-automatic weapons for hunting despite them having a military appearance; the most well-known example is the AR-15. Since this was permitted, a large number of permits for such weapons have been granted, according to the Swedish Police Authority.

Miljöpartiet has on several occasions been clear that we want to ban the use of military-like weapons. There are no performance reasons to allow AR weapons and no reason to be in the forest with weapons that bring to mind war and school shootings. There is a big difference between meeting a hunter with a broken weapon or the bolt in the holster during a dog walk or mushroom trip compared to seeing someone with a weapon that brings to mind school shootings.

Miljöpartiet has requested a legislative change which means that one may not obtain a license for or use semi-automatic weapons with a military appearance for hunting. The AR-15 has an obvious military appearance and has nothing to do in the forest.

Miljöpartiet welcomes tightened weapons legislation and a ban on certain semi-automatic weapons but considers that the ban must be followed by mandatory surrender of all banned weapons against full compensation.

In the report, we have also supported the motion that originally came from the Social Democrats that the order with five-year permits for semi-automatic firearms and single-shot firearms for multiple shots shall be reintroduced.

I vote in favor of reservation 3.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! It can be observed that the Green Party has changed its position on many of these issues. The Riksdag directed almost 30 reports to the old Social Democratic government regarding the Committee on Justice's proposal. The Green Party did not stand behind them but demanded the rejection of all improvements and simplifications in these reports. It is clear that the Green Party in opposition has begun to change its position.

However, the position has not been changed regarding the compulsory buyback of AR-15s. Member Ulrika Westerlund refers to the commission's proposal regarding the buyback. If I remember correctly, the commission has no clear proposal on how it should be done. It is unclear.

Then I must ask the question: How does Miljöpartiet want the compulsory surrender of these AR-15 weapons to proceed? And where in your budget is the half billion that is to be used for this compulsory surrender? I shall study Miljöpartiet's budget extra closely and check if those funds are there.

Then I must ask the same question that I asked Petter Löberg. In your reservation, it clearly states that it is AR-15 and "similar" weapons that are to be surrendered. I would then like to ask: Which are these similar weapons?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Sten Bergheden for the questions.

It is naturally very unfortunate that it is not our main speaker on these issues, Emma Nohrén, who is standing here. Then Sten Bergheden would receive much better answers. It is Emma Nohrén who has written the motion that forms the entire basis for my speech, and I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the information contained in it. Unlike me, Emma Nohrén is a hunter herself and reasons in this way based on that experience.

It is not uncommon for a party in opposition to be clearer about what is the party's own policy than when one enters into a government cooperation and then, naturally, discusses, negotiates, and makes various concessions to each other's policies in order for it to be possible to put the cooperation together. If I am to try to figure out what has happened, when Sten Bergheden has such detailed knowledge of Miljöpartiet's previous positions, I must assume that it is about this.

Then Sten Bergheden uses the word forced buyback. That is absolutely something that can be done. Mandatory buyback is the wording we have used. Forced buyback sounds like we would spend money on someone going to various people's homes and forcibly taking their weapons. I find it hard to believe that it could work. Sending a clear signal – those of you who already have such weapons are urged to hand them in for compensation – is something that is possible to do.

Then I do not think there should be a search for all potential weapons that may be in circulation. It could become difficult.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! I understand the situation, and given that the member who has written the reservation is not here, I shall not delve further into that part.

So, those were the terms mandatory surrender and forced surrender. I do not see such a big difference between them. It is about simply forcing the persons who hold the weapons to return them. That is the difference. But we have introduced a voluntary surrender for those who want to, and those who want to keep the weapons have the opportunity to do so.

There is another more important issue, Mr. Speaker, namely this matter of infringing upon people's property rights and taking their property. Practice in Sweden regarding a positive administrative decision has previously been that this applies. If, for example, an authority has granted a building permit, the decision has stood even if it was later revealed that the decision was incorrect. In this case, the people have received their weapon. This would mean, in that case, that you would need to change legislation and enter into a different practice, that is, ignore positive administrative decisions.

Is the Green Party willing to go even further with ignoring positive authority decisions? What is the next step? Is it the redemption of diesel cars, gasoline cars, pleasure boats and other things that can damage the environment? Where is the red line for the Green Party when it comes to taking other people's property with the help of compulsory redemption and ignoring the positive authority decisions?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ulrika Westerlund (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Naturally, we can have a semantic discussion about what the difference is between mandatory and coercion. I maintain that our intention is not to go to people's homes and take their property by force. I have also not seen any proposal from Miljöpartiet – I doubt that one would come – concerning the compulsory purchase of other property, for example, gasoline cars. I own one myself.

What I can note, however, is that this government is not unfamiliar with backing down on the principle of positive administrative decisions. Now, I know that this is a discussion about the weapons law specifically, but for my part, it is significantly worse that one is considering or putting forward concrete proposals to, for example, revoke permanent residence permits or citizenship. These are also positive administrative decisions that this government absolutely does not back down on withdrawing.

The reason we advocate for a mandatory surrender of the weapons is that we weigh different interests against each other. That someone owns a gasoline car is not something that could potentially lead to an acute societal danger, but we believe that the weapons have no place in hunting and that it is difficult to justify the interest in keeping the weapons compared to the potential risk they can pose.

We think it is significantly worse that one is willing to tear up other positive agency decisions in completely different policy areas – as this government wants to do.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I intended to raise some concluding reflections regarding the bill on a new weapons law that we are dealing with today.

Centerpartiet naturally agrees on the need to modernize and clarify today's weapons legislation. But I intend to stick my neck out a bit and ask if it actually became so good. We have heard many representatives from the Tidöre government who have said that it is good. But if we scrutinize the law, I wonder what changes have been proposed.

If we take, for example, the question of weapon storage in a location other than at home, it is the Supreme Administrative Court that has established what applies. It is not the government's credit. The EU's weapon pass shall apply to foreign European shooters. That is very good, but it does not facilitate things to a particularly high degree for the Swedish sport shooters. Furthermore, the promised weapon wardrobe is a regulatory issue, and it should have been addressed a long time ago. As of today, there is no increased weapon wardrobe in progress for the sport shooters.

I think there is more to be desired, not least when it comes to the five-year licenses. What is good is that one avoids the costly administrative application and a decision on supervision. That is very good. But what do we get instead? We give de facto carte blanche to the Swedish Police Authority or another authority – a mandate – to state what is needed in order to continue to hold weapons. We know that the EU thinks that the control we can perform every day by comparing with criminal records is okay.

I am surprised that in the debate posts we link gun ownership with mental well-being. It has become a strange discussion about the number of suicides increasing in Sweden and that they are committed with legal weapons. Yes, it is clear that weapons are used if one chooses that method. But we will never get to that with the five-year licenses, rather that problem we shall address by improving the care of mental illness. We will never be able to dampen the suicide numbers with the help of five-year licenses or five-year supervision. We must therefore keep what we are talking about separate.

Mr. Speaker! Then there was the incomprehensible proposal that we should continue not to be allowed to hunt with AR-15s, semi-automatic weapons. They have been used for decades in Sweden. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency allowed them for hunting as recently as 2023. One was almost prepared to set aside constitutional laws by overturning positive agency decisions, by confiscating legally acquired property. The proposal was withdrawn, but I wouldn't beat myself up too much for that either. De facto, a deterioration has been made. Those who are allowed to keep their weapons are given the opportunity to redeem them during a period of two years. But how long is the lifespan of a weapon – 20, 50, or 100 years? What happens if one wants to get rid of the weapon in 20 years? It becomes worthless. De facto, the government has made a significant intrusion into the everyday lives of legal gun owners. That cannot be escaped.

I have in many debates in the chamber argued for a weapons policy based on facts, not prejudices. Time and again, I have reminded of the fundamental difference between legal weapons owners – hunters and sport shooters – and the illegal smuggled weapons of serious crime.

I have criticized the previous government's over-implementation of weapon directives. For example, they chose the most restrictive path by regulating magazines through permits. With that history as a background, the proposal being presented today becomes incomprehensible, especially when it comes to the argument about military appearance, that the appearance of the weapon would be particularly dangerous. It is symbolic politics that truly misses the mark. It is not only ineffective, but it is also legally insecure. As we point out in our motion, terms such as military type and military magazine are unclear, and they risk leading to very arbitrary interpretations by the authorities – which has also been raised in the referral responses. It creates an unpredictability that does not belong in a modern rule of law.

To be honest, it is not the appearance of the weapons that matters for how dangerous a weapon is. I am appalled when I see what the Tidö parties write in the committee's report: "Even though the appearance in itself does not make a firearm more dangerous than other weapons, the government fears that a more military appearance may cause the weapon to be perceived as more intimidating and more attractive, especially for criminals who are concerned with their reputation and violence capital."

We are therefore to make decisions on a bill that is based on an expected attractiveness of an appearance of a weapon for persons with capital of violence, and the majority in the chamber thinks that is reasonable. I do not think so.

Our 600,000 hunters and sport shooters are, as we have heard, a resource for society. They contribute to wildlife management and help in the search for wildlife injured in traffic accidents. They also constitute an important part of our total defense. They are a knowledge reserve that is becoming increasingly important in these restless times. They deserve respect and trust, not to be viewed with suspicion, which is what it is de facto about today.

The hunters' primary task when they hunt is not to ensure that mushroom pickers are doing well, but it is to hunt. A sign should be put up at the beginning of the forest, at the beginning of the hunting area where there are roads, stating that hunting is in progress. That should be enough. Mushroom pickers should not need to worry about what the weapon looks like. A weapon is, regardless of what it looks like, dangerous in the wrong hands.

Centerpartiet stands for a knowledge-based and effective crime policy, and we want to see decisive action against illegal weapons and organized crime. But we will never accept symbolic measures that, on unjust and unreasonable grounds, restrict the freedom of law-abiding citizens.

Madam Speaker! We can therefore not stand behind this bill in its entirety. The proposal to ban new permits for certain semi-automatic weapons for hunting is the wrong way to go.

I would have had respect for the proposal if it had been based on a hunting ethics perspective, but it is not. It has, as many members before me, including from the Tidö parties, have rightly pointed out, its basis in a stressed situation during an attack in Örebro where the weapon was not even used; it was legal hunting weapons that were used in Örebro. There, it would have been appropriate with larger entries in the criminal record and better contact with social services, so that the person in question would have been stripped of their weapons license. It had nothing to do with the weapon.

I believe my colleague moved for a reservation. I am satisfied with that and therefore thank you.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the contribution from the Centre Party. There are many wise words and values that we share and have shared over the years, not least when we sat in opposition and did much good together.

I hold great respect in many respects for the Center Party's position on weapons issues. But one must be able to evaluate those positions together with another position: which government the Center Party will advocate for. It is of essential importance for how the weapons issues will develop in our country in the long run.

My question to Helena Vilhelmsson is therefore: Which side of the politics do you respect most in matters of weapons? Is it the Tidösidan's positions, or is it the red-green parties' positions? And which side will you vote into government when the election is over?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

I want to remind the member that when addressing someone, use their name or "the member," not "you."

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Had the member asked me the same question until just a few years ago, my answer would have been unequivocally the Tidö parties. It is, after all, them we have worked side by side with when it comes to weapons issues.

Now I am, however, doubtful. The same gang, the same Tidö parties, actually have a majority but still manage to precisely navigate and present proposals that go against what they have worked for. And one perhaps doesn't quite deliver. I have full respect for the fact that it takes time when one is in a government position, that there are things one must take into account before things can be delivered. But the question is what has de facto been delivered.

Regarding what happens after the election, the Center Party does not do what some other parties in this assembly do, when they are already going out and talking about who should have ministerial posts or not. The Center Party has said that we are prepared to govern with both Magdalena Andersson and Ulf Kristersson and the parties in between.

Given the interest of hunters and sport shooters, it should be quite simple regarding this specific issue. Among them, there is a crushing majority for the line that the Centerpartiet is now itself committed to, and which the Tidö parties have previously stood behind, when it comes to just the AR-15.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! It surprises me that Helena Vilhelmsson takes the question so lightly. It is enough to look at the committee report we are debating today to see a fairly clear difference between the government's proposal together with the Sverigedemokraternas proposal and the Socialdemokraternas, Miljöpartiets, and Vänsterpartiets different proposals on clear restrictions and complications for legal gun ownership.

Is Helena Vilhelmsson really not worried about what might happen with these issues if a Social Democrat gets to govern the Ministry of Justice? It is of essential importance for how the weapons issues will be handled in the future.

The parties at Tidö received an investigation that was far from satisfactory. Things that we requested quite clear answers on were ignored by the investigator. It has given us rather limited conditions to do very good things. Despite that, several shooting clubs and the Swedish Hunters Association, among others, say that this is a clear step forward for their members. That one must still be able to respect. Then, certain things are also handled in regulations.

We nevertheless sharpen the question further when we say that we, for example, want to expand the weapons wardrobe to ten weapons. What does a Social Democrat want to do with that question? What does a Social Democrat want to do with the five-year licenses?

Is this not something that concerns the Center Party? And if it does not concern the Center Party, then all the words we hear from the rostrum here are worth nothing. Is it the case that one is supposed to play tough in opposition and then still just throw all the questions into the sea by letting a Social Democrat make things even worse for legal gun owners? Does Helena Vilhelmsson not harbor that fear?

Who will you choose, the Social Democrats or the Tidö parties?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Madam Speaker! The Centre Party does not take these issues lightly. The Centre Party has worked for the well-being of hunters and sport shooters since time immemorial. And we have done so together with the Sweden Democrats and together with the Tidö parties. Do not claim that we take the issues lightly, if that is what the member did. We do not do that.

Despite the fact that the Tidö parties are now in the majority, they have by no means delivered. Furthermore, they are breaking election promises when they today de facto worsen the possibilities and create difficulties for legal gun owners when it comes to, for example, the AR15. Does the member not agree that it feels a bit uncomfortable and that it is a form of election betrayal? I am a bit surprised by this.

I am not saying that it cannot become just as complicated after the next election. It can, in fact – regardless of the government. My predecessor has also answered that in this rostrum. The Sweden Democrats should be able to sign off on that. The Sweden Democrats are not in the government but have a cooperation agreement, I assume; the Tidö Agreement exists, after all. But hunting issues may not be included there. It has been difficult with the mandate there.

Regardless of the government after the next election, the same situation will be able to arise: that a government has a cooperation agreement with a supporting party.

But one thing is clear: If hunters and sport shooters want a party that truly puts their issues first – all the time, consistently and regardless – they should obviously vote for the Center Party. We stand by our proposals all the way. And we will do so even after the election, regardless of which government it becomes.

Oh yes, I am concerned. The Social Democrats must answer for their own questions, but I am concerned about the Social Democrats' position on some of these issues.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under §11.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)