Implementation of the changes in the firearms directive

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Look there - then we were at the finish line! In some sense, I also want to add a little "finally".

There is a straight line from today's debate to the decision taken in the European Parliament on March 14, 2017. With the vote count of 491 to 178, it was then decided on a revised line for the weapons directive, a directive that we as a nation are obligated to follow.

There is a straight and red line from the events in Paris, which began with the attack against Charlie Hebdo. Ten months later, almost 500 were killed or mutilated. It was a horrific attack on the open society. It was a unique, extensive and coordinated terrorist attack against Paris. The targets had been chosen with care. It was an attack against humanism, multiculturalism and pluralism. Naturally, society in that situation needed to respond with the anti-terror laws that France still lives under, but also with stricter weapons laws. There is else that will be required and which is necessary in several ways.

The collective work, which is being carried out on a broad front today, concerns preventive work, information exchange, legislative changes, and other things that have made it so that we are actually in a significantly better position now. But it has not happened without society having paid an economic and practical price. We have paid by it being more complicated to fly and even to enter the Riksdag. We have nibbled away at personal integrity through decision after decision. We have also paid through increased complications for legal weapon owners when they are to handle their fully legal weapons. So it is. The fight against terrorism has a price. We can never get away from that.

Then it is undoubtedly a certain comfort that it seems to be working. When we discuss weapon issues, we need to take the statistics regarding acts of terrorism into account, even if, for natural reasons, it quite reasonably involves a lot of hunting, dynamic sport shooting, and other things. Fundamentally, the background of the directive is these horrific terrorist attacks.

Both Europol and Säpo indicate that both prevented and carried out terrorist attacks have decreased dramatically since 2010. We can see this primarily within the group of independence terrorists – separatists they can also be called. When it comes to left-wing extremist groups, it has also decreased dramatically. Even regarding Islamism, we have actually been able to see that both the committed violence and the threat as such have decreased over the last four or five years. According to the assessment of both Säpo and Europol, there is actually only one group that has an increased threat profile around them, and that is the right-wing extremists, not least self-radicalized lone actors on the right wing. In large terms, one can therefore say that the work that has been done against terrorism has yielded results.

But of course, the open society must constantly make a balance in all parts. We must not overreact. The terrorist's very purpose is fundamentally to achieve an increasingly repressive state, increase polarization, and make our daily way of living more difficult.

That is why it is extra important to think carefully regarding criminal law or when it comes to allocation to security-enhancing systems and regulations for how old flintlock muskets should be stored, handled, or marked. All those parts are connected.

The line must be straight from Paris to today's meeting, but the road here has been particularly winding. Most Members of Parliament have handled the weapons directive a number of times. Several proposals have been placed on the Riksdag's table, with homework as a result. There is no doubt that the government had great difficulty with the implementation of the directive.

If I am to be a bit confrontational before I am kind, I can say that it sometimes is about keeping certain groups of voters in a good mood by, for various reasons, throwing sand in the gears of the government machinery in general. It has caused quite a bit of headache at the ministry, if that is any consolation. But now it is your turn to suffer from the poor night's sleep.

Now there is, in any case, a new bill. Since I am first, I can quickly state what the main points are. The first point means that the requirements for marking are expanded, and at the same time, it entails some exceptions. This applies in particular to the historically valuable weapons which otherwise risk being destroyed during a re-marking. As a former historian, I could personally think that a re-marking is, purely historically, a small reminder that in 200 years would be viewed with great interest. But that is perhaps not what is intended right now.

The second point concerns weapons magazines. It has been a major issue for the investigation and the reference group that several of us have sat in. In any case, a regulation will be put in place here.

The third point concerns the arms brokering and arms dealing activities and how they should be defined. It is completely reasonable and there are no oddities.

The fourth point concerns these entities' possibilities and obligations to report transactions involving ammunition, as well as some other requirements for registration.

With that, both the investigation and the reference group probably experience that the directives are being met. Now we hope that we avoid potentially being fined in upcoming legal proceedings and that they are satisfied with this.

I concluded the weapons debate this spring with a small thank you. I thought there was reason to repeat it for the sake of the good atmosphere. We had a very wise investigator with the secretariat who truly strove to find a solution. We also had a reference group consisting of, among others, Sten Bergheden here in the chamber and also Tornedalen's son Birger Lahti. They did their utmost to find solutions with both expertise and creativity. They should be greatly thanked for that.

I may come with a small moral cake here at the end. I believe our country would have benefited, both in large and small ways, from a bit more of such an approach. It is a time where a polarized political climate is a very strong norm. We need to pay attention to small examples where one can get further by simply helping each other.

(Applause)

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech!

As you all know, the Center Party is the only party that still says no to the proposal. We still think that it is an over-implementation. I will return to that in my speech.

It is interesting to listen to the member's enumeration of statistics about how various measures that have been taken have reduced the number of terrorist acts. I assume that the statistics are primarily at the European level.

We already have incredibly sharp legislation in Sweden today. The question I want to ask the member is in what way today's proposal would facilitate countering terrorist activity in Sweden. I find it very difficult to see that.

I will not go into technicalities. This bill is full of technicalities. We in Sweden have a tradition of trusting people and activities. If one cannot prove that what one does is legal, criminal sanctions apply. This proposal speaks against that. We know that it will become complicated for, for example, marksmen.

My question is quite concrete. The member often refers to the origin, the terror attacks in Paris and in other parts of the world. I find it difficult to see the connection to how today's proposal should counteract or facilitate the avoidance of such attacks in Sweden.

I would very much like to have an example of how today's proposed legislation will concretely facilitate the countering of terrorism.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! We know from very grim Swedish experiences that it does not require a firearm to carry out a terrorist attack. The incident on Drottninggatan is about the fact that a vehicle had been hijacked and the horrific acts were carried out.

We also know how it was in the cases in Paris that I invoked, and which were also the conditions for the decision-making process in the EU. That is why I highlight it. One must have the background.

We do not know if they were legal weapons in the first place. Information has emerged regarding that. But they have not found all the weapons, and they have not found the background to all the weapons.

The vast majority of weapons used in connection with the terrorist attacks in Paris were so-called illegal weapons. They were AK-47s and other items that had been stolen and purchased for quite a lot of money on the black market in Paris. I believe they had to pay 50,000 for some of the weapons used in those crimes.

On the other hand, there is a Nordic example. Now you perhaps know what I am going to say. It is, of course, the horrific terrorist attacks in Norway against the youth within the Social Democrats who were at Utøya.

They were carried out with weapons for which he had a license. They could certainly have been avoided with better control and follow-up of the license management. It is one of the conclusions that have been drawn from the sequence of events and that terrorist attack.

It is isolated examples, member. In a Swedish context, we do not have particularly much such empirical basis. This is an attempt to find a minimum implementation and nothing else. It is a matter of finding the minimum possible measures that affect sport shooters and hunters as little as possible.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Nothing the member says makes me think that it is good to proceed with this proposal. The criminals will never apply for a license for their weapons possession.

The leadership has confirmed this by stating that the weapons in the terror attacks we see are illegal. They do not come from hunters and sport shooters. They come from former war zones. It did not even require a weapon to carry out a terror attack.

The example that is highlighted does not come from Sweden but from Norway. It may be that it is because Sweden already today has extremely strict laws that take the protection aspect into account.

The chairman also spoke about what I believe everything is about. We shall ensure that we implement this, which we naturally will to avoid fines. But it is not a sustainable argument to do it in a way that does not please everyone and which complicates things for certain groups.

It is very unfortunate that certain groups of voters are categorized. For me, it is about the legislation having to be clear. It must be serious and clear. I should know when I am committing a crime or not. It must be clearly defined in the legislation.

If there is a problem with that in Sweden, which there certainly is, those questions should be resolved in the Penal Code and not in the weapons legislation.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! To clarify the matter, perhaps I should begin by saying that I think the member has very well-founded views on whether we should over-implement the directive or not.

We are in complete agreement. The only thing is that we are trying to avoid the counter in this situation, because we have been ruminating on this for quite a long time now. We have submitted several proposals, which have been failed, via announcements, and we have had to go back to the drawing board and start over from the beginning.

Thus, the reference group was established, and it has used the available expertise - both the Hunters' Association, weapons researchers, and everything else - to find a minimum level that can be implemented and approved by the EU Commission. I hope that we have reached that point now, but we are not certain about it. It may happen that they still do not think we have gone far enough. That would surprise me, but it could happen. In that case, we are talking about fines of many tens of millions of kronor every month in the worst-case scenario. We have said that we want to avoid that at all costs for various reasons.

We hope that we have found a good balance in this situation, but it is not without problems. I completely share the member's perception when it comes to the fact that the vast majority – not to say almost all if one looks at it purely statistically – of legal gun owners behave exemplarily. Not least the hunters have an incredibly important role in keeping the wildlife in good balance and preserving natural values. It is an important part of the countryside and its living conditions and quality of life. We can embrace both of these without compromising in that part.

We hope that we have found the right level and not an over-implementation.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Then we stand here with this strange accompaniment in the chamber. For my own and the listeners' sake, I shall try to recapitulate a little.

As we have heard, it was in 2017 that the EU adopted a new firearms directive. Different opinions on Sweden's weapons laws had existed long before, but they definitely became more intense and more pointed after this decision. The Center Party was against the firearms directive then and is against it now. By the firearms directive, I mean the implementation of the amendment directive, which is what it is actually called, but I will say the firearms directive from now on.

For the sake of the matter, I can remind you how our elected representatives voted in the EU Parliament. Those who voted no were Sverigedemokraterna, Centerpartiet, Kristdemokraterna and Liberalerna. Those who voted yes were Socialdemokraterna, Moderaterna, Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet.

We know that the weapons used by criminals come from sources other than hunters and sport shooters. They are illegal weapons from war zones. Regardless of which laws we try to change here in the chamber, a grossly criminal person will never seek a license for their weapon possession.

I must say that it was a flawed thinking from the very beginning that caused one to end up off track when the EU formulated the new weapons directive. After the horrific acts of terrorism in Paris and elsewhere, it was necessary to show political decisiveness, and I mean that one did something that missed the mark completely.

Mr. Speaker! I can venture to say that previous governments seem to have thought that the more weapons there are in society, the more crime increases. But that is not the case. All citizens in Sweden could actually have their own weapon if we, each of us, behaved and used the weapon for what it is intended for, namely hunting, target shooting, or collecting purposes. To be allowed to do this, one must pass qualified tests and examinations. One's integrity - a now popular concept - is continuously checked in the police registers. If one does not behave, one is deprived of their weapons.

The legal weapons are not the problem. The law-abiding gun owners are not the ones who should be squeezed. Yet, this is what is happening. And it continues to happen despite that a broad majority in Sweden's Riksdag previously, up until today, has clearly expressed that it is not appropriate.

Now, the interesting phenomenon has arisen that the parties that time and again have barked at previous governments for choosing to over-implement the directive are sitting in government. Then, at least, I expect that a proposal will actually come that involves a real minimum implementation. But no. And not all parties are even here today debating and answering questions about why one, in my opinion, has changed position. I find that to be very remarkable.

It must be said that the proposal that is now on the Riksdag's table is better. But it is not completely good. Despite the fact that I myself hunt, Mr. Speaker, the bill is really not an everyday read for me. One has to look elsewhere for something more technical! Interpretations of and knowledge of different countries' weapons laws are almost a must if one is to be able to compare the systems. Every comma is literally important. Therefore, it is a sad reading that it still seems to be so difficult to agree on what is the best solution. The expertise exists, and the dialogue should be able to take place and land on something where there is more agreement than in this.

The referral response is much more positive than before. But there are obvious problems, not least for target shooting and the large sports movement it represents. I do not want to contribute to enacting laws that lead to legal uncertainty for the individual, but that is actually what is on the table.

Sweden today, in contrast to many other EU countries, has permits divided by purpose - weapons held for the purpose of hunting may also be used for target shooting, but not vice versa. This applies even if the weapons as such are completely identical. The same magazine can therefore be subject to a permit requirement for one holder, but not for another.

To be honest, my friends, it is about the purpose of this. A person who intends to shoot at other people with a semi-automatic hunting or target shooting weapon would not have significantly impaired ability to shoot if he had two magazines with fewer than 10 rounds instead of one with 20. But it is magazines with more than 10 rounds that are to be registered.

It is also entirely possible to rebuild rifles and move from a fixed magazine to a detachable one. This is a modification that occurs within the scope of the permit but which can now become a problem. Loose magazines of sheet metal are sensitive. A magazine consists of metal or hard plastic with a spring inside. They are somewhat difficult to regulate. It is enough to drop the magazine against a hard surface for it to cause a malfunction or a feeding problem. From a purely weapons-technical perspective, an owner of a weapon may therefore need to have a few magazines in reserve without special requirements.

To equate a loose metal or plastic magazine with a firearm is a bit of a stretch. What I mean is that it does not prevent the police from being able to ask relevant questions if a magazine or weapon parts are found with someone who cannot prove that they legally possess the magazine.

I have spoken about target shooting - a very large movement. Beginners in target shooting do not have the possibility to hold their own weapon license. The shooters, however, have their own personally adapted equipment and their own magazines because magazines, as I said, can be a consumable item that takes a lot of abuse. There are also shooters who do not want or can buy their own weapon but who have their own magazines.

Mr. Speaker! Why, then, has one abandoned user regulation? The answer to that question is written in the stars. The investigator is said to think it is complicated. That is not the opinion in Switzerland and in the Czech Republic, where one has user regulation or a similar form of regulation.

It is said that there would be a problem with first a general ban and then exceptions, and that this would be a particular problem for target shooters. But it is precisely this that the target shooters want. They advocate for a use regulation instead of a possession regulation.

It is also said that for others than marksmen, it would be a problem with double permits, first one for the weapon and then one for using the combination. But that is essentially how we have it today, and it will be the same number of permits with a regulation of the possession. It is very diffuse.

No, before a full user regulation, similar to the weapons license! If you have passed the hunter's exam, you can apply for weapons licenses, and thus you are responsible. If you are a marksman, you have passed a test at least as extensive as for a hunter's license or an even stricter one, and are thus responsible.

The proposition delivers a kind of self-imposed mission to try to create logic and structure in the weapons regulation. We all know that the weapons laws today are illogical and unclear. That is why there is a mission to review this. Why then start with that before one has settled on dividing the weapons laws in a more structured way?

Perhaps the strangest thing about the bill, in conclusion, I think is the criminalization of unauthorized possession of weapon magazines, furthermore with imprisonment in the range of penalties. Here, the government makes the assessment that it is wise to use the same range of penalties as for illegal possession of ammunition or silencers. The small difference, however, is that both ammunition and silencers are clearly and distinctly defined in the legislation. Weapon magazines are not.

The government argues that boundary-setting problems should be able to be resolved in the application of the law. If I risk ending up in prison, I would like to know clearly and distinctly what it is I am doing that is illegal. This legal uncertainty is also something that the Swedish Bar Association is highlighting. We must also know that the amendment directive does not require a criminalization at all. If you do not do what you are supposed to, you will lose your licenses.

Mr. Speaker! I believe it has emerged clearly and distinctly that I move for the rejection of the government's proposition and for the approval of the Centre Party's reservation.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating a proposition concerning the changes to the Weapons Directive that we are now going to attempt to implement in Swedish legislation.

As has been said, there is much to say about this and also about previous bills, which were actually placed in the wastebasket for the reason that in them one tried to over-implement the weapons directive.

But let us nevertheless start where it once upon a time began. It was the EU that, through a new weapons directive, tried to reduce shootings and crime in Europe, an ambition that one hardly solves with this directive. The content of the directive is, in fact, merely new regulations and new bureaucracy for Sweden's and Europe's legal gun owners. The directive has been meaningless from day one and should never have become a directive. The EU must actually sharpen up and stop bureaucratizing itself to pieces with meaningless directives.

Mr. Speaker! Is there anyone in here who believes that the criminals will comply with this directive? Is there anyone who believes that the criminals will now apply for licenses for their illegal weapons and magazines? No, Mr. Speaker, this is just another bureaucratic and unnecessary burden for the country's legal gun owners. But Sweden must, despite its reluctance, implement the directive.

The EU must keep its bureaucratic and prying hands away from Sweden's legal gun owners and our hunting. We are best off managing the weapons and the hunting ourselves here in Sweden. Furthermore, the EU is now trying to stop the use of lead in ammunition and criminalize hunting in the vicinity of wetlands, and in this directive, they criminalize the possession of certain metal boxes with springs, so-called magazines - all while illegal weapons are flowing around in Europe. Focus the effort on hunting the criminals and their weapons instead!

Mr. Speaker! I also want to be clear that even though I am not completely satisfied with the bill, I can accept it at this point in time. Sweden has run out of time and cannot risk having to pay fines to the EU because we have not implemented the directive in time. Sweden needs its money better and for other things than having to fine them to the EU.

Mr. Speaker! There is actually also quite a lot in this bill that differs from previous bills. Our proposal implies a better implementation than the previous proposals.

An opportunity is introduced to make exceptions for the marking of historically valuable weapons. This was not included previously. It is an exception that Sweden has utilized, which will facilitate matters for the country's collectors.

Magazines for fully automatic firearms are not regulated. That was done in the S proposal. The EU directive does not require this, and therefore we have not done so either.

Magasin are not covered by the rules on storage, transport, and import. They were in the S proposal.

Even collectors are allowed to have large magazines without a special permit if they have a weapon for them. That exception was also not included in the S proposal.

Upon transfer of weapons, the magazines may be kept without special permission for three months, i.e., a transition period until they are either sold or a license is applied for.

On several points, this proposal has therefore taken advantage of the exceptions that the directive allows. In those parts, the directive is implemented at a minimum level.

Mr. Speaker! When it comes to the regulation of large magazines, there were actually three ways to go: purchase regulation, possession regulation, and use regulation. Purchase regulation would become extremely complicated, so it was scrapped early as an alternative and fell away. Possession regulation has been investigated a couple of times, most recently by an investigation that was commissioned by the Social Democrats with the support of the Center Party in the Committee on Justice and the Riksdag and which was completed in October-November. That investigation polished away parts of the problems in the implementation but never properly investigated the use regulation, which was a wish from both me and several shooters in the country.

However, the investigator and the department noted that the user regulation would entail more extensive changes in the weapons legislation, and the investigator and the new government assessed that they would not have time to complete this, which would then entail a risk of fines from the EU due to late implementation.

Mr. Speaker! Of course, the user regulation and the other alternatives should have been investigated by the previous government. They had four years after all. Then we would have had time to investigate and compare the alternatives. But as we all know, the S-government instead made several brave attempts to over-implement the directive by not using the exemptions that existed in this.

Mr. Speaker! Even though I and several others with me are not entirely satisfied that the user option was never properly investigated, the Tidö parties have nevertheless made a decision to approve ownership regulation. The Committee on Justice has also accepted this because we do not have time for more investigations and the risk of fines from the EU is now imminent.

Mr. Speaker! On the other hand, the Committee on Justice has also clearly pointed out that the application of the new rules will now be followed. Of course, it must go smoothly and easily for the country's legal weapon owners who, for some reason, have kept other magazines to be granted a license for their magazines which they may currently lack weapons for. I find it a bit difficult to see that any weapon owner who is trusted to have both a weapon and large magazines that fit this would be denied keeping some old magazines from previous weapons, so that license management simply must go quickly and smoothly. We will follow this very closely.

Mr. Speaker! Just to say the obvious: Sweden really did not need this magazine regulation and this directive. It is a bureaucratic desk product from the EU without any grounding whatsoever in needs and knowledge. Unfortunately, we still have to implement this product of ignorance from the EU.

Mr. Speaker, I must take the opportunity to thank those who have been part of the reference group and for the work that has been done in the Committee on Justice regarding the preparation of the announcement and other measures to facilitate things for the country's hunters and shooters. I will come to this a bit further on in this speech.

I am glad that many shooters, the Swedish Shooting Sports Association, and many of the country's hunters have understood the problem and also been able to accept this proposal so that we can now instead concentrate the work on issues and investigations that concern facilitating things for the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors.

Mr. Speaker! The investigation currently underway is to be completed in May 2024. Four, even five parties have submitted different submissions to that investigation. Even Vänsterpartiet has been involved in some of the submissions. The Government is now working on that investigation, and it concerns facilitating things for the country's hunters and shooters. There are about 30 proposals. These include, among other things, the abolition of five-year licenses and a division of the weapons legislation into one part for illegal weapons and one part for legal weapons for hunters, shooters, and collectors – this is so that one can reach illegal weapons and criminals even more without it spreading to legal weapons owners in the future. It is also about expanding the weapons repertoire, and it is about facilitating things for the country's weapons collectors.

Mr. Speaker! The work to produce necessary investigations regarding the establishment of a wildlife authority is also ongoing. We could then move the license management and other tasks, such as the inspection of shooting ranges, to this new authority. The work to facilitate things for the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors is therefore underway.

Mr. Speaker! I am, after all, glad that seven parliamentary parties have now agreed on the government's bill and that we can thereby remove the risk of fines from the EU.

I vote in favor of the government bill and the committee's proposal in the report and against the reservation.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Sten Bergheden, for an once again committed speech! Sten Bergheden is one of the members who has spent a lot of time here in the speaker's chair strongly criticizing the negative consequences for hunters and sport shooters that previous attempts at over-implementations have been able to lead to.

I amused myself by looking at what the member had said in the latest debate here. I quote:

"The government repeatedly tries to regulate the possession of weapon magazines. Sometimes they blame gang crime, sometimes the EU directive. They blame the fact that the police otherwise cannot seize magazines, which is not true. The police seized just over a thousand magazines in 2018. They blame that possession of magazines must be regulated according to the directive, which is also not true. The directive only requires a regulation of certain magazines in combination with certain weapons. Switzerland has solved this in a way that does not affect legal hunters and shooters. The government should study this."

What the member did not mention was that Switzerland has a usage regulation and not a possession regulation.

I wonder why the Moderates, with several [members], have changed their minds and why one is letting through an ownership regulation that actually goes further than what the directive means.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Helena Vilhelmsson! Yes, it is very simple. We have been placed in a situation. After four years of failed implementations from the Social Democrats, we are in a situation where we could be fined by the EU on any given day.

We have a completed investigation which we have corrected and improved regarding the use of exceptions and other matters, and we have truly minimized other parts of the whole. I regret that the investigation did not fully investigate the usage regulation. Had it done so, we could have compared the two alternatives and in that situation could have saved time. But the investigation was commissioned by the Social Democrats, who were supported by the Center Party, who pushed this through in the Committee on Justice and the Riksdag. It was to be commissioned before the change of government, and it was. It had these directives and produced this proposal, which we received on our table in October or November. Since then, we have not had time to commission new investigations to correct this. One has then had to work on modifying this proposal as best as possible, and in this situation, one has had to submit it to the Riksdag to avoid fines from the EU.

It is the main reason why we are forced to move forward with this proposal. We do not have time to continue investigating any longer.

Mr. Speaker! It is actually the case that C supported the old government for eight years, but above all during the last four years. It is a bit strange that C, in that situation, did not push for there to be an investigation on usage regulations during that period. It was accepted that the government constantly came back with ownership regulations and other regulations. It is a bit strange, and perhaps Member Helena Vilhelmsson can answer this.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I think it is strange that parties that as recently as six months ago said that one should not over-implement the directive are nevertheless doing so. And I think it is particularly strange that a party like the Moderaterna is doing it, which has actually been involved in pushing this through in the EU.

If one had wanted to take responsibility – as Sten Bergheden says repeatedly, and he also says that he did not think this proposal was any good in the EU – the Moderaterna could have taken the lead. The Moderaterna could have pushed for a reference group to be formed where all parties would be allowed to speak. What did the Moderaterna member say? What did Sten Bergheden himself say in the reference group? Why was it not important then to work out a user regulation?

People blame the EU and fines. I understand that discussion, but on the other hand, we heard about threats of fines from the European Court of Justice a year ago and two years ago. Back then, all the Tidö parties said: It doesn't matter. We must be able to do this in a correct way. We need to have a regulation that does not exceed what is required.

But now, in recent months, the threat has apparently become imminent. It is strange that this is still being pushed through. To be honest, it is the case that both the government and this chamber have drafted both regulations and laws in a very short time. I do not believe that investigating a user regulation would take much longer.

I conclude by quoting an additional statement from Sten Bergheden from one or two years ago:

"Listen to the country's hunters and sport shooters! They are both knowledgeable and well-read, and they can help you. Regarding your contacts with the police and your so-called experts over at the department, who want to over-implement the weapons directive, you have not had sufficient help so far. Their knowledge is apparently not enough to solve this problem."

I could use that now as my quote directed to Sten Bergheden.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can begin by saying that the Center Party's representative in this reference group had no dissenting opinions and did not set any new requirements.

In this situation, it is said that the government currently in power would create new inquiries. The previous government had this on its main table, and it sat for four years with the support of Centerpartiet, which allowed one inquiry after another without usage regulations. They put Sweden in this situation.

One might ask what the Centerpartiet gained in these specific issues from the cooperation with the Socialdemokraterna. Probably they gained nothing, given that they often reached agreements with other parties when it came to good proposals to facilitate things for the country's hunters and shooters. But the Centerpartiet apparently backed down completely when it came to demanding a usage regulation from the old Socialdemokraterna government.

Mr. Speaker! The investigator left this on the table and spoke about having met shooters and hunters. There were requests for a regulation of use, but he had no opportunity to investigate it further. He had no time for this, because he was finished.

I also know, Mr. Speaker, that I was one of those who pushed for that he should meet shooters and hunters and include that part before the investigation was finished. He did that, but he did not deliver based on what they said, but he still delivered based on ownership regulations. On the other hand, we still got the investigator to deliver a number of other different parts and also to facilitate this part.

Now comes the application, and we will be careful with that. There, I hope we get support from Centerpartiet.

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

Birger Lahti (V)

Mr. Speaker! There is much to say about the EU, and I usually say that where the sins gather, the flies also gather, and I can well start there. There are many times when I also do not like the implementation of the EU's directives.

In the consideration, the committee addresses the government bill Implementation of the amendments to the Weapons Directive. In the bill, the legislative changes deemed necessary to implement the 2017 amending directive to the EU's Weapons Directive are proposed. Vänsterpartiet has supported the proposal that the Riksdag adopts the government's proposal regarding the legislative changes deemed necessary to implement the 2017 amending directive from the EU.

The turns regarding the matter have caused us to be late with the implementation, and in May 2022, the Commission sued Sweden in the ECJ due to late implementation of the amending directive.

We have heard examples of how it has happened. As I began with, I could say a lot about the EU's involvement in large as well as small issues, but I will refrain.

The fact is that when it comes to weapons issues, it is perhaps not entirely wrong that countries in Europe have similar laws and regulations regarding weapons and their use, regardless of whether we hit the problem with this amendment or not. Just as Petter Löberg from Socialdemokraterna mentioned, there is a reason why the EU has been so engaged in this issue.

As we have heard from other members, the government has an investigation underway that is to review the weapons legislation. It has furthermore received new directives that are to provide proposals for legislative changes by May 10, 2024, at the latest, which I look forward to.

The new directives concern simplifications and the size of weapon wardrobes, as well as a few other things that hunters and sport shooters are requesting. I shall not precede the commission's work, but I can admit, Mr. Speaker, that I sit in the commission's reference group and hopefully have the opportunity to record opinions and proposals.

What we must remember is that it is we who enact laws, and it is we who must take responsibility for the laws and rules that the Riksdag decides on. What I mean by that is that if we provide opportunities for loopholes that can be used by illegal weapon users, it is also we, as legislators, who must repair the laws accordingly.

I want to emphasize that the Left Party's view is that rules and laws regarding legal weapon holders should not be over-implemented. In that regard, we have landed on the position that the government's assessment in this situation is so balanced and correctly weighed that we must support it. Then we must, as others have also said, have a continuous follow-up so that corrections can be made if we have missed something when we make changes to the law regarding the weapons directive.

However, I want to be clear that there must be harsh and deterrent sanctions against all illegal weapons handling.

Mr. Speaker! I have handled weapons since I was a child and have been an active hunter. I have seen many weapons, legal ones of course, but even though I have been affected by long processing times and sometimes sworn at the rules, I want to assert that the rules are still quite well-balanced in Sweden. Of course, authorities that handle license cases must have reasonable working conditions and resources so that the examinations are legally secure but still handled within a reasonable time.

Mr. Speaker! I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against the motion.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving to approve the government's proposition regarding the implementation of the EU's amendments to the Weapons Directive.

That weapons kill and cause harm, we unfortunately still see daily on our streets. It is more the rule than the exception that we read about acts where people shoot, often among us ordinary citizens on our streets, to harm and kill another human being. The trend of increased deadly violence through shootings continues. This trend must be broken. Our society must guarantee the safety of our citizens.

In today's debate, we are addressing rules for weapon possession. However, one does not break the deadly trend of gun violence in society by adding further burdens on law-abiding gun owners. Instead, one should tighten the penalties for illegal possession and use of weapons and provide greater resources and powers to stop weapons at our border but also, similar to what is now being done, or attempted to be done, in Ukraine, ensure that the weapons used in the horrific war that is a result of Russia's attack on Ukraine do not disappear into the gang criminal world when the war finally ends. We see how the weapons from the war in Yugoslavia in many cases have become tools in the gang criminal world. Control and registration are important. It is in these areas that we must tighten the legislation.

Just as many speakers have already said, today's over half a million registered weapon owners are surrounded by many regulations. Society has many control functions for those who own a weapon. I have said it before in these debates, but it bears repeating: It is not legal weapons that are used in the shootings and other serious crimes that we see in Sweden. Naturally, it occurs, but the weapons used primarily enter Sweden through illegal means. For us Kristdemokrater, it is therefore self-evident not to lump hunters and sport shooters together with those who behave the worst in society.

Mr. Speaker! We have now reached the decision regarding the Swedish implementation of the European firearms directive. The Government is now presenting a bill to meet the EU's requirements. Just as mentioned, a majority of the Swedish parties in the European Parliament voted yes to the firearms directive. We Christian Democrats were, as mentioned earlier, not one of them. But we must implement the decisions.

The Riksdag has on several occasions notified the previous government that the implementation in Swedish legislation shall not go further than what the directive requires. Despite this, as we have heard in the debate, the government has several times attempted to move forward with proposals that, according to the committee and a parliamentary majority, have entailed an over-implementation. The S-government often chose to stick to its path, and eventually it went so far that Sweden risked receiving heavy EU fines.

Then the process finally took the path it should have taken from the beginning. An investigator was appointed, and we received a parliamentary reference group in which many of us who are now debating were included. Since I sat on it, I can confirm that when people meet around a table and have a clear direction and an open, constructive dialogue, it leads to results.

The investigator's proposal also became much better than what had been previously presented and indicated a path that involved manageable proposals which, for the most part, do not affect the everyday lives of hunters and sport shooters or weapon handling. I can state that despite the debate we are having today, the parliamentary reference group was largely in agreement regarding the proposals presented within the possible timeframe given, and this holds almost all the way into the Riksdag.

After a significant adjustment in the Government Offices, we now, with the new government, reach what should have been a fact from the beginning: a real minimum implementation. That is what you do if you set the right objective from the start, and it is good that Sweden now has a government that meets these requirements.

Mr. Speaker! Earlier in the debate, it has been mentioned what this concerns, namely marking, weapons magazines, weapons brokering and registration. The most discussed issue is, as we notice in the debate, the weapons magazines.

The directive states that a regulation of certain weapon magazines must be introduced. In order not to go further than what is required according to the amending directive, a regulation of only those magazines covered by the directive is proposed. This means a regulation of detachable weapon magazines for semi-automatic firearms that contain more than 20 cartridges or more than 10 cartridges if the magazine can be inserted into a firearm whose barrel length exceeds 30 centimeters or whose total length exceeds 60 centimeters.

We can always reflect on whether we could have done something better. That is what we legislators must always do. But just as has been mentioned in the debate, we risk fines. Even though I do not think the proposal is fully good either, I can accept that it looks the way it does and that the most appropriate way at this moment to fulfill the amendment directive and at the same time protect legal gun owners as far as possible is to introduce a regulation similar to the one that currently applies to ammunition and silencers.

The proposal is, as has been mentioned earlier, a matter of regulation. But it is also important that we evaluate and see if the disadvantages that the changes entail necessitate a further requirement for changes. We must, from both the committee's and the Riksdag's side, closely monitor the application of the new rules.

Mr. Speaker! During the previous parliamentary term, a large number of motions were submitted to the government by a majority in the Riksdag regarding weapon ownership and handling. It was a clear signal that there are proposals to meet hunters' and sport shooters' wishes for simplifications. These simplifications are included in the Tidö Agreement, and now an investigation is being launched to ensure that law-abiding weapon owners shall receive a simplified handling of their weapons.

This debate shows that it is possible to choose a different direction than the path that previous governments chose regarding control and measures concerning weapons in our country. The many announcements during previous years show that there is a majority in Sweden's Riksdag that wants to meet law-abiding weapon owners.

Implementation of the changes in the Weapons Directive

With these concluding words, I want to say that we Christian Democrats support the new government's path, and I move for approval of the committee's majority proposal, which entails an approval of the proposition.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 15.)

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