Weapon issues

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are to debate the Committee on Justice's report on Weapons Issues. Anyone who has studied the content of the report can state that it is significantly more meager this year compared to how it has looked in previous years. A long time ago, weapons issues were treated in a different report, namely the one on police issues. But then something happened during the last or perhaps even the second to last parliamentary term in politics. A political direction of will developed which made the weapons issues so extensive in character that they received their own report. It is that report we are debating today.

The question then is why the report is significantly thinner in scope than before. There are considerably fewer reservations and motions from the parties in the Riksdag in the report. Yes, that is because we have a new government in place and a new Tidö Agreement where many of the announcements made over the years have been adopted. In last year's report on weapons issues, nearly 15 announcements were directed to the then-government on issues large and small.

Weapons issues

These are, therefore, issues that are embraced by the Tidö parties, that is to say the government parties and SD, and for many of them there are good conditions to have them implemented with very satisfactory results. It concerns, for example, shorter processing times for weapon license cases and a new licensing authority for weapon licenses. We have also, for example, discussed a hunting and wildlife management authority.

We also have good conditions to establish an expanded weapons wardrobe and an abolition of the time-limited weapons licenses during this mandate period. I do not know how many motions we in the Riksdag directed to the previous Social Democratic government regarding precisely those time-limited weapons licenses. It was also one of the issues that the Social Democrats actually refused to accept. Despite the fact that the Riksdag had on repeated occasions directed motions to the Social Democratic government to abolish the time-limited weapons licenses, it refused to obey the Riksdag's will. One might think that is serious in itself. I think it is serious. I think that a government should show respect for the will of the people and show respect for decisions made in Sweden's Riksdag.

This is also something that the new government has signaled, Mr. Speaker. I have submitted a written question to the Minister for Justice regarding the time-limited weapon licenses. I received a very good answer to that question, so I have no doubts that the time-limited weapon licenses will be abolished.

The report obviously concerns several weapons issues. It concerns the concept of "special reasons" and a number of other issues, including differentiated penal legislation for weapons crimes, which means making a distinction between crimes that occur linked to a weapons license and crimes that occur in obviously criminal environments. It is extremely important that such a differentiation is put in place, because there are different degrees of severity in the different offenses.

Mr. Speaker! There are two reservations in the committee report that we are here to debate. One is a reservation from the Center Party regarding the supervision of shooting ranges. There is actually no dissenting opinion from the Sweden Democrats' side. On the contrary, we were very clear during the previous parliamentary term that we want simplified rules regarding shooting ranges. This is also something I can give a pleasing update on. In the conversations between SD and the government, it is noted that simpler rules for the supervision of shooting ranges shall be implemented.

The Social Democrats have a reservation concerning weapons offenses. There, it is noted that during the previous parliamentary term, the penalty for serious weapons offenses was successfully increased to two years of imprisonment. I would like to dwell a little on that description.

During the previous parliamentary term, there was pressure from the Sverigedemokraterna to tighten the penalty for aggravated weapons offenses at a time when the level of conflict between criminal environments was such that weapons were used to harm and threaten rivals. At that time, it would have been successful to move forward with a significant increase in penalties to deter and change the behavior regarding firearm violence in society.

The Social Democrats chose to wait until the interventions between the criminal environments were such that deadly violence was required to take revenge on their rivals. Then, a sentence increase to a two-year minimum sentence for aggravated weapons offenses was introduced. But by then, it was too late to change a structural behavior in the criminal environments. This is also one of the reasons why we have had escalating weapons violence in our society: that we have had a Social Democratic government that has always done too little and done it too late.

The Social Democrats, however, advocate in their reservation that the penalty for serious weapons offenses should be increased to four years from the current two years. One can then ask: If there was such support among the Social Democrats to have a minimum sentence of four years for serious weapons offenses, why was it not implemented during their eight years in government?

This is, however, something that the current government will implement. With or without reservations from the Social Democrats in the Riksdag, it is included in the Tidö Agreement that we shall raise the minimum sentence to four years of imprisonment for aggravated weapons offenses and additionally raise the penalty for particularly aggravated weapons offenses. In addition, a number of other sentencing increases can be added, such as double sentences in gang criminal environments and abolished quantity discounts to a significantly greater extent than the Social Democrats have ever dared to dream of. The Social Democrats do not need to be worried and, in my opinion, do not even need to demand approval for their own reservation for us to move forward with a significantly tougher policy than the Social Democrats have ever conducted in this chamber.

Mr. Speaker! With that said, I would like to conclude by moving for the approval of the proposal in the committee report and the rejection of the motions.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I would like to move for approval of our reservation 2 under point 6, so that is done.

Several speakers have during the day in the debate on various reports discussed the wave of violence that exists particularly in gang environments but also the increased violence against women in close relationships.

We have been able to see that new hotspots of conflict flare up at regular intervals with an associated chain of retaliatory shootings with an enormous number of victims and fear in the local community.

The reasons are multifaceted. It can be about grievances or pure fear of becoming a victim oneself. It can be about the narcotics monopoly and violence capital. Sometimes, honestly, one doesn't know if those involved themselves know why the spiral of violence started in the first place.

A common denominator exists in the tragedy, and it is weapons. It is partly a paradox. In our society, the total use of violence as a method of conflict resolution has probably never been as low as it is in 2023.

Here, gun violence specifically stands out. From an international perspective, Sweden is an anomaly. Criminologists have racked their brains and tried to figure out what it is due to without actually finding any clear answers.

Some claim that we may be at an earlier stage in a phase together with parts of the USA and that similar developments will occur in the rest of Western Europe in the future. We can truly hope that is not the case.

According to The Parliamentary Forum on Small Arms and Light Weapons, almost a quarter of a million people are killed every year worldwide by small arms. To be crystal clear: effective work to remove illegal weapons from our society is crucial if we are to succeed with the challenges and stop the violence on streets and squares.

We will present the proposals that are required. We did so in government, and we will also do so in opposition henceforth. We will do it, Adam Marttinen, even if you might think it is unnecessary.

We did not sit on our hands during the last parliamentary term. That legislative action and that resource allocation to meet those challenges is unparalleled in modern times. No government has done so much.

One of the most successful legislative changes concerns precisely the minimum sentence for aggravated weapons offenses. It meant that if you left your home with an illegal weapon, you risked not coming home for two years, and it resulted in automatic detention.

It has been applied in hundreds upon hundreds of cases. We have many perpetrators who today do not go free but are locked up. At best, they are completing their basic education or learning an honest job at the institution.

To more clearly mark how we in the Social Democrats view the seriousness of the crime, we have said that we want to proceed to four years of imprisonment instead of two. That is what the reservation is about.

It is also something that we have been clear about before the election. It is something that has been hammered out over a long period, not least based on the fact that we have received reports on how well the previous legislation has functioned.

Some may think that it is yet another increase in penalties in the series. But we want to assert that it has been done after a clear consideration, in contrast to the eagerness that we politicians generally have to propose higher penalties as a universal solution that works against everything and everyone. But that is not the case here.

We do not stand on a scientific basis when we shout ourselves hoarse to try to outdo our political opponents. Criminal law instruments of this kind must be weighed with the utmost precision, and here we stand on a scientific basis.

The criminology prize winners Cook and Zimring from the USA have conducted extensive evidence-based research on exactly these questions. They have developed important methods to demonstrate and understand what crucial role access to firearms plays in relation to the number of violent crimes and, not least, deaths.

They have been able to convincingly prove that the claim that the availability of firearms would not affect the volume of injuries is incorrect and false. That research is extremely important, not least in an American context, but also in a Swedish one.

Sometimes one has the somewhat sloppy argument that it is not weapons that kill people but the people who hold the weapons, and so it can be purely superficially seen. Not least, that argument is repeated by the weapons lobby that exists in the USA. There, they desperately try to counteract a tightening of weapons laws when yet another child has been massacred together with their peers in one of many school shootings.

It is a shame and nothing else. It is a false and illogical argument. The weapons themselves increase the consequences of the violence. In many cases, the weapons also enable one to exert extreme violence. There are good reasons to believe that access to weapons is a central and driving factor even in the gang environments in our country. It explains, in any case, partly why we find ourselves in such a tough situation.

With those words I would like to conclude by saying thank you a little, and that is nice. We are soon finished with implementing the EU's weapons directive after seven sorrows and eight woes.

Last year, a reference group sat down together with many wise investigators and tried to find a solution so that our country could avoid multi-million fines and that we could avoid standing at the pillory because we had not implemented the directives.

We have reached the goal through a good dialogue, and there is also someone here in the chamber today who was part of that, and with the help of creative solutions. A bit more of that approach to solving common challenges would be very good for our country. That is my opinion.

(Applause)

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we shall debate the report on weapons issues. As several have said here, we have debated those issues a few times earlier in the Riksdag.

Despite approximately 35 announcements that were intended to facilitate for the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors, the social democratic government has, just as Member of Parliament Adam Marttinen said, refused to implement them. It has defied the Riksdag in its decisions when it has come to implementing the announcements that were adopted by the Riksdag.

Mr. Speaker! Instead, the Social Democratic government tried to further complicate things for the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors. Sweden's hunters, shooters, and collectors have thus had eight lost years with the Social Democratic government in power.

Today's report contains no new announcements but two reservations. The report primarily deals with motions received during the motion period.

Mr. Speaker! I want first to comment on Member Löberg's contribution here. He is once again trying to conflate illegal weapons in criminal environments with just tightening of regulations for legal weapons among our hunters and shooters. That is exactly the mistake that the Social Democratic government has constantly made.

One does not see our legal hunters, shooters and weapons collectors as a resource in society that makes good contributions. We have just over 600,000 legal weapons owners in Sweden. They deserve better politics.

I am very pleased that we have succeeded in gathering such a broad majority in the Riksdag for the 35 announcements. It promises well for the future. It has also been a long journey. But we are finally starting to see a light with a new government and a Tidö Agreement that truly begins to tackle these issues. But we are not finished yet. There is a lot of work left before everything is in place. This we will, of course, monitor closely.

We and the government are now working in the right direction together. The expectations among the country's legal gun owners are, of course, great. It commits us to delivery, which will of course also occur. After over ten years of work, the work and the persistence to deliver results are now finally beginning.

Mr. Speaker! I am pleased that there is such a large consensus and majority on these issues and that our new government has also given clear instructions to the inquiry which is now to begin delivering following the announcements.

However, we have some questions that still remain. It is about the fact that we must continue to purify the police's activities. The previous government used valuable police resources to measure grain sizes of sand in the country's gravel pits that are used today as shooting ranges. It is not a task that the police are needed for. This must, of course, be changed. The police have more important things to do than to measure the size of sand grains in gravel pits.

The license management needs to be moved over to the wildlife authority when it is established. We also need to review permit management and other tasks that can be moved from the police so that their operations can be streamlined.

The police should hunt the country's criminals and not hunt the country's legal hunters, shooters, and collectors. This is even more important since we have a shortage of police today. In that case, it is of course even more important that the police actually do the right things.

Mr. Speaker! On March 30, the government decided to give the investigator new assignments to review the weapons legislation in order to facilitate matters for the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors. The investigation shall, among other things, review how a division of the weapons legislation can be implemented so that one can distinguish between violations committed by legal weapon owners and the organized crime's use of illegal weapons - this in order to be able to set requirements and have a tougher and clearer line against the criminals without it affecting the legal weapon owners.

The weapons investigation shall also propose how we can expand the weapons wardrobe. It shall be possible for the country's legal weapons owners to acquire more weapons. We also want to review the wording regarding special reasons in the legislation, which has made it unreasonably difficult for many sport shooters to increase the number of weapons when they want to expand their sport shooting activities. We want to review this and replace it with a wording regarding clear requirements or specific reasons.

Mr. Speaker! The investigator shall also review how it can be facilitated for weapon owners to exchange weapons and thereby avoid the long processing times. A clear mandate is also to remove five-year licenses and time-limited licenses.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has some of Europe's strictest requirements for weapon owners when it comes to both training, knowledge tests, suitability, and storage, but also an extra oversight since the weapon register is cross-referenced with the suspicion and criminal record registers. This means that we essentially have a daily review of the country's weapon owners. One could wish that the police had had the same control over the illegal weapons that exist in the country, including those that are used in criminal environments.

Mr. Speaker! The investigation will also, among other things, review the rules to facilitate matters for the country's weapons collectors. This and many other proposals are to be ready by May 10, 2024, at the latest.

Mr. Speaker! Everyone listening to the debate should now know that we have received a new government that has begun to work on facilitating things for the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors.

The S-government, which for eight years tried to obstruct and work against the country's hunters, shooters and collectors and which constantly voted against our previous proposals for improvements, must now continue its work of opposition in opposition.

Mr. Speaker! In these times of unrest, with a war ongoing in Europe that threatens our freedom and our country, it is important that we have a policy that makes it possible for the country's legal gun owners to train and become skilled shooters. We should be grateful that the sport shooters devote their own time and their own money to training to become skilled shooters and rejoice in their successes at competitions and shooting ranges all over the world. Their efforts should be encouraged and not fought against.

Mr. Speaker! We should also be grateful to the country's hunters, who manage our wildlife populations, reduce wildlife accidents, take care of wildlife injured in traffic, and furthermore, through hunting, ensure that we have environmentally friendly game meat to eat here in our country. This work that our hunters do should be encouraged, not opposed.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we should appreciate the country's collectors, who with their own money, their own time and a great interest, take hold of and manage our cultural heritage by preserving and caring for our old and antique weapons. Such a cultural contribution should be encouraged.

Mr. Speaker! Now we move forward with implementing these 35 previous announcements which are to facilitate for the country's hunters, shooters and collectors. On May 10, 2024, we shall see the answer to this.

Mr. Speaker! I will continue to help and to push and support the government's work in developing legislation that truly facilitates things for the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors.

In conclusion, I move for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech! It is not a matter of the matter - Sten Bergheden has many and long speeches on hunting and weapons issues here in the chamber on his CV. This time it was a bit shorter, which also is due to the fact that the scope of the committee report, as we have heard, was considerably smaller this year than in other years - for partially explainable reasons.

The government has taken hold of many issues that have been decided on here over the years, but there are some that remain. Previous speakers have indeed touched upon it, but I still have some specific questions about, among other things, what the member mentioned regarding a new hunting and wildlife authority. In the supplementary directive that the member mentioned, it says something along the lines that the government shall return regarding reviewing if and how we shall introduce a new hunting and wildlife authority. I become a little worried when I see such things.

Therefore, I would like to ask a question. I assume that the member has a grasp of this discussion. We heard Adam Marttinen account for this earlier as well, but please tell us a bit about where the issue lies! If the member were not satisfied with the question, he should perhaps accept our reservation or work for the issue here in the chamber. My question is quite simply: Why is the current investigation not looking at the question of a new hunting and wildlife management authority?

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Helena Vilhelmsson, for the question! And thank you for good cooperation in the Committee on Justice in helping with many of the announcements that we have agreed upon to push through better weapons legislation regarding hunters, shooters and collectors!

Regarding the specific question about the wildlife authority, it lies with the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure and another minister. The part concerning police, licenses, weapons legislation and other matters has now been set in motion. We expect that news will soon also come from the Minister for Rural Affairs and the department regarding how they will proceed with the issues that are to land in this wildlife authority.

There are three - I believe - announcements regarding the wildlife authority, and we have had many announcements which, among other things, concern moving a part of the operations to the wildlife authority. This concerns, for example, moving the issue of wolves from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. It also concerns licenses, controls of shooting ranges, and other things that could certainly land in such an authority.

I suppose I must tell Member Helena Vilhelmsson that she will have to wait for the Ministry of Rural Affairs and Infrastructure to provide an account of how the matter will proceed. That shall be my answer on that matter.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Then I must continue to be a bit vigilant and concerned about this, because it is an extremely important issue. It is also not just about three announcements from the Riksdag, or perhaps more, but it is also an issue that was investigated already during the previous Alliance government. There is, therefore, an investigation that was basically quite ready to have a proposition made from. Now it is a few years ago, so it certainly needs to be refreshed, but there is an investigation made.

I completely agree with the member regarding the benefits that this could bring - not least when it comes to the issue of shooting ranges, which we have also heard told about here earlier. There is actually nothing written about it in the investigation directives, at least nothing that I have found. There is also nothing written in the Tidö Agreement or in the government's statement.

Now, Member Marttinen mentioned that the discussion is being conducted. But I still intended to ask the question to Sten Bergheden, who represents a government party, where that question lies. Again, the Member should be very satisfied regarding that question, otherwise it would be driven here in the chamber.

I am, as I have said, completely in agreement with the description that the police should do other things. The supervision of shooting ranges really should not have to lie with the police. But what does the member have to say about that specific question?

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

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

When it comes to shooting ranges, it was precisely that interpretation that I tried to explain. In the announcements that have been given, it is specifically directed towards the fact that that question should lie with the wildlife authority. That leads to the conclusion that one first needs to make a decision to establish this wildlife authority before we can move operations there. Therefore, it is quite natural that the question is not included in the Ministry of Justice's investigation mandate. We must first have this authority in place before we can move new operations there. That is the order that needs to be in the whole thing.

I can reassure the member that I am also monitoring the issue closely. I hope that we can reach a good decision even in this matter fully and that, in the long run, we can also relieve the police of much activity and thereby get police out on the streets and squares who can combat crime instead of checking the size of the sand in our gravel pits, which I think the police are overqualified for.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Member Bergheden devoted his contribution to naming me and also asked a number of questions instead of requesting a reply during my speech. That is perfectly fine. But it also prompts some reflections and perhaps a question in connection with that.

The member describes that I am confusing illegal and legal weapons when I speak about what I am basing it on, which is what we are talking about, namely the introduction of the EU's weapons directive. In that case, I would like to ask the member: What was the background for the European Union deciding to introduce the directive that we are trying to implement in our country today? I would like to hear member Bergheden explain to the chamber what was the background to that. That is the first question.

The second question is whether he meant something else regarding my discussion about wanting to tighten the penalties for those who handle illegal weapons, for example, illegal weaponsmiths, smugglers, and people who hide weapons, transport weapons to a crime scene, or destroy weapons after a crime. Will the Moderaterna stand up for a hard line when it comes to the handling of illegal weapons? It makes me a little worried when I hear the member speak in this manner.

We do not want these weapons on streets and squares. We do not want the ruined lives and the fear in our marginalized areas. We intend to do what is required. Do the Moderaterna dare to do it?

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the questions, Member Petter Löberg!

Löberg claims that one intends to stand up for and do what is required. With the benefit of hindsight, we can well state that after eight years in power, one has not succeeded in that mission at all. One has even handed over a country that is much worse than when one began to govern. On that point, one well has a lot to explain before one begins to attack a government that has sat for seven months on whether it should take action on this or not.

I see a clear spirit in this government, with the Tidö Agreement we have, to tackle these issues fully and fight the problems where they should be fought. It does not help if we tighten laws and regulations for our legal gun owners here in the country if we let illegal weapons flow across the borders without border controls and without the penalties that need to exist for those who handle the illegal weapons, that is to say, that they end up in prison and also stay there. They should not be out on the streets, they should be sitting in prison. We have presented a number of proposals to tighten up that part.

Then it concerned what lay behind the weapons directive from the EU. I may not be the right person to answer that. I cannot tell the whole story, but it was certainly an ambition from the EU where they believed that with new rules and laws they could curb criminal activity in the EU regarding the handling of illegal weapons. But what they did wrong in this was that they started targeting legal weapons owners and tightening their handling of weapons. That will not remedy anything regarding crime. It is about police, about controls, and about ensuring that people end up in prison when they use weapons illegally and incorrectly.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! It makes me a bit puzzled that Member Bergheden does not have a grasp of why the EU's weapons directive was introduced. I assume that Sten Bergheden knows that it is due to the terror attacks in Paris in 2015. The Member nods. 130 people lost their lives and 350 ended up in hospital, many of them with life-threatening injuries. That was the reason why the EU put its foot down and said: Never again! We intend to do what is required, period.

For years now, Bergheden has tried to undermine the EU's weapons directive and those ambitions. He is doing it even now in the speaker's chair. I think it is immensely tragic.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Petter Löberg!

Now, it was actually the case that the attacks in France were not carried out by hunters, by sport shooters, or by collectors. But the weapons directive specifically works to make the situation more difficult for the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors. In that case, measures have not been taken to facilitate for hunters, shooters, and collectors and reach the criminal activity, but instead, they have focused on only going after the legal ones and believing that it is their responsibility that people handle illegal weapons.

There is no one who has such good control over their weapons as our hunters, shooters, and collectors in this country. It is controlled, as said, every day that they behave, and otherwise they must return their belongings and will be prosecuted.

I have full confidence in our hunters, shooters and collectors in Sweden and that they can manage a weapons legislation that is actually much better than the one that the Social Democratic government managed to deliver.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Questions regarding weapons and hunting have for many years and in many debates garnered great commitment and much attention here in the chamber, perhaps because there are so many people in Sweden who have hunting as their greatest leisure interest – yes, not just as a leisure interest but as a lifestyle.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the hunting corps is important for the country's wildlife conservation - not least when it comes to the search for wildlife injured in traffic accidents, something that is actually carried out more or less voluntarily by the hunting corps today.

Therefore, it is extremely problematic that the hunting community is caught in the crossfire when the weapons law is tightened in order to make it more difficult for illegal weapons – weapons that are weapons, it seems one believes, because legal weapons holders are covered by the same legislation as those who use illegal weapons in criminal activities.

That is why a large number of motions have been submitted over the years in these matters, and announcements have been decided. This year's flood of motions is, as stated, markedly smaller. The reason is, as we have heard and which I agree with, that the government has addressed many of the issues that have been on the agenda previously. It concerns a review of the Weapons Act to distinguish between legal weapon owners and criminals' use of weapons. It concerns five-year licenses.

But as I said in my question, the proposal for a hunting and wildlife management authority is not something that the government has fully embraced yet. As mentioned, there is a clear investigation on this from the Alliance period. The question of supervision of shooting ranges, we will definitely have to continue to monitor and return to.

With this short contribution, I thank you for this time – this intervention in the debate on weapons issues. But I say in advance, as we will during the spring debate on the weapons directive, which is the next long-running item here in the chamber. It is somewhat interesting to note the previous speaker's criticism of the decision in the EU, as the Moderaterna actually voted for this in the European Parliament. I find it very difficult to believe that this will go smoothly through this chamber, as it sounded from previous speakers here. I still think that this has flaws, even though one has come a long way.

With this, 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! I want to begin by moving to reject all motions and reservations - there are two reservations - in this report on weapons issues. It is also the committee's proposal for a decision.

Unfortunately, we can still see almost daily how the crude and gang-related violence affects our society in various frightening ways. The violence now affects our entire country. The trend of increased deadly violence through shootings continues. We all agree that this trend needs to be broken. Such a display of violence and total lack of respect for the justice system deserves the society's powerful condemnation.

Our society must be able to guarantee the security of its citizens.

In this debate, we are addressing, as many times before, issues regarding weapons. I can state that instead of focusing on making it harder for gang criminals to commit violent crimes with illegal weapons, those who have governed Sweden in recent years have in many cases – in an effort to appear proactive – pointed the spear towards the Swedish hunting and shooting movement. However, breaking the deadly trend of gun violence that we can see in society is not achieved in this way.

Instead of simplifying for weapon owners, it is often rather about proposals that would make it more difficult for those who lawfully own and handle a weapon, even though it is not these weapons that are used in the gangs' settlements.

Mr. Speaker! We Christian Democrats naturally consider that measures from all parts of the justice system and also legislative changes are needed to tackle criminals' possession of weapons and explosives, but we believe that it must be implemented in a way that does not create problems for ordinary hunters and sport shooters.

Even today, today's registered weapon owners - they are today about 620,000 people who have 1.8 million licenses - are surrounded by many rules, and society has many control functions for those who own a weapon. I must repeat it again, even though I have said it earlier in debates: It is not legal weapons that are used in the shootings and serious crimes that we see in Sweden. It is instead primarily weapons that enter Sweden through illegal means.

A few years ago, a study was conducted where it was established that over a fairly long period, only one weapon per year that came from hunting or sport shooting was involved in serious crime. It is therefore a very small and marginal part. 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. An unnecessary regulation that makes things difficult for law-abiding gun owners is not the method to stop the increasing number of shootings on our streets and squares.

A tougher stance against gang crime requires powerful measures to ensure safety in our society. But it can, as we see it, be done without making life more difficult for law-abiding and responsible gun owners.

During the previous parliamentary term, as several speakers have pointed out, a large number of motions were submitted to the government from a majority of the Riksdag regarding weapon ownership and weapon handling. It was a clear signal that there are proposals that meet hunters' and sport shooters' wishes for simplifications without the safety of society being affected.

The previous government did not have the will, but I am glad that the new leadership for Sweden is starting the process to simplify things for those weapon owners who behave themselves. Now is the time to meet this expectation.

Mr. Speaker! In the Tidö Agreement, under the heading Weapons Legislation, it is described that an investigation shall propose a divided regulatory framework for, on one hand, licensing matters and on the other hand, illegal weapons, and that the sentencing scales for each part should distinguish between the severity of the organized crime's use of weapons compared to deficiencies in licensing issues for hunters and sport shooters. It is a welcome division.

A division of the penal provisions and how an expansion of the weapons repertoire for hunting can be designed will also be proposed. For example, consideration must also be given to how the process for weapon exchange can be simplified and a position taken on time-limited permits. There are thus a number of things to be investigated in order to simplify things for legal weapon owners.

Mr. Speaker! I can also state that the process regarding a minimum implementation of the EU's weapons directive also appears to be reaching its conclusion. A majority of the Swedish parties in the European Parliament voted yes to the EU's weapons directive. We Christian Democrats were certainly not one of them, but we realize that we must implement the decision.

The Riksdag has on several occasions notified previous governments that implementation shall take place but not go further than what the directive requires, so as not to risk worsening or unnecessarily complicating things for law-abiding hunters and sport shooters. Despite this, the government has several times attempted to move forward with proposals that, according to the committee and the Riksdag, have involved an over-implementation. Eventually, it went so far that Sweden risked receiving heavy EU fines because the implementation was lacking. Then the process finally took the path that should have been taken from the beginning. An investigator was appointed, and a parliamentary reference group was created with representation from all parties.

The investigator's proposal also became significantly better and indicated a path that involved manageable proposals which, for the most part, do not affect the everyday lives or weapon handling of ordinary hunters and sport shooters.

After a significant adjustment in the Government Offices, we, with the new government, reach what has been the wish of both gun owners and a parliamentary majority, namely a real minimum implementation of the EU's weapons directive. That is what you do if you set the right objective from the start. It is good that Sweden now has a government that meets this requirement.

Arms issues

Mr. Speaker! This debate shows that it is possible to choose a different direction than the one the previous government chose for control and measures. The many announcements during previous years showed that there was a majority in the Swedish Riksdag that wanted to go a different way. Now we have received a government coalition that ensures that it is actually implemented.

I want to conclude by saying that we Christian Democrats support the new government's path regarding weapons issues. As I said in the introduction, I move for approval of the committee's proposal and rejection of the motions.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

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