Weapon issues

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we shall debate the report JuU14 Weapons Issues, an almost unanimous report with two reservations.

The proposers raise a number of issues that the government is already investigating and working on. Therefore, the committee does not need to raise these issues to the government again. I therefore move for the rejection of all motions.

We are now awaiting the result of the ongoing investigation, where I and members from the other parties are part of the reference group. My and the Moderates' goal is to try to remove as quickly as possible the far too many completely unjustified five-year licenses, plus a number of other previous announcements that we pointed out in opposition, but which the Social Democrats then refused to implement.

When it comes to the weapons directive, we write clearly in the decision in the committee that we will carefully monitor the application of the weapons directive. In plain terms: If it turns out to be major problems, we will review this. The Tidö parties in the Committee on Justice already have the clear view that we will follow up on how the implementation of the weapons directive works if necessary.

Mr. Speaker! Regarding the weapons amnesties that S, V, C and MP write about in their reservation, that is also an issue that the government is already working on and has in its toolbox. Previous weapons amnesties have not so far yielded as great results as one might wish. It is mostly old weapons and often toy weapons that are handed in. Few have had any connection to crime or gang crime. But the tool exists and can be used.

Mr. Speaker! The issues regarding weapons are important, and there are over 600,000 weapon owners in Sweden. The weapon owners manage through hunting and try to keep our wildlife populations in balance to reduce game damage and wildlife accidents. The hunters also do a great deal of work taking care of injured wildlife through searches following wildlife accidents. Our hunters handle this in an entirely exemplary manner. When we have also powerfully reduced the country's wolf population, we will not either endanger our hunting dogs' valuable work in the forest.

I want to extend a big thank you to the country's hunters for the work you do.

Mr. Speaker! Other weapon owners engage in one of the country's largest sports, namely sport shooting, with nearly 200,000 registered members who train and compete and show very good results both nationally and internationally. Sport shooting is the country's seventh largest sport. This sport is important for us and should not be jeopardized by legislation that makes it unnecessarily complicated and troublesome for the sport shooters.

I also extend a big thank you to the country's sport shooters, who give us great sporting successes both nationally and internationally.

Mr. Speaker! Another group of weapon owners are the weapon collectors, who with their own time and their own money work to collect, maintain and protect our old and in many cases very valuable weapons.

I want to pay a great tribute to the country's weapon collectors, who, through their work and their interest, preserve our cultural heritage.

Mr. Speaker! Gun owners do not only contribute to managing our wildlife populations or training, competing, or collecting weapons, but they also constitute a great value and an extra security when our country's safety is at stake. When a foreign power threatens our safety and security, our gun owners and their knowledge constitute a great asset for the country's safety and defense. We must never forget that. These are people who can use weapons, shoot, and protect our country, and they are a great asset for Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! On the other hand, the Moderate-led government is putting great effort into wresting illegal weapons out of the hands of criminals. They shall not be able to smuggle in or use illegal weapons in Sweden without receiving proper and very tangible punishments. But so that these much harsher penalty scales do not have to affect the country's legal weapon owners in a completely disproportionate way, we are working on dividing the weapons legislation into one part for criminals with illegal weapons and one part that regulates punishments for legal weapons handled by hunters, shooters, and collectors.

Mr. Speaker! The weapons investigation that is currently underway and is to be completed in May 2024 is now working with all previous announcements, and there we are discussing and will propose a number of improvements for the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors. Here, the Tidö parties and also the Center have a broad consensus on measures that need to be implemented.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the representatives of the Tidö parties and the Centre Party for good cooperation in the investigation. I am very pleased that, through our previous announcements, we can now also proceed with the proposals in this large weapons investigation, which will now be able to facilitate things for the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors.

I move for approval of the proposal in report JuU14 V weapons issues and for the rejection of the reservations.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

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

Sten Bergheden is one of the members who has spent a lot of time in the speaker's chair in the chamber, among other things, strongly criticizing the often very negative consequences that various tightenings of the weapons legislation have led to for just hunters and sport shooters.

I also want to praise the investigation that this government has commissioned, or at least expanded its mandate. That is good. But there is one thing that the investigation on weapons legislation does not handle, namely the question of the regulation of weapons magazines that was introduced by this government last summer.

I take the liberty of also repeating what Sten Bergheden has said in previous years from the rostrum: The previous government tried time and again to regulate the possession of weapon magazines. Sometimes one blames gang crime, sometimes the EU directive. One blames that the police otherwise cannot seize magazines, which is not true. The police seized just over a thousand magazines in 2018. One blames that possession of magazines must be regulated according to the EU's weapons directive, which is also not true. The directive only requires a regulation of certain magazines in combination with certain weapons. Other countries have solved this in a way that does not affect legal hunters and shooters.

Still, this government proceeded last summer with an implementation of the directive that meant precisely ownership regulation of weapons magazines. The government had its reasons for that, it thought. It was a lack of time, and there were threats of fines and so on. But now that this can still be changed because a motion has been raised on the issue, why is the government not prepared to change what the governing parties thought was so terrible before they were in government?

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Helena Vilhelmsson for the question.

I would first like to thank you for the rendering of the quote. It is of course true that legislative regulations have been introduced that have worsened in certain situations for the hunters, and that is what we have tried to write motions and announcements about in order to rectify.

Unfortunately, the previous government was supported by the Center Party for four years, and they did not manage to resolve the issue of the weapons directive. Instead, it landed in our lap when we took over government power. Furthermore, the Social Democrats also appointed, with the support of the Center, the investigation into the weapons directive. When we took over the investigation approximately one month after we had taken over government power, the investigation was largely complete. Additionally, the Center's representative in the investigation was not opposed to the proposal presented in the investigation. However, the Center Party woke up after the investigation was submitted.

We have been hesitant to introduce this. I and several in the Tidö parties have wanted to investigate the usage option as well. It did not manage to happen during the period, and we were under pressure from the EU regarding fines and other matters. Despite our efforts to keep up the pace, we still ended up with fines, which was obviously unfortunate. Therefore, we have clearly written into the committee text that we will follow up on the application of the weapons directive, and we will review whether any application needs to be adjusted. We have included this, and we have not dropped the issue.

For the time being, the weapons directive has been in effect for approximately half a year. We must first see how this works before we move forward. The investigation also looks at adjustments in that part, but unfortunately, I cannot go into those now.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Sometimes I think it was a huge stroke of luck that the Center Party entered into the January Agreement. What would Sten Bergheden have said in the speaker's chair since then?

The January Agreement applied to 2019-2020, and Sten Bergheden knows very well that hunting and weapons issues were not included in the January Agreement. On the contrary, as Sten Bergheden has mentioned, the Center Party, together with the current government parties, made many announcements. But when the government parties entered government, they did not implement them, but instead changed sides.

When it is as Sten Bergheden says, namely that we are no longer under time pressure, the fine has already been decided, what is it that prevents us from moving forward with looking at a change?

Sten Bergheden also referred to the current weapons investigation, and that is good. I know that a good discussion and good work are being conducted there. But it happens to be that the Center Party's representative has asked if we cannot also look at a regulation of weapons magazines. The answer has then been that there must be a directive from the government. Why then has Sten Bergheden, who also sits in the investigation, not asked the government for a directive and received the mandate? That is the only thing that is needed.

I guess the member may have slipped a bit on the truth, because the weapons investigation does not look at the regulation of weapons magazines. That is why it would be so good to follow up on the motion that a decision is to be made on tomorrow and appoint an investigation to carry out this, which was so incredibly important before the election for all current government parties.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Helena Vilhelmsson for the question. I consider myself quite certain about which issues we are discussing in the weapons inquiry. That being said, I still think it is just as strange that the Center Party, over four years, could let through an S-government that actually ignored the entire hunting and weapons Sweden. One had to sit and write motions and announcements with other parties in order to try to push through their policy. It well shows what substandard and poor influence Center actually had considering the power one let over to the Social Democrats. One did not solve a single one of these issues, especially not the weapons directive issue, which came as early as 2017. One had a few years to sort out this issue. With a little strength from the Center Party, one could have stood one's ground and pushed this through. That much pressure existed both in the Riksdag and elsewhere to solve that part.

We have written clearly in our committee that we will follow up on this issue to see if it becomes an acceptable application. Then we are prepared to discuss whether this needs to be adjusted or not at any point. Now the weapons directive has been in effect for about half a year. We await what the investigation will land on to see if we need to adjust anything regarding the weapons directive in the future.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can note that Sten Bergheden did not thank those who decided to initiate the investigation, where we sit in a reference group. It was the previous government that did so. The reason was that we were in a predicament. We were in a bridge as a nation because the weapons directive had not been fully implemented. In November, we received a fine of 99 million kronor, and that is a lot of money.

Now Sten Bergheden tells the Chamber in his speech that he is carefully following how the weapons directive is implemented. If it does not occur in a so-called acceptable way, according to Sten Bergheden, one should tear up what we have obtained with great effort and much trouble and which has allowed us to get out of this predicament and finally escape risking multi-million fines; the money can be used for other things that are needed in our society.

I would very much like to know what is an acceptable level. Is it the case that Sten Bergheden and the Moderaterna do not have confidence that the authorities intend to follow the Swedish law, which we make decisions on in the chamber? What happens if the authorities' decisions are not sufficient for the Moderaterna and the government? How does one intend to tweak the legislation? How will it risk the introduction of the weapons directive?

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Petter Löberg for the questions.

The previous government appointed the investigation. Then the current government wrote a number of additional directives to the investigation in order to include all announcements regarding the improvements that would be made for the country's hunters, gatherers, and shooters. It is a significant difference from when the previous government worked with the weapons directive.

Then it is a bit strange that Petter Löberg asks me the question about whether we are going to review this. As I interpret it, there is no other motion from the Social Democrats. They stand behind the proposal in the report in that part. It is about the fact that we will carefully follow up on the application of the weapons directive. I believe we are in agreement there. I think this is obvious. What had to be done in this situation was to introduce legislation under the gallows. We had the EU over us, with the risk of fines and other things. Then it was a quick move. We had to bring forward what was there. Naturally, one will review how this works. Above all, it is the application we are looking at. There are things there that the police may have included extra, but which are not actually fully required by the weapons directive. It is obvious that we must follow up on this, like all other legislation. Obviously, one must be able to reconsider it if one sees that something goes wrong. Therefore, we have this clear text about following this carefully to see if we need to adjust anything regarding the application of the weapons directive.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! I can note that the member does not specify what could potentially be a deviation of an acceptable nature. That was what I was reflecting on. It is clear that all legislation must be followed up. We have different types of functions for that: the National Audit Office, the National Property Board, and all possible other agencies and evaluation instruments, including the Riksdag's evaluation. I felt that it was quite polemical and strong words that the member used linked to the implementation of the weapons directive, which furthermore only has a few months on its neck. We have no idea how it is to be interpreted and how it works in practice.

I think this creates a strange atmosphere vis-à-vis the authorities who are struggling to achieve the right decisions and legally secure handling of these types of complex issues. We know that it is difficult material that very few people at the various authorities, not least the Police Authority, have the ability to handle. Those who have special knowledge have to work very hard. I assume that they are doing their absolute best so that the law can function in a good way.

I would like to ask a question, now that we have a few minutes. Does Member Bergheden believe that precisely the strict weapons legislation we have had in Sweden in modern times may have contributed to legal weapons not spilling over into the criminal sector? Does Sten Bergheden believe that could be the case? I would like to know that.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Petter Löberg for the question. With the weapons legislation we have today, it is clear that we have a very restrictive weapons handling in Sweden. We have the strictest requirements when it comes to training, storage, and oversight. We can monitor on a daily basis if someone commits a crime or otherwise. It is a very good legislation which, of course, has ensured that we have kept our weapons in order in the country.

But we also have details in the weapons legislation that make it difficult for hunters, shooters, and collectors and which are disproportionately burdensome. For example, a shooter cannot buy an extra weapon when he needs to go to a competition and there is a risk that one or two weapons will malfunction or something else. The other shooters around the world that he competes against bring as many weapons as they may need. It is like sending a golfer with six clubs to a World Championship in golf. It does not work. A review must be made of such regulations in the weapons legislation that make it difficult for hunters, shooters, and collectors to do what they need to do within their hunting, their sport, and their collecting.

It is all these details that we want to look over, and we make that clear in the weapons inquiry. I believe that in broad consensus we will come to many improvements. We await the inquiry, which will arrive in May. I hope for broad support here in the chamber for the proposals that will be presented and which will truly facilitate for the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors. Perhaps Member Petter Löberg and his party will be able to support such proposals that they have previously, during eight years, powerfully opposed.

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 regarding the weapons amnesty.

Our country is being tormented and has been tormented for a longer period by a rarely seen extent of explosions and shootings. Crime victims and relatives have their lives devastated. The local community is affected. Safety disappears when the violence in reality comes and is perceived to come closer and closer to the skin.

Specifically, gun violence stands out significantly in a development where violent crime and many other types of crime are falling in the statistics. Research and authorities are partly at a loss as to the reason why the situation in our country stands out compared to that in similar countries.

We can observe that there is a common denominator in this context, and it is the weapons themselves. Almost a quarter of a million people are killed every year by gun violence on our earth. Of those, there are 40-60 cases that occur in our country. That is 40-60 cases too many. For the quarter of a million people who lose their lives, it naturally means an enormous tragedy. It is a life that has ended prematurely and a society that in many ways never recovers.

Effective work to remove illegal weapons from our society is crucial if we are to succeed with the goal and the challenges of stopping violence on streets and squares. The criminology prize winners Cook and Zimring from the USA have conducted extensive and evidence-based research. They described that it is precisely about the weapons and the access to the weapons. It is crucial if one is to succeed with the work against violence.

We also see in our own national statistics that, for example, the use of automatic rifles leads to us having significantly more people who are "shot" who are not the target of the shooting. This naturally means that we need to review and adjust the weapons legislation in various ways.

We naturally need to have repressive measures where it is appropriate and crime-preventive measures where it is appropriate. Such crime-preventive work can involve granting a weapons amnesty.

I share Sten Bergheden's view that, fundamentally, there have not been particularly many weapons that have come in during the previous amnesties. In 2018, we received approximately 12,000 weapons. Of the 12,000 weapons, the majority were such that people had inherited them or had found them.

What has happened since 2018 is that we have significantly increased the penalties for illegal weapons possession and aggravated weapons offenses. This naturally implies a completely new situation even when it comes to the amnesty. Our proposal involves a test to see how much people are prepared to risk to hide, for example, a boyfriend's or a relative's weapon in a basement storage room or in the home. Now that is being decided in many ways. In that context, one can also say that in order to get the weapons in, we need to have increased support for relatives when they eventually hand over the weapons.

I would like to conclude by briefly pointing out that from a European perspective, there are approximately 640,000 weapons reported in the Schengen Information System. Most of these weapons have been legal for a shorter period at some point. But they will, of course, be able to be used in illegal contexts eventually.

We have an enormous dark figure in this context. These are registered weapons that are missing. But we probably have millions of weapons out on the market.

If we want to tackle gun violence, we need, as a matter of principle, to continue to have strict rules. In this context, I must appeal to the government that the regulations have served us well where we have had control even over legal weapons.

We must ensure that we have good regulations for who is allowed to have weapons and how weapons are used and stored. But it is also a matter of having a control in clubs for dynamic sport shooting and other activities that are extensive, which is actually the case today. Here we have many security systems in place.

We really hope that we do not see an all-too extensive liberalization of the weapons legislation during the coming mandate period.

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! It is a fact that weapons and the handling of weapons is an important issue. Weapons are used, as many know, by hunters and sport shooters but also by, among others, the defense and the police. They do so in a responsible manner.

But unfortunately, we can see almost daily how gross violence, which often has gang connections, affects our society in various frightening ways. The violence affects many directly and indirectly, and we can all happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and risk being injured or even killed by a weapon fired in a conflict. This trend must be broken. Such a display of violence, ruthlessness, and total lack of respect for both human life and the right of every citizen to safety deserves the society's powerful condemnation.

In today's debate, we are addressing issues regarding weapons, and it can be easy to call for stricter rules for all weapon owners in order to meet the increase in firearm violence. According to my and my party's view, it is a completely incorrect perspective to do so. Instead, the focus should be on making it harder for gang criminals to commit violent crimes with illegal weapons. Over the years, however, we have seen proposals that, in many cases with the aim of being proactive, have been directed at the Swedish hunting and shooting movement in order to break the deadly trend of firearm violence. But it is, as said, a backward way to tackle the problem. Naturally, measures were needed from all parts of the justice system and also legislative changes that allow one to target the criminals' possession of weapons and explosives. But it must be implemented in a way that does not create problems for ordinary hunters and sport shooters.

Mr. Speaker! Already today, today's registered weapon owners, who number over 600,000, are surrounded by many rules, and society has various control functions that regularly and often daily check the person who owns a weapon.

I have said it before, but it is still necessary to repeat it: It is not legal weapons that are primarily the focus for criminals or that are used in the shootings and other serious crimes that we see in Sweden. Instead, weapons that enter Sweden through illegal channels are used. This route and use need to be combated by all means. But it must happen without creating problems for those weapon owners who manage both weapons and handling blamelessly.

A few years ago, it was noted that for a number of years, only 1.2 weapons per year that came from hunting or sport shooting were involved in serious crime. It is therefore a small, marginal part. Therefore, it is obvious not to lump hunters and sport shooters together with those who behave the worst in society. Making things difficult for law-abiding gun owners is not the method to stop the increased number of shootings on our streets and squares.

During the previous parliamentary term, as mentioned, a number of motions were made to the government from a majority of the Riksdag regarding weapon ownership and handling. It was a clear signal from the Riksdag to the then government that there are proposals to meet hunters' and sport shooters' wishes for simplifications without compromising society's security. The previous government did not have the will. But I am pleased that the new leadership for Sweden is moving the process forward to simplify for those weapon owners who behave themselves. It is high time to bring this process to completion now.

Mr. Speaker! In the Tidö Agreement, in addition to everything else that is now being implemented, a new path for weapons issues was also specified. The government's investigation, which is now being implemented, shall provide the opportunity for simpler weapons handling for law-abiding hunters and sport shooters. But this is, naturally, done with a focus and a continued focus on combating persons who illegally use weapons for criminal activities.

It is correct that the previous government in May 2022 tasked a special investigator with, as a first step, proposing how the EU's amending directive should be implemented and subsequently reviewing the weapons legislation. This investigation was supplemented during 2023 with an additional directive which meant that the investigator should review a number of points, including those regarding the weapons wardrobe and which processes shall apply during weapon exchange. The investigator shall also take a position on time-limited permits and so on. This meets many of the announcements made by the Riksdag.

Mr. Speaker! This debate shows that it is possible to choose a different direction regarding weapon ownership for law-abiding and responsible weapon owners than the path that the previous government chose. The many announcements during previous years show that there is and was a majority in Sweden's Riksdag that wants to go a different way. Now we must ensure that this is implemented and that we go that way, and we are several parties that are working to ensure that this is truly implemented.

With this, I would like to conclude by saying that we Christian Democrats support this direction regarding weapons issues, and I move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of all motion proposals.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Justice's report on firearms issues. Firearms issues have not always been handled in a separate report here in the Riksdag; previously, the issues concerning, for example, legal gun ownership were included in the report on police issues.

I have looked a bit in the historical records and seen that in 2017 specifically, the Sverigedemokraterna were quite alone in submitting motions with the aim of simplifying legal gun ownership. It concerns, among other things, the five-year licenses, the gun wardrobe, and other issues that we have emphasized over the years when it comes to special reasons and such things that criticism has been raised against. It should be said that the Centerpartiet was also involved in writing motions at that time.

But the Sweden Democrats were quite isolated for a few years at the beginning of the last parliamentary term and alone in thinking that something needed to be done. After that, more parties, especially within the constellation that is now called Tidögänget, that is, the Moderaterna, Kristdemokraterna and actually also the Liberalerna, have worked quite hard and performed a very good job in opposition to the previous government when it comes to creating announcements.

It concerns many of the issues addressed here, for example the five-year licenses. I cannot remember any other issue having received so many motions during a single parliamentary term. At that time, we had a red-green government that refused to accommodate the motions that we directed from the Riksdag.

This is a bit of the background to what we are debating today. There has been a growing pressure on these issues, and we have now received a clear majority and a government that wants to do something about the issues that we have worked for so long for in the Riksdag in opposition.

Mr. Speaker! It is pleasing, and I have great confidence that we will obtain quite good results from the weapons inquiry with the supplementary directive it has. These are quite sharp directives, and they probably and hopefully provide great opportunities for the Riksdag to make decisions in the issues where the legislation can be changed according to the instructions that have previously existed. It perhaps primarily concerns the five-year licenses, which have been very much debated. It also concerns the weapons wardrobe and other issues belonging to this.

It is about a division of the weapons legislation so that the law hits differently depending on what one's intent is. Criminals without a weapons license shall, of course, be punished if they have armed themselves with criminal intent, but the person who has a weapons license and otherwise handles it quite well should not be hit by the penalties that we consider reasonable for criminals.

There are many things that are very good and that I believe will turn out well. It is a bit early to say anything now, and we live in a somewhat uncertain time until the investigation is presented in the beginning of May. But there is hope, as I see it.

We have, however, discussed and debated the implementation of the EU's weapons directive quite many times in this chamber. It started with the Social Democratic government trying to implement the EU's weapons directive not just once, but twice and perhaps three times, if I remember correctly. They simply lacked support in the Riksdag for their proposal for implementation. They refused to anchor the proposal in the Riksdag. No Social Democrat contacted the Sweden Democrats to ask what we thought. That is a poor way to handle an implementation of the EU's weapons directive.

This has also led to Sweden having to pay rather hefty fines to the EU because it failed to implement the legislation in time. That responsibility rests, of course, fully on the previous government, which did not sanction its proposals in the Riksdag.

There is a question mark and a question that remains hanging in the air, and this has been commented on previously in an exchange between Centerpartiet and Moderaterna. It concerns the regulation of weapons magazines, where there are uncertainties. Is it an over-implementation, and is it a major problem? We have not quite sorted out that question, the Sverigedemokraterna believe. We are not entirely sure that it is a major problem, and we are also not entirely sure that the investigation currently working will adopt certain parts that may exist when it comes to, for example, the handling of weapons magazines for personnel within the Försvarsmakten. Should it be illegal to possess weapons magazines privately for them?

There may be a possibility that this can be handled within the weapons investigation that exists, but we are not entirely sure about that matter from the Sweden Democrats' side. We are definitely quite uncertain specifically when it comes to the principled stance on the regulation of weapons magazines, where the difference is constituted by what is called usage regulation and possession regulation. We think that one should investigate the usage regulation fully on a principled level.

Then it can be so - it must be said - that adjustments in existing regulations remove a lot of fears and some problems that make it so that this perhaps is not needed. But for the Sweden Democrats, we see that there is a principled starting point that is important to monitor and investigate if one wants to achieve a minimum implementation with the minimum possible negative effect in these issues.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have chosen to vote in favor of reservation 1 in the report, which concerns implementation and minimum implementation.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Adam Marttinen, for the speech! I know that Adam Marttinen usually refers to what has been said and done long ago. Sometimes there is a small risk in requesting a reply, because he might quote something I have said or done.

I think Adam Marttinen forgot one thing, namely the decision last summer regarding the implementation of the weapons directive. At that time, the Sverigedemokraterna did not even participate in the debate, so I therefore thought I would take the opportunity to raise this issue now.

I completely agree with the historical description of all the announcements that have not been considered, and I think it is very good that they are now being considered in the weapons investigation that is ongoing.

But again: This weapons investigation does not have the mandate to look at specifically the change of the regulation of weapons magazines. It seems a bit strange that the question is now being raised about whether it is not certain that it is an over-implementation. All parties were, as you refer to, super clear that it was an over-implementation, at least as far back as to the last election.

I wonder a bit: What was it really that made the Sweden Democrats actually back down and approve an implementation of the firearms directive with this over-implementation? The reasons stated - that it was time pressure, that we would be subject to fines - had been the same also half a year and a year before. It is very tricky to understand why the Sweden Democrats changed their opinion.

Then I also realize that we have the situation to handle that we have now. I am very pleased that the Sweden Democrats support the reservation and believe that we can find a solution moving forward. But what was it, really, that made you agree to this implementation?

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! There are many answers to that. The Sweden Democrats are not in government. That is the first. The weapons issues are not included in the Tidö Agreement. That is the second.

The government put a proposal on the table where we could either implement or prevent the implementation. In that choice, we chose to implement the proposal that was put on the table.

We were not entirely satisfied. I believe I remember my words quite well when I discussed the matter with the Minister of Justice and the department: Take the fines! It is not our fault that we are faced with a situation involving fines. Take the fines and investigate the reporting regulations!

I had quite a few meetings where I pushed for us to go that way. That did not happen, and I think that is unfortunate. It is also the reason why we today have a joint reservation in the report.

I also think that one should have respect for the stance the government presents. There are no well-known problems. If there are no known problems, however, the principled issue remains, where we are not entirely satisfied. I think that is reason enough to proceed with an investigation.

We do not think that the EU should interfere in Swedish weapons legislation at all. That was also the reason why the Sverigedemokraterna in 2017 considered it incompatible with the subsidiarity principle to proceed with the EU directive. We have been very critical of it from the beginning, because the purpose has been to target criminals and terrorists. That is not done with the regulation of weapons magazines. We think that it can be left completely alone.

But if it doesn't become a huge problem regarding this, it is also not a huge thing to talk about. Then it is about the principle: Should the EU have anything to say when it comes to how we are to regulate our weapons magazines? We do not think the EU should have anything at all.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you very much for the answer. I smile a little inwardly, because Adam Marttinen uses the same answer that Sten Bergheden gave the Center Party. I do not know how Sten Bergheden expressed it, whether we had poor influence or too little influence. This is obviously also the case for the Sweden Democrats in the current government, because they did not get their positions through despite there being a majority in the chamber for this.

I also think it is a bit strange that the member again uses the term known problems. We do not yet know if they are known problems, he says. There are a number of problems, for example for the target shooting movement, which both our parties used before the amendment directive was hammered out. I will take that up in my speech later. I almost think it is a non-issue.

Since then, I have respect for the point the member is raising that the weapons investigation may, via other avenues, be able to address some of the problems. It will be interesting to follow.

The question, however, is how we move forward. I assume that Adam Marttinen is part of the weapons investigation, but in what way are the Sweden Democrats willing to work on the issue moving forward? If the weapons investigation does not come up with a proposal that is sufficient, what do we do then? What is the Sweden Democrats' proposal then? What is the measure then? Should we raise the issue in the Committee on Justice? Should we have interpellation debates with the Minister for Justice?

In some way, I believe we must take measures to solve this. Unlike Adam Marttinen, I am indeed convinced that there are problems when it comes to implementing this law, especially for the target shooters.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I agree that there is a principled problem with criminalizing the possession of magazines, namely that people limit themselves in their handling of magazines. It does not constitute a problem at all that people have weapon magazines at home. This is a principled error that can lead to people possessing magazines in such a way that they commit a crime, and I think that is completely wrong. In the best of worlds, it does, however, mean a rather small problem in the short term.

What should we do from the Riksdag's side? Yes, the Sweden Democrats stand behind the motion, and will also vote for it in the chamber, that the government should investigate usage regulation as an alternative implementation. More than that, one perhaps cannot demand from a party that sits in the Riksdag and not in the government. But we will definitely push to achieve success also in that matter.

Then the debate becomes a bit hampered by the fact that we have an investigation that has not presented its full proposal, which will arrive in May. It may happen that there are positive outcomes even when it comes to weapons magazines. We raise those questions in the reference group for the investigation that has been appointed, but it is, as said, uncertainty.

We choose the certain over the uncertain. We have voted for the reservation to put pressure on the issue and to show that there is a principled objection against the implementation that was made. Should it turn out that there are problems further ahead that are more or less significant, or that the investigation does not address the question marks, I am convinced that we will also receive broader support for our view on this issue in the chamber and will not have to stand alone with it. However, it looks like we will have to do that this time.

I look forward to continued good work in putting pressure on the issue.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I want to begin by moving for approval of reservation number 2 of the Left Party with several of the opposition parties. The reservation concerns a recurring weapons amnesty and amnesty for surrendering explosives.

The Tidö parties' motives for not saying yes to this are difficult to understand, at least for me. Why is every chance not taken to limit the terrible violence with shootings and explosions that is ongoing, which we all find appalling? Is it only stricter punishments that are to be able to handle the problem in the Tidö parties' Sweden? Should it never be about preventive measures against the gangs, as well as against other forms of violence? The proposed amnesties can also hinder other forms of shootings and atrocities that are ongoing outside the gangs' framework.

Through recurring amnesties for illegal weapons and illegal ammunition, it is possible to reduce the proportion of weapons in society. In the current situation, it is of great importance that firearms circulating in gang criminal circles can be seized, which a weapons amnesty can contribute to. It is a measure with some crime-preventing effect, as one measure among several. It is always desirable to reduce the number of illegal weapons in society. Such an amnesty means that anyone can turn in firearms and ammunition as well as explosives to the police anonymously and avoid legal consequences. Since explosives are not covered by the Weapons Act, a special amnesty for explosives is required.

During the last weapons amnesty, in the spring of 2018, the police received 12,000 weapons. It is stated in our reservation. Almost 30,000 kilos, i.e., 30 tons, of ammunition were also handed in. It was the fourth amnesty. I have looked a bit at the history. At the 1993 amnesty, just over 17,000 weapons were received. In 2007, 13,000 weapons were received. In 2013, 15,000 weapons were received, and in 2018, it means 12,000 weapons were received. In total, it concerns 57,000 weapons so far. If we sum up the data on collected and handed-in ammunition, it concerns 96 tons.

In the debate, it has been mentioned earlier that it should mostly be about old weapons or toys. I cannot prove that those pieces of information are incorrect. But I know that also old weapons and even toys that resemble real, dangerous weapons are used to threaten and intimidate. I also believe that a number of the 57,000 weapons are real, seriously dangerous weapons.

Regarding the explosive goods, I have not found documentation on what has been collected. There has only been one amnesty so far, in 2018. Even though the explosives collected at that time did not come from criminal gangs to the desired extent, the measure should be repeated.

Against this background, I consider it reasonable to have repeated amnesties at certain intervals, as the four mentioned amnesties are examples of. Initiatives should again be taken for new weapon amnesties to get people to hand in illegal weapons, ammunition, and explosives.

I move for approval of reservation number 2.

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 it is because many people in Sweden have hunting as their greatest leisure interest. It is actually not just a leisure interest, but a lifestyle.

There is no doubt that the hunting corps is important for the country's wildlife conservation, not least when it comes to the search for traffic-injured wildlife, which is done more or less voluntarily by the hunting corps today. Therefore, it is extremely problematic that the hunting corps often gets caught in the crossfire when weapons laws are discussed and penalties are tightened, in order to make it more difficult for illegal weapons.

For that reason, a number of motions have been submitted in these matters over the years. And decisions have been made regarding announcements. This year's flood of motions is significantly smaller. But some motions remain to be handled, including one concerning the implementation of the EU's weapons directive, which a decision was made on last summer.

It, my friends, is a strange sequel in this chamber. For those who may be listening here in the chamber and elsewhere, I shall recapitulate a little. In 2017, the EU adopted an amending directive to the firearms directive. Different opinions on Sweden's weapons laws existed long before that, but it definitely became worse then. Centerpartiet was against the firearms directive then, and we were against that which was voted through here in the chamber last summer. For the sake of the matter, I can remind you how our elected representatives voted in the EU Parliament in 2017. Those who voted no were Sverigedemokraterna, Centerpartiet, Kristdemokraterna, and Liberalerna. Those who voted yes were Socialdemokraterna, Moderaterna, Vänsterpartiet, and Miljöpartiet.

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

I dare to say that governments of all colors seem to believe that the more weapons there are in society, the more crime increases. That is not the case. All citizens in Sweden could have their own weapon if each of us behaves and uses it as it is intended to be used, that is, for target shooting, for hunting, or for collecting purposes. To be allowed to have it, you must pass qualified tests and graduate. Your conduct – a popular term – is continuously checked in the police registers. If you do not behave, you are simply stripped of your weapon.

Mr. Speaker! Now the interesting phenomenon has arisen that the parties which time and again have criticized previous governments for choosing to propose an over-implementation of the directive now sit in the government. In that case, at least I expected the government to deliver proposals that truly meant minimum implementation. But that was not the case. Several proposals were voted through that have previously been criticized, including regulating weapons magazines by permit and furthermore criminalizing the possession of weapons magazines if there was no correct permit for it. This was not required in the EU directive.

In the amendment directive that came into effect last summer, there were obvious problems, which have been mentioned in the exchanges of remarks here. This applied in particular to target shooting and the large sporting movement it represents. I will give some examples. Sweden has its licensing divided by purpose, that is to say hunting, target shooting, or collecting. For example, 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. That is to say that the same magazine can be subject to a permit for one holder but not for another. It is not particularly legally secure.

The truth is that if a criminal were to obtain a semi-automatic hunting or target rifle and intended to shoot at other people with it, it does not matter whether the person has a magazine with more or less capacity than ten rounds. But it is only magazines with more than ten rounds that are to be registered. It is not logical.

Equating a loose metal or plastic magazine with a firearm is highly far-fetched. But it naturally does not prevent the police from being able to ask relevant questions if one encounters magazines or weapon parts with someone who cannot prove that they legally possess a firearm for which the items are intended. This can be done even without a permit for the magazines.

No, introduce a full user regulation, just like for the weapons license! If you have passed the hunter's exam, you can apply for weapons licenses and are thus responsible. If you are a marksman, you have passed a test and are thus responsible. It works in other countries. That is exactly what is proposed in the Center Party's motion and is exactly what the Tidö parties have thought for all years, until now.

Last summer, the amendment directive was pushed through for time reasons and because there was a risk of a fine from the EU. A fine was imposed in any case. Now, therefore, none of those reasons actually remain. Now the government should be able to calmly appoint an investigation or task the investigation that already exists with investigating precisely the implementation of user regulation.

It doesn't matter how many times the Moderaterna or Sten Bergheden say that the Centerpartiet should have done this together with the previous government. That is simply not true. We had no cooperation agreement whatsoever regarding hunting issues. Now, however, there is a government where all parties think that this is important. That was the case at least until the election.

It is not reasonable for the police to spend money and resources on locating, checking, and prosecuting owners of a metal or plastic magazine. Therefore, I believe that an investigation is needed now.

I vote in favor of reservation 1.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Now there is a bit of a backtrack in the reply. It wouldn't be entirely in order if we left here and agreed?

I have a question: What is the Center Party's role in the Riksdag worth? I don't believe Sweden has ever had a government that has neglected as many announcements as the previous Social Democratic government with Morgan Johansson as responsible minister. We were probably up to four or five announcements on the very same substantive issue when it came to the five-year licenses. There, the Sweden Democrats were in agreement with the Center Party on the substantive issue. We also had very many occasions to remove exactly that minister who neglected the announcements. But the Center Party chose to support a minister who completely neglected the announcements.

What do I want to say with this? Yes, that I think there is a small discrepancy between the tough words that often occur in the debate and the actual actions from the Center Party's side. If we had had a common intention that the announcements in the Swedish Riksdag should be implemented, we should also be in agreement that the minister who completely neglected the announcements did not deserve to be a minister. But when it came down to it, the Center Party chose a Social Democratic government that completely ignored the Riksdag's announcements and, furthermore, repeatedly failed to implement the weapons directive. It left us with quite substantial sums in fines from the EU.

What is the Center Party's voice worth when it really matters in these issues? Now we have a government that is working fully to implement the directives that the previous, Center Party-led, government completely neglected.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! With all respect for Adam Marttinen's reply and question, I want to say first that there has not been a Centre Party government during the last two parliamentary terms. That was the last statement that Adam Marttinen made. And with all respect – there are more questions to discuss in the chamber than hunting, game, and weapons. There are very large questions and much to discuss.

I refer again to the January Agreement, just as Adam Marttinen has referred to the Tidö Agreement and explained that it was why one moved away from the important position on these issues that one had before the election but let go after the election. The January Agreement contained a huge number of important issues and a huge amount of Centre Party politics on ideological issues. But it did not contain hunting, wildlife, or weapons issues. Those issues we chose to advocate for here in the chamber just as one does if one is not in government - but we did not succeed. That is completely correct. The government failed. I completely agree.

We agreed with all the criticism announced here that the government ignored the formalities that we handled here. We stood on the same side as the Sweden Democrats and criticized the government, but the January Agreement contained no point regarding hunting, game, or weapons issues.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! It is clearly a clarification from the Center Party's side when one says that one values certain issues more than others. I think it is a valuable clarification in this debate on weapons issues that legal gun ownership did not rank particularly high on the Center Party's agenda when priorities were set. One chose a red-green government instead of implementing the substantive issues that one in the plenum, in the Riksdag, in announcements considered so important. That was actually the only answer I was looking for, and I received it.

We now, as is known, have a government that works for these issues. If we Sverigedemokrater are dissatisfied with something that comes out on the other side, one can rely on the fact that we in the chamber, just as we do in this committee report, will put our foot down and make our mark. That is our role in politics. We do not just talk, but we also do what we say. That perhaps is the difference between Centerpartiet and Sverigedemokraterna.

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

Helena Vilhelmsson (C)

Mr. Speaker! In the previous exchange, I asked Adam Marttinen what the reason was for changing opinion on the important issue of the implementation of the EU's weapons directive. I understood that I received the answer that one did not go all the way – thus, I conclude that for the Sverigedemokraterna, there are more important issues than the problems of legal gun owners during the introduction of the EU's weapons directive, because that was what the Sverigedemokraterna agreed to.

Arms issues

My counter-question, which we can take in another debate, could become what the Sweden Democrats' role in the government support is. It is a question that we can return to.

In other respects, I want to conclude in the same way as Adam Marttinen did. If the results of the ongoing weapons investigation are not considered sufficient when they are delivered here to the Riksdag, we will see to it that something is done about it. I hope that the Sverigedemokraterna are involved in other things than just writing motions and demanding reservations when it comes to motions and, for example, submit proposals for committee initiatives, participate in debates and interpellation debates, or take the informal contacts that the Sverigedemokraterna should be able to take to ensure that it becomes a user regulation instead of a possession regulation of weapons magazines.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 15 February.)

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