Weapon issues

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! We are debating the Riksdag's motion report on firearms issues. The report contains two reservations. One concerns the suitability of firearms for hunting, and the other concerns requirements for shooting ranges.

When it comes to the suitability of firearms for hunting, the proposers from Socialdemokraterna, Vänsterpartiet and Miljöpartiet state that the law needs to be changed so that one cannot obtain a license for semi-automatic weapons with a military appearance, such as the AR-15, for hunting.

On February 7 this year, the government and SD issued a joint announcement regarding proceeding with proposals to clarify the rules for the suitability assessment and also to limit access to certain semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15 for hunting. The coalition parties refer to the Weapon Inquiry's proposals and state that the purpose of the limitation is to restore the situation to what it was before the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency changed its regulations. For that reason, there is no reason to announce to the government what the proposers are requesting regarding taking new measures.

Madam Speaker! From a personal horizon, I would however like to flag that I believe the issue is considerably more complicated than many have imagined. In my opinion, there are good reasons for the government to prepare this carefully and for the government to show as much consideration as possible to responsible hunters who may be affected by some changes as a result of the proposal. It is also of the utmost importance to try to foresee and prevent unwanted side effects and to ensure that the objective is not allowed to justify the means in order to try to implement what has been announced as quickly as possible.

Madam Speaker! The question has become deeply offended, and I mean that there are unfortunately good reasons for it. To begin with, several parties had a clear opinion before the terrible attack in Örebro and then a completely opposite view after February 7. Sudden repositionings in politics are difficult to communicate in themselves, and the fact that this question was actualized at this point only made it worse. It is impossible to separate the decision from the terrible attack that occurred in Örebro, and then the question arises, of course, why a ban on a type of weapon that was not even used in the attack should be actualized. Arguments that precisely this weapon would be particularly dangerous raise the question of whether hunters would run a greater risk of becoming mass murderers with just such a weapon in their hands. The best thing, of course, would have been to let the question be debated with the best arguments before a decision is made under completely different circumstances.

I personally was not involved before the joint decision, but I could already then say that even with the best possible communication, it will be a difficult thing to gain respect for the decision among the affected citizens who do not agree on the merits. Now the situation is as it is, and several of us are involved in different ways at different levels to make the proposal as good as possible – based on what was announced from the coalition partners on 7 February.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the reservation from the Center Party about safeguarding and strengthening the accessibility to more shooting ranges, if I may interpret the motioners' intentions, there is no political opposition from the Sweden Democrats or the government on that issue. The short answer from the government is that these issues are monitored closely and that an announcement would not prompt a new commitment to the issue.

On May 7 this year, a new investigation was submitted to the government regarding a new wildlife management authority, and one of the issues addressed there is whether the new wildlife management authority should be responsible for the supervision and permit processing of shooting ranges. There are some current matters that need to be considered when the government handles the issue of shooting ranges in the future.

Otherwise, Madam Speaker, the Sweden Democrats have no own reservations to defend in the motion report. Our motions resulted, as many are aware, in announcements during the previous parliamentary period. The ambition has at all times been that these announcements should be realized. This also came to clear expression in the announcements that resulted in the Social Democratic government appointing the Weapons Inquiry in 2022.

Madam Speaker! We have received clear information from the government on certain matters. Some proposals will be implemented without any major problems. These include, among other things, an expanded weapons wardrobe, improvements regarding the EU firearms pass, simplified storage rules, and so on. Unfortunately, the Weapons Inquiry as a whole yielded somewhat mixed results, and in some parts, the necessary investigation basis was missing to be able to quickly deliver on announcements and investigation directives. This is something that worries me, and I am, of course, trying to do what I can to press the government as hard as possible to deliver on our previous announcements. If it were to turn out that the government either delivers only partially or does not take the required measures, for example, by investigating something anew, there is a risk that the Sverigedemokraterna will not stand united with the government on these issues.

Madam Speaker! It is, of course, my ambition that we should bring the issues to a conclusion. If I am to mention some issues that I want to emphasize a bit extra, it is the Tidö-regulated division between offenses linked to own legal weapons, crimes that occur in illegal contexts and, last but not least, the question of once and for all abolishing the five-year licenses.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Marttinen for the speech.

I have written one of the two reservations in the report, namely regarding not making it possible to obtain a license for weapons of a military appearance for hunting. I myself sat in the reference group for the Weapons Inquiry, and it was a proposal that had broad support during the inquiry work and subsequently among the referral bodies, but not by so many others than Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna. I was present at the meeting where the Tidö parties signaled a change of course on the issue. That prompted me to include this issue in a motion in a larger hunting motion. I do not think these weapons have any business in the forest.

Then came the horrific act in Örebro. Unfathomable things happened, and the issue of weapons came into focus. The debate that we are having today should actually have been held a week after the act – it was a coincidence. The Tidö parties changed their minds and said that they will propose that weapons should be banned. They withdrew the debate that we have today, that is, moved it three months forward, in order to have time to get a proposal on a ban in place.

But now it is still the same thing. The only thing stated in the report is that work is ongoing. I heard the member say that it is difficult with sudden changes. The member also said that it is difficult to ban a certain type of weapon, but it is not a question of a certain type of weapon but of a certain appearance.

Have the Sweden Democrats changed their minds? Will there be a ban? The Member of Parliament spoke about certain restrictions that will occur, but will weapons with a military appearance for hunting be allowed in the future?

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! A correct description of the history is that the report was withdrawn on the grounds that the government and the Sweden Democrats had made a change of position and thus needed to change the content of the report text.

We also changed that text, and it can be read on page 8, I believe, in the report. There, the rejection of the motion that the member has been involved in writing is justified. The justification is precisely that the government and the Sverigedemokraterna have a new decision: that we shall follow the commission's proposal when it comes to the restriction of certain semi-automatic weapons with a military appearance, such as the AR-15.

The point was not to return to the Riksdag with a finished proposal. The point was to announce that the government will take the work further with the part of the investigation that concerns exactly this.

It is up to the government to submit a bill to the Riksdag. When that happens, I cannot answer; my party stands outside the government.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.

I do, however, think that the historical description corresponded with what I said. It is an amendment: In view of the work currently underway on the issue, the committee finds that there is no reason to take any initiative on the grounds of the motion.

The announcement given was, however, that it would be changed as soon as possible. One way to show what one wants is to vote for the motion now so that we get an announcement from the Riksdag, so that there is an expression of intent. As I can interpret it now, and as I believe many who are watching us can interpret it, it is being delayed. One cannot say when, where, how, or if a ban will come.

The member also stated that there will be certain restrictions. But in the answer in the exchange of remarks, he said that it would be for weapons with a military appearance. But that was nothing the member took up in his statement, Madam Speaker.

I know that the Sweden Democrats are not part of the government. But they sit in the coordination office, and they have a government cooperation. I ask again: Will there be a ban on these weapons with a military appearance for hunting purposes? And will it happen in the near future?

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! It would have been much simpler if I had been part of a government party in this context. But what I have heard is that there is an opportunity to submit a referral to the Council on Legislation after the summer. It will contain several parts to change the weapons legislation, including expanding the weapons repertoire and making it simpler in many different ways when it comes to storage and such. It will also contain the part that we have signaled, and which appears in the report, regarding limiting access to certain semi-automatic weapons with a military appearance for specifically hunting purposes. That is the main focus of the referral to the Council on Legislation that is coming.

When it arrives, I cannot answer it. But if one wants an answer to that question, one can appropriately direct it to the relevant minister. Then one will be able to get a much more qualified answer. That is what I can say here and now.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! Today there is a proposal on the floor of the Riksdag to ban semi-automatic weapons with a military appearance for hunting. The Member has stated that they intend to vote no to this, with reference to the fact that the Tidö Government is in the process of preparing a proposal to ban semi-automatic weapons with a military appearance for hunting, which is the same thing.

Can the members understand that it becomes a bit unclear for voters in general and for hunters in particular?

I have full respect for what the member has said regarding transparency in the government, referrals to the Council on Legislation and such, but I would wish that the member could be clearer about what the Sweden Democrats actually want in the matter, in light of what the member has said about this not affecting law-abiding hunters. But it is still a ban on a semi-automatic weapon that is being proposed.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I interpret this as two questions. One concerns the Riksdag's handling. The Riksdag has the opportunity to issue motions to the government if one considers that the government should do something that the government has not already indicated that it will do. That is how the instrument itself should be interpreted.

One can absolutely submit a motion for the sake of it. But if the government has already signaled that the work is ongoing – there is a completed investigation that has looked into this – it feels a bit overkill, if I may use an English expression, to submit a motion about them actually doing what they have already said they are going to do.

The Sweden Democrats' position is, as is known, that we stand by the government's line. But we do not know exactly how the proposal may be designed in detail. I think that one should be very cautious and not rush a product just because one has said that one will do it. One should take time, think through these matters and ensure that there are no unwanted consequences of any kind.

I think that one should maintain a close dialogue with the parliamentary parties. For that part, one can also have a broad dialogue with several interest organizations during the process before submitting a referral to the Council on Legislation. That is my view on how the government should handle the issue. But ultimately, it is the government's responsibility to produce the materials that will eventually become a referral to the Council on Legislation.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Madam Speaker! The member correctly describes the Riksdag's handling of matters. What is usually raised is a time aspect. We all followed the terrible incident in Örebro and the subsequent press conference and perceived the urgency in the whole. It is perhaps for that reason that the Center Party and many others wonder about the government's and the government's support's handling.

We have, admittedly, received more answers than before regarding the timeline. That is why an announcement is still being raised again, on the grounds that it was promised to be faster than many might have expected. The information given in February was probably not that it would be delayed until after the summer.

In conclusion: It would be desirable if the member could elaborate a bit on the potential undesirable consequences of a ban, so that we and Sweden's hunters know what can be expected in the continued management.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! No one has, as said, seen a finished proposal, but there is an investigation that has pointed out somewhat different paths. That can, of course, be taken as a starting point. But for me, it is important that this should not affect more broadly than what has been said from the beginning.

Now, the AR-15 has been singled out and terms such as military-like appearance have been used. In that case, one must also be able to define what a military-like appearance is and which war one should base it on. The intention is not for all weapons to be banned at all, or even half of them. It must be a fairly precisely formulated proposal that does not have unforeseen side effects, for example, that a responsible authority could have subjective opinions on what a military-like appearance is.

My party does not own the issue entirely. It is the government's responsibility to produce a referral to the Council on Legislation. But for me, it is important that the government sanctions the proposal that it wants or intends to put forward, so that everyone understands what it contains and what consequences it may have. I think that is important if one is to achieve as broad an acceptance as possible for such a proposal. That is what I can say now.

I do not own the time aspect either. I am only saying what I hear from the conversations I have. Ultimately, it is the government that owns the time aspect as well.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Madam Speaker! It is late in the evening and early in the debate. I was perhaps not ready to request a reply immediately. But Adam raised a number of perspectives in his speech that make me a bit questioning and perhaps have a need to have some question marks clarified.

A number of days after the horrific shooting in Örebro, Jimmie Åkesson, the party leader of Sverigedemokraterna, is still talking about AR and similar weapons as so-called Rambovapen. Adam Marttinen's party chairman says that many question whether such a weapon should be used for hunting at all. Sverigedemokraterna's party leader adds to the statement: "I am afraid for, and there I think hunters should listen to us critics, that there is a risk that the presence of this type of weapon changes the legitimacy and respect for the Swedish wildlife management tradition." Furthermore, party leader Åkesson emphasizes that these are positions put forward by Sverigedemokraterna and that it is the so-called party line.

We who sit in the Committee on Justice are all well aware that it has led to some personnel changes when one has been unable to comply with this type of clear and, in my opinion, very good positions and party lines. I became a bit thoughtful regarding Adam Marttinen's reasoning during the opening statement. Does Adam Marttinen stand behind his party leader on this issue?

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! It was a long introduction to a short question, in an attempt to summarize it.

In a political party, one always discusses different issues – more or less, depending on what it is about. In this issue, there are good arguments on both sides, I believe. Then we, as a political party, have landed on the conclusion that this is a reasonable balance based on how Naturvårdsverket changed its regulations in 2023. We think there should be a certain limitation when the purpose is hunting. One can have different views on that within a political party, which I do not think is strange.

The main point is that this is a proposal that will be implemented with the Sweden Democrats and the governing parties. As I understand it, there is also broad support in the Swedish Riksdag beyond that, not least considering the reservation that Petter Löberg himself stands behind.

The answer was a bit shorter than the question amounted to, measured in seconds and minutes.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Madam Speaker! One has two minutes for a speech. It is important to emphasize. It is good that one tries to use those minutes well.

I thank you for the clarification, which is probably important because it is Adam and his comrades in the coalition with SD and the government who will have to handle this when it finally comes to the committee work in the committee. It is very clear that it is the party leader's opinion that is expressed here today in the chamber and not anyone else's. That is good.

Then one can say, purely philosophically – I may return to that – that specifically the Sverigedemokraterna, who most often consider themselves to speak so damn well about law-abidingness, safety, and order, at the same time remarkably often relativize the sense of insecurity that that type of weapon creates in society. After the school shooting in Örebro, there is a justified and broad popular support for quite powerful changes, I am absolutely convinced of. I think it is good that we can clearly and surely say that there is a limit to what is appropriate. AR-15 and similar weapons of a military-like character do not belong in our hunting grounds. They belong on the battlefields and nowhere else.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Madam Speaker! The weapons that belong on the battlefield are hopefully of a somewhat different kind than the AR-15 model that is currently permitted for hunting, if we are to have a reasonably strong defense.

As said, there is no actual difference of opinion today between the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats on just this question, from what I have been able to gather from the exchanges of remarks and the reservation that exists in the committee report. But exactly how the proposal will look, we will have reason to discuss more closely, as it will also contain a lot of details. There we might find disagreement – who knows? But today, there will be no more interesting debate than this.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Madam Speaker! I move for the approval of reservation 1, which we have together with Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet, regarding the suitability of firearms for hunting, which we have already discussed.

I will initially speak a bit generally about weapons before I get into what might be tonight's main act. The violence in society, primarily with firearms but also with explosions naturally, is one of our most acute societal challenges. This has meant that the committee debates on weapons issues in recent years have not been the somewhat sleepy proceedings that they perhaps have been historically. Here we have a major societal challenge together.

Under the Social Democratic-led government, the weapons laws were significantly tightened. Above all, the minimum sentence for weapons crimes was raised to two years' imprisonment, which, among other things, means that it becomes a presumption of detention. We often return to this increase when we talk about a paradigm shift in the view of weapons in society. Why do we do that? Well, because it in many ways represents a turning point that allowed us to practically lock up people who previously had not been locked up.

That people could be caught in the morning with an illegal firearm that would obviously be used in criminal contexts, but then in the evening could still continue to commit atrocities at will, was a completely unreasonable order. That we ensured that one practically receives two years of imprisonment for that type of crime was a good deed. It was a senseless system we had previously. The change meant that we not only got a lot of weapons off the streets and squares but also got rid of a good number of perpetrators of violence and potential perpetrators of violence. It is hundreds of people who today are in prison or detention precisely because of weapons crimes, but who would not have done so with the previous order.

This has naturally not solved all problems. But the deadly violence tends to decrease now, perhaps for the fourth year in a row. It is an incredibly positive development. The weapons legislation is a contributing cause. There are naturally also other causes, such as a higher clearance rate and much greater police resources. We also have a new analysis on site. I will return to that.

When it comes to crimes of passion and other crimes with emotion-based motives – it can be about jealousy, fear, or revenge – generally speaking, criminal law has no significance at all for whether people commit crimes or not. Criminal law, which we often talk about in this room, is almost the bluntest tool one can find. Entirely different methods are required to ensure that people do not commit that type of crime. It is usually other consequences that have greater significance for the perpetrator. This is a known criminological fact. It is not made up or a guess, but this is known with an incredible amount of evidence, not least from international contexts. Naturally, other evidence-based means are required to address the emotion-based and feeling-driven crimes, as we can call them.

But in the issue of weapons, we have a slightly different perspective and think a bit differently. Future research will have to show if what we are reasoning about now is the right way to go. We will have to see. We do not know, but we will get the answer eventually. We are not talking now about the weapons that we discuss in connection with the question of AR and similar weapons.

It is first about how the weapons enter the country – they are smuggled in and transported over long distances. Then perhaps it is an armsmith who is to manipulate or rebuild the weapons. Then they are to be hidden. During this process, where many people are involved, there is for the perpetrators at all times a risk that the weapons will be discovered. It can happen during a routine traffic check. It can be a caretaker who lifts a ceiling that looks a bit crooked in an apartment building and finds a weapon. It can be a mother looking for laundry in her daughter's room and finds a weapon that the daughter was told to hide by her boyfriend's friend.

That type of incident happens all the time. In that situation, people have often made decisions with some kind of rationality throughout the entire process. They have made a risk assessment regarding both the risk of discovery and the severity of the crime.

As it stands now, we are completely convinced that it is important to work on how high the penalties we have are. This applies not only to the presumption of detention, as it was initially, but also as a deterrent effect for the persons who do this. If it is the right way remains to be seen.

When it comes to weapon crimes, we have tried to implement the famous weapons directive. We hope that we have reached the end of the road. I have said it many times in the rostrum: With a single serious terrorist attack on European soil, there will be further tightening of rules for weapons. This applies in particular to the semi-automatic ones. That is also where we stand in our country after the first truly serious school shooting, the mass massacre that took place in Örebro.

We can move to the specific question regarding the AR-15 and other semi-automatic weapons. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's decision to interpret in a number of parameters caused the weapons to suddenly appear on the market on a large scale. They were sold out across the entire realm.

They may have become sought after among weapons enthusiasts. But they became so to an even greater extent among those who are perhaps somewhat carelessly called militarily over-interested population groups. I will not use derogatory abbreviations.

Some of us have warned against this for a long time. I will try to explain it in a few minutes from three perspectives.

It concerns the security perspective first. We believe – together with the idol Leif GW Persson, who was every citizen's idol in the past before they discovered that he was a real jerk – that it is a weapon developed for combat, even though there are limitations on what is permitted in our country.

It is about – to quote Leif GW Persson – that it is intended for a military context where one wants to kill the largest possible number of people in a limited area. In short, that type of weapon poses a clear high danger if it falls into the wrong hands, which we have unfortunately been able to confirm in the most horrific way.

The second is an ethical question. It is to emphasize the respect for the wildlife. Now we come to the fact that one should be able to fire the first shot and be sure that it hits. It is a hallmark that characterizes the inherent morality of the vast majority of hunters.

If one has a semi-automatic weapon and argues that one needs this to be able to fire more shots to hunt game, it is a very controversial opinion even in hunting circles. Does one really need a militarily designed weapon for civilian hunting use? Of course not.

The third is the signal value that exists in having a normalizing situation where people walk around with military weapons. They also usually have military equipment otherwise with uniform-like hunting clothes in camouflage.

It naturally creates a shift in norms in society. Military purposes are one thing. Civil purposes are another thing. They should be separate. Unfortunately, a shift is occurring here that is particularly unpleasant.

This trend of relocation has been seen, for example, in Australia and New Zealand before they decided, took a stand, and banned those weapons in those countries. One sees it in Canada. It has been seen in the USA, but there, as is well known, one has not had the political power to resolve this in a good way.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish Riksdag has agreed before to tighten the weapons laws for the public good. I think we should do it again. It seems that those thoughts are present among the government parties. The Sweden Democrats have also given a clarifying message, and we are pleased about that.

I hope that together we can find solutions to eliminate gun violence, regardless of whether it occurs in schools or on streets and squares.

(Applause)

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Madam Speaker! This could become an interesting debate. Today we are addressing the weapons report JU17, where the Tidö parties reject the motions by referring to the fact that work on the weapons legislation and changes is already underway at the Ministry of Justice.

First, I wanted to tell you a little about what work is being done regarding changes and improvements for the country's hunters, shooters and collectors.

The weapons investigation has been complete since last year. It was an investigation that was to investigate how the Tidö parties' and the Center Party's previous announcements would result in new weapons legislation that should facilitate things for the country's legal gun owners. Unfortunately, the result of the investigation turned out very poorly. Not all directives in the investigation were implemented despite clear investigation directives.

One of the reasons was certainly that the investigator themselves lacked the expertise on weapons and hunting that may be necessary if one is to investigate exactly this. Furthermore, the investigator skipped over certain of the directives and instead investigated other matters that were not included in the investigation directives.

Madam Speaker! The next time a weapons investigation is appointed, it is of the utmost importance that one chooses a weapons investigator who has sufficient knowledge of weapons, is prepared to listen to more than just one side in the investigation, and furthermore can read and follow the directives for the investigation.

Madam Speaker! Of course, there is great dissatisfaction with such a proposal for an investigation. Despite this, the investigation has been out for consultation, and we have received many clear and good consultation responses from the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors. We are particularly grateful for that, and also for the great consensus that exists in the consultation responses from hunters, shooters, and collectors.

These referral responses have been compiled, and further contacts have been made with the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors. The work to implement the announcements that the Tidö parties and the Center previously agreed upon is in full swing at the Ministry of Justice.

Madam Speaker! Regarding the announcements that the investigator neglected to investigate, some form of supplementary investigation will probably be required. This mainly concerns two things.

It is first about the possibility of exchanging weapons over the counter, which would significantly reduce the police's workload. It would mean that if you, for example, hand in a shotgun to the gun dealer and exchange it for another shotgun, this could be a reporting matter and thus significantly reduce the police's workload in licensing matters.

The second part that has not been investigated is a division of the weapons legislation. This means that we could have much harsher sentencing for illegal weapons, handled by gang criminals, without it having spillover effects on the country's legal weapons owners. Those of you listening to the debate can be sure that work is in full swing to live up to previous announcements and our election promises.

Madam Speaker! What is the department working on now? It concerns the abolition of the five-year licenses, an expanded weapons wardrobe, the introduction of the EU firearms pass, facilitating the requirements for collecting old and historical weapons, being able to store weapons at another location when hunting in another location, digital licenses, removing "extraordinary reasons" and replacing them with "special reasons," as well as a number of other measures that we will return to. We are also working on facilitating so that our shooting ranges can function and be developed better.

All these simplifications that the Tidö parties and the Centre Party have previously agreed upon in various announcements have the Social Democrats and the Green Party constantly said no to. Instead, S has devoted itself to further complicating things for the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors. Most recently, it is about wanting to ban all semi-automatic weapons in the EU and Sweden.

They have also pushed for a lead ban in the EU and said no to establishing a new wildlife authority. They also do not want to introduce a new official responsibility. But thanks to the fact that we changed government in 2022, we are now working on these issues.

Madam Speaker! The country's hunters must be able to use the weapons that other hunters in the EU can use, and the hunters must be able to have the right weapons for the different hunts. A semi-automatic weapon can be the difference between life and death for a bear or wild boar hunter.

One sometimes wonders what the Social Democrats have against the country's hunters, who manage the wildlife in the country. The hunters take care of traffic-injured wildlife, remove sick and injured animals in the forest, and ensure that forest damage is kept at a reasonable level. The hunters have also made a major contribution to limiting African swine fever in Sweden and so on.

To manage this, one must have good and purposeful weapons, but the Social Democrats apparently want to remove that. It is obvious that the Social Democrats have poor knowledge in both hunting and weapons issues when they act as they do in these matters.

Madam Speaker! The control of Sweden's weapon owners is very high. Extensive training is required, and tests must be conducted and approved. The requirements for the storage of weapons are among the strictest in the EU, and furthermore, a suitability check is carried out before anyone is granted a weapons license.

In addition to that, Sweden carries out further checks every day of the country's weapon owners. If a weapon owner commits any crime in society that is not related to the weapons, the person loses their weapons immediately. Taken together, Sweden today has probably Europe's strictest weapon control.

Madam Speaker! Which motions are being addressed in the report? In one of the motions, which I have written myself, it is addressed how important it is that we have functioning shooting ranges in Sweden. I thank the Center Party for the support in that matter. That the motion is not granted is primarily due to the fact that I know that the work to improve and develop our shooting ranges is already underway and that the government is well aware of the problem. Therefore, we do not need to make any announcement regarding this either.

The second motion, Madam Speaker, concerns a ban on military-like weapons for hunting. It comes from Miljöpartiet and is supported by Miljöpartiet, Socialdemokraterna, and Vänsterpartiet. It is rejected.

The motion is rejected by the committee with the justification that the department is already investigating the issue regarding the AR-15. But so far, there is no answer as to exactly how this will end or be implemented. A ban on the AR-15 has previously been rejected by both the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and the Swedish Armed Forces. Many of the other referral bodies, such as the hunting and shooting organizations, have also rejected a ban on the AR-15.

It is probably not many who know that the AR-15 has existed and been used by shooters in Sweden for 40 years. The weapon has in no way been used in any crime but has been used within the sport of shooting in a very good way. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency approved the AR-15 for hunting just over two years ago, and not even within hunting has the AR-15 been involved in any form of criminal activity in Sweden. Our hunters and shooters here in Sweden manage their weapons in a very responsible manner.

The AR-15 has long been used for hunting in many countries in Europe and in the USA. The weapon is good, as one can adjust the stock length, stock height, and so on. There are great opportunities to adapt the weapon to the hunter's own conditions, that is to say, so that it fits the individual as well as possible. The weapon is also highly appreciated by women as it is also a bit lighter in weight than many other hunting weapons.

Madam Speaker! Prohibiting and recalling legally purchased weapons is also no easy task, and it is something that needs to be carefully considered. This has never happened before in Sweden. It concerns property protection and favorable administrative decisions.

If one has previously banned a certain weapon, one has allowed the weapons that have already been sold to remain in the weapon owner's possession. The order is also such, Madam Speaker, that it is not politicians who are to decide which weapons are suitable for hunting. It is decided by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, which makes an assessment of the weapon, and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency approved the AR-15 for hunting two years ago.

The way forward needs to be carefully considered and the issue solved in a better way than what has been previously signaled. Sometimes it is actually better to have a bit of patience, let the whole thing take time, and ensure that the decision becomes good and proper.

Madam Speaker! My question to the Social Democrats is: Do the Social Democrats and the Green Party no longer trust that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency can make an assessment of which weapons we should use for hunting in Sweden? Do the Social Democrats think it is better that the Social Democrats and the Green Party decide which weapons should be used for hunting? For my part, I think that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency handles the task better than the Social Democrats would.

Madam Speaker! Of course, there is a concern among people regarding weapons, not least when it is shot daily on our streets and squares. But we must then know that it is not with hunters' or shooters' weapons, but it happens with illegally smuggled weapons from war zones around Europe.

Better control on imports and increased police work to reduce illegal weapons were needed. Do not mix up illegal weapons in gang criminal environments with the country's legal hunters and shooters! I understand that both hunters and shooters become very upset by being mixed up with gang criminals who carry out shootings or with psychopaths who have fallen through the cracks in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! It becomes quite strange that S is putting all its effort into making things difficult for the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors when they instead, during their eight years, should have worked on removing the mental ill-health in Sweden.

The Social Democrats also want to introduce psychological tests for the country's hunters and shooters. Why not instead start clearing the long queues that already exist today with people seeking help? It is thousands of people standing in line for psychiatry. But instead, the Social Democrats intend to start hunting the country's hunters and shooters when it comes to psychological cases.

Madam Speaker! The tragic event that occurred in Örebro clearly testifies that psychiatric care is not functioning as it should in Sweden. What happened in Örebro cannot burden and punish the hunters collectively. It should instead send a clear signal to those responsible to ensure that psychiatry functions better in Sweden and that a coordination between authorities that better captures these cases should take place. Today, thousands of people are standing in line for psychiatry – a legacy of the Social Democratic government's failure after eight years in power. Start there when it comes to improving ill health, and stop hunting the country's hunters!

Madam Speaker! Instead of tackling the real problems with a poorly functioning psychiatry, the Social Democrats are busy banning weapons for the country's hunters and saying no to everything that could facilitate things for the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors.

Madam Speaker! It is not hunting weapons in themselves that are dangerous or should be banned, but it is unsuitable weapon holders who must be stopped in time. A weapon is not dangerous in itself; it is about who is holding it.

All objects – weapons, knives, cars, trucks, explosives and so on – can become dangerous if the wrong people with different disorders and clinical pictures use them incorrectly. But that does not mean, Madam Speaker, that we can ban all cars, trucks or knives because some, often mentally disturbed, people use them in attacks or terrorist activities.

Madam Speaker! The question regarding the ban and potential buyback of AR-15s is being prepared in the Government Offices. I do not know exactly where it will end and where the final proposal will land. The four parties at the highest level have decided this, and questions regarding details of the proposal should therefore also primarily be addressed to those who have submitted the proposal. I have, in fact, not been involved in preparing this proposal.

On the other hand, I have been involved in developing the other proposals on how we can facilitate things for the country's hunters, shooters and collectors.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I can only repeat that much is underway to facilitate things for the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors, entirely in accordance with the previous announcements and our election promises.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and against the reservations.

(Applause)

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Madam Speaker! There were many things that Member Bergheden raised here which, in the same way as previous exchanges of remarks, made my head spin. I became even more dizzy, and you should know that I am dizzy in ordinary circumstances.

I would like to initially, before I delve into the actual substance, mark my opposition to the very negative value judgments regarding individual individuals who are not present in the room, namely the investigators who for a long time have worked at the department to get the weapons directive through. They are not worth such a smear from the Riksdag's rostrum, without the opportunity to defend themselves.

I think we should be careful regarding the officials employed at the departments, both past and present. It is merely a point of note from my side in this context. This is politics, and the criticism should be directed at the former government, other parties, or other people, and not at non-present officials who have done what they could.

Member of Parliament Bergheden gave a long rant about what fantastic qualities this semi-automatic, military-like weapon has. It sounded like an advertisement for the AR-15. There was no restraint in how good it was.

He is talking about the weapon that is the absolute most common weapon in shootings, including in school environments – a hostage situation that causes children in deathly terror to hide under school desks and people's lives are extinguished, partly due to this weapon's enormous rate of fire and power, which means that the police cannot enter and interrupt ongoing violence.

My question is: Is Sten Bergheden standing here and saying that the Moderaterna in the Committee on Justice will not ban the AR-15 for hunting?

(Applause)

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Madam Speaker! It was not an advertising campaign; it was facts regarding the AR-15. It might be good that it comes out in the debate why hunters actually buy this weapon. It can, in fact, be adjusted. If one has short or long arms, a short or long neck and so on, one can adjust these weapons in a completely different way and become a better shooter in shooting sports or a better hunter who fires safer shots. There are many advantages to this. Not least, it is a somewhat lighter weapon for those who think regular hunting weapons are too heavy. There are, therefore, many advantages, and that is why the weapons are popular among hunters.

Petter Löberg is confusing this with what the USA is doing. Go over to the USA, Petter Löberg, and see what they do! They have no requirements at all, while we in Sweden have Europe's and perhaps the world's strictest requirements to get a weapon. We have training, rules on storage, controls and so on, while you in the USA can enter a state and buy a weapon without any justification at all if you are 18 years old and unconvicted. Then it is clear that weapons are spread in a completely different way out among people who should not have weapons.

Comparing this with Sweden's hunters and shooters upsets me. We have had no cases in 40 years, Madam Speaker, with shooters who have used AR-15 in their shooting activities and abused it. We have had the hunting weapon for two or three years, and we have no cases of abuse in Sweden.

In Europe, this is primarily used for hunting. Why should Sweden's hunters and shooters not be trusted to use a weapon that other hunters and shooters around Europe can use? Why, Madam Speaker, does Petter Löberg distrust Sweden's hunters and shooters?

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Madam Speaker! Firstly, one has, above all, in the days after Örebro but also subsequently, spoken about AR-15 and similar weapons. Sten Bergheden naturally maintains a very well-calculated silence regarding the fact that it was a so-called semi-automatic weapon for hunting purposes, similar to an AR-15, that was used in Örebro. Sten Bergheden shakes his head, but I assume that he agrees with this fact. Otherwise, the police or the investigation will show something else. That a semi-automatic AR-15-like weapon was used in Örebro, we can probably agree on that.

Secondly, I would like to raise the question of whether a screening of mental health among license holders should be conducted, something that I naturally think all serious license holders should find completely natural and good. One can almost wonder why anyone should be indignant that we, at an early stage, should inventory and find out if there are persons with mental illness who have access to weapons that they can use against themselves, which I will say is not uncommon when it comes to legal weapons. Unfortunately, it is an incredibly common way to take one's life in connection with mental illness.

Why do the Moderates and Sten Bergheden not want those who have mental illness and for that reason should not have access to a weapon to be identified at an early stage? What is the reason for that? I do not understand it.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Madam Speaker! It is an incredibly strange reasoning that we should begin psychologically testing the country's hunters and shooters, whom we demonstrably and factually have no problems with, while thousands of people are standing in line who know that they have mental health issues and do not receive care in Sweden. Then the Social Democrats and the Left should start and psychologically test Sweden's hunters and shooters instead! Is it really rational in a situation where we have no problems with this?

This person in Örebro fell through the cracks, and perhaps we can plug such gaps with the help of coordination between different authorities who actually ensure that people receive care when it is seen that they exhibit strange mental behavior. This person had been unemployed for 15 years and had withdrawn all the time, but no one in society reacted. Perhaps someone would have looked there. But despite long queues, you want hunters and shooters to end up in some kind of psychological test here in Sweden, even though we have no problems with them.

It was also not an AR-15 that was used in Örebro, but a semi-automatic weapon. We have hundreds of thousands of such weapons in Sweden! Has Petter Löberg intended to collect hundreds of thousands of semi-automatic weapons here in Sweden, Madam Speaker? It will cost a good portion of your budget in the future, and to manage that, you can probably reduce both child allowance and other things. Think a bit about what promises you are making when you want to start the world's psych tests in Sweden and begin collecting all the weapons from the country's hunters and shooters!

I believe you are on the wrong track, and that is why I believe that our government, together with the Tidö parties, will find a good way out of this and will agree on a better way than the one proposed so far.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Sten Bergheden, for the speech! It is nice to have a reply exchange with you again – it has been a while!

I also did not think I received a proper answer to this. I have submitted a motion that we should ban weapons with a military appearance, such as the AR-15 – there is also the AR-10 and others – because I do not think they have anything to do in the forest in hunting contexts. If one is a marksman and is in a shooting club, I have no problem with that, but I do not think that one should be able to have this weapon with a regular hunting license.

We both sat in the Weapons Inquiry, so I know how Sten Bergheden previously reasoned regarding this weapon. Now, Tidögänget and the government have changed their position and want to ban it here. There was a press conference at some point after February 7, and it is now being said that the Weapons Inquiry, which proposed the ban, was right. The investigator wrote, for example, that "the advantages that the weapons may have in certain hunting contexts compared to other semi-automatic hunting rifles cannot justify the risks to society that it entails if the weapons are allowed to be possessed for hunting."

Now they say that one should follow the commission's proposal. Despite that, it sounds from Sten Bergheden as if one will not do so, and we received no answer here. There was talk of having ice in one's stomach, the right decision, right and proper, and that Naturvårdsverket shall decide – I believe that is the first time I have heard Sten Bergheden speak positively about Naturvårdsverket!

They do, however, make their assessments based on regulatory letters, laws and ordinances, so it must come to political decisions. My question is therefore: When will the government's decision arrive? Will you ban weapons with a military appearance for hunting purposes?

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Madam Speaker! I can start with the last question. I do not intend to stand here today and speculate on when this proposal will arrive and where it will land. That question must be asked of those who have developed the proposal, as I said in the speech. I have not been involved in developing it. Those who have the idea of how to solve this must also answer how it is to be done. It is not easy. I tried to describe it a bit in my speech.

Madam Speaker! Not even the investigator, who had so many different proposals about everything, managed to investigate how these weapons would in that case be collected. He left that question there. He spoke about 80 percent and left it to others to come back to. With today's Swedish legislation, we have never collected any weapons. If something has gone wrong, those weapons that have come out in those situations have still been left with the weapon owners who bought them within the legal framework that applied at the time. This is a completely new, complicated situation. Therefore, I believe it is extremely important that the government takes it easy, keeps its cool, looks through this, and does not do anything hastily.

Madam Speaker! It would be a different matter if we had a concern out there among the hunters, shooters, or collectors. But we do not have that in Sweden. One might have that in the USA. I have tried to describe what is the difference compared to the countries that are listed here. They have a completely different weapons culture. They have no control over this. They release weapons under completely different conditions than we do in Sweden. We have good control over Swedish hunters and shooters, and we have great confidence that they fulfill their tasks.

I know that the member also knows that the hunters do a good job here in the country and that one needs to have the right weapon for the right type of hunting. What appearance the weapon has, I think, is of less importance. It is about what utility a hunter has from a weapon in their hunting or shooting practice.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Sten Bergheden and I are both passionate hunters. I also know that one needs to have the right weapon at the right occasion, but there is, I believe, no reason to have weapons with a military appearance. The small advantage one might have from them can be obtained with other weapons – or can be compromised.

This is also about the public's trust in those who have weapons. It is about the public's trust in the hunting corps. If I am out walking with my dog and picking mushrooms and meet a hunter with an AR-15 – then I get scared. There is a difference in meeting someone with a broken weapon. It is important if we are to maintain the high trust for gun owners that exists in Sweden. That was also what we saw in the popular opinion before and, above all, after the horrific act in Örebro.

There is no reason to have this type of weapon. There are few advantages to them. AR-15 rarely has caliber 1 – class 1 – but it is often a class 2 weapon. They are therefore still not for wild boar, as is often discussed. These potential small advantages can simply be done without and instead use other weapons.

We should not have these weapons in society. They have a special status. They are violence-promoting. There is a cult around them. It was one such that was used in the act against Donald Trump. It was the kind of weapon that was used in the murders of Swedish football supporters in Brussels. They are the kinds of weapons that are used most in school shootings.

I ask again whether you will ban this type of weapon. The member spoke about the problems. But will you ban these weapons – yes or no?

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the question, but I actually answered it earlier. I do not intend to speculate on where the government will land and exactly which proposal will be on the table and when. This work is ongoing at the Ministry of Justice. I am not in that position. I may possibly be involved in influencing, but it is not I who makes the decision on which proposal will be on the table. Therefore, I cannot answer the question; instead, it must be posed to those responsible within each party or to the minister.

Emma Nohrén spoke about military appearance. What is military appearance? Emma Nohrén knows, just as I do, that for the most part all hunting weapons in Sweden originate from different forms of weapons that have been used in the army in various ways. Furthermore, it was about equipment – scopes and everything it was. I remember when scopes began to land in hunting contexts. At that time, there was a discussion that they should not be used. One could just as well shoot with open sights, as had been done previously. This was nothing for hunting. But then they have started to be used.

It is obvious that we should use equipment that allows us to kill the animals as quickly and with as little suffering as possible when we are out hunting. Then we should not go around with open sights and weapons that may not have the same effect and the same performance as we need to have in certain situations.

When it comes to wild boar – sure, AR is a class 2 weapon, but the corresponding M10 is in class 1. It is used a lot for bear and for wild boar. Stop the debate! There was no AR-15 involved in Örebro. On the other hand, there was a semi-automatic weapon there. Do the Socialdemokraterna, Vänstern and Miljöpartiet intend to ban all semi-automatics?

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by thanking the member for highlighting the good cooperation that the Moderaterna and Centerpartiet have had in these issues historically and which I hope we can also have moving forward. There has been talk about previous parliamentary terms, and there is often talk about upcoming parliamentary terms, but I would like us to stick to this parliamentary term. I hope the member has respect for the fact that for those of us participating in the debate, the member represents the government's and the Prime Minister's party. There is no minister here, so I will be posing questions to the member as a representative for the government.

At the press conference that several have referred to, it was stated – and it also stands at the end of the press release – that a model for the redemption of the weapons in question has been proposed in the committee report and that the government intends to return with such a model and how it shall be designed. When it is a matter of deadly violence, murder and shootings, it is always difficult to simultaneously talk about money. But it cannot be denied that the redemption of the approximately 7,000 AR-15s that exist in the country involves a cost.

It is about redeeming legal weapons which, as the member has said, are neither used by gang criminals nor in other murders and shootings. The cost is preliminarily estimated at approximately 200 million kronor. My question is whether the member considers it would be effective to use tax money in that way to prevent and counteract the serious crime in Sweden today.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! I also want to emphasize the very close and good cooperation we have had during the mandate period regarding the production of announcements. We have agreed on nearly 30 different announcements within the Tidö parties with the Center Party – and in some issues also with the Left Party. Those who have been against all improvements for the country's hunters and marksmen are the Green Party and the Social Democrats. They have always said no to these parts.

Mr. Speaker! The member asked me about the money. I can agree that the 200 million kronor calculated in that calculation can certainly be used better in Sweden. I believe that, of course also considering that thousands of people are in the psychiatric queue and actually need care – people who know that they have ill health and who need to get to healthcare. We perhaps can start by clearing out some of those queues to achieve a completely different public health here in the country.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that 200 million will be enough. According to the contacts and dialogues I have, it is not unthinkable that it could land at 50 or 100 percent more in these contexts. It could therefore become significantly more expensive. It depends on where one has intended to draw the line in these situations. I believe that the money could be used better in society.

Mr. Speaker! It is of course the case that the member may ask me questions. However, I will not be able to answer as I do not have knowledge of where the government will land on these issues in the dialogue that is being held among the Tidö parties to resolve this.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! I repeat that we have appreciated the cooperation we have had, but in this parliamentary term, the Moderates are in a different government constellation. That is why these questions are being raised. It becomes a bit confusing to both receive the government's announcement that it will propose a model for the redemption of these weapons, and at the same time hear from the Moderates' present representative that these are funds that could be used for other and better things. The member makes suggestions that I agree with, and there is much else we can do.

I still want to raise the surprise and confusion that arises here when a representative for the Moderates, who is a government party, has difficulty justifying these sums. I stated that they amounted to 200 million, and the member of parliament considered that it could be even more. It is surprising that one wants to spend so much money, in the situation Sweden finds itself in, on the redemption of the kind of weapons that obviously have not been used in Sweden in the shootings being debated.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! I can only agree with Ulrika Liljeberg's comment regarding the money and how one uses society's resources. It is important that we take it easy and reflect on what needs to be done to address the incidents that can occur in different places. Some use cars, others use trucks, some use knives while others use explosives and various means to create terror and chaos in society. There we have a problem, and we must solve it.

We can certainly solve some of this by coordinating certain authorities when a person tips over in contact with an authority. Arbetsförmedlingen, social services and others might perhaps see that a person who is not doing particularly well, who has been unemployed for 15 years and who does not have a real job to go to or any education, is about to fall outside of society. Perhaps a signal should be raised within one of those authorities that work with this. Perhaps these signals also need to land somewhere so that someone checks if the person can become dangerous.

However, it is not the same as starting to subject all hunters and shooters to psychological tests, as the Social Democrats and the Green Party propose, and initiating a mass collection of all semi-automatic rifles in the country. There are over 100,000. This is a completely different matter, and it shows that there is a lack of trust in the country's hunters and shooters. They perform many good tasks that must function, for example, wildlife management and search operations.

Thank you, Ulrika Liljeberg, for good cooperation with you and C on these issues! I hope for continued good cooperation ahead.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving to approve reservation 1.

The question is, as you have surely understood, whether semi-automatic weapons, similar to the AR-15, which are compatible with large military magazines should be allowed for hunting. Vänsterpartiet answers no.

Vänsterpartiet wants to fight criminal handling of weapons with all its might. It is easy to first of all think of gang criminality, which in its worst forms sharpens its power by using weapons. It is extremely serious. But it is also when weapons are used in private scenes of violence.

According to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, Brå, a structural change has occurred in criminal environments. There, the use of legal weapons and two-handed weapons has decreased, while illegal weapons and one-handed weapons have become increasingly common. Brå assesses that the availability of illegal weapons has increased. As a society, we must naturally try to limit the growth so that we do not get more weapons from war zones. This must be based on cooperation between customs and border police and on tightened controls.

I return to Brå. They have also, in connection with the mass murder at Campus Risbergska in Örebro, conducted a specific analysis of lethal violence with firearms. The perpetrator used a legal firearm for which they had a permit. Unlike what happened in the mass murder in Örebro, when it concerns legal weapons, the victim is very often a partner or another close relative of the perpetrator.

In principle, in all other cases, except for the Örebro drama, it concerned situations where the perpetrator knew the crime victim. The crime scene was usually one of the involved parties' homes. I believe you all have associations with violence against women, another major, serious social problem.

The level of use of legal weapons has varied, according to Brå. It was quite high during the first half of the 90s. After that it decreased, and after a relatively stable period, the number has increased again during recent years.

An assessment has been made of what happened during the period 2014–2021. During that time, legal weapons were used in 6 percent of all cases of fatal firearm violence. In slightly more than four out of ten cases, the perpetrator had sought contact with healthcare or been treated for mental illness prior to the crime.

Furthermore, Brå found that almost half of the perpetrators who had used legal weapons had committed suicide in connection with the crime, most often by shooting themselves with the murder weapon.

All this makes it clear for the Left Party that the need to prevent crime, regardless of type, outweighs individual rights to own a weapon, whether a hunter or not.

The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency seems to have thought differently when the regulations were changed in August 2023 and semi-automatic weapons, similar to the AR-15, which are compatible with large military magazines, were permitted. The effect was that license applications for and the sale of these weapons increased significantly. This is something that I and the Vänsterpartiet consider worrying.

The Swedish Police Authority has also emphasized that a spread in society of these large weapons entails an increased risk that criminals and other violence-prone individuals can gain access to the weapons and use them for serious acts of violence. The police have further emphasized that it is relatively easy to obtain a hunter's license, which creates a right to be able to acquire a number of weapons without any needs assessment.

Quite exactly one year ago, in May 2024, the Weapons Inquiry submitted its report *A Purposeful Weapons Legislation* to the government. The inquiry's assessment is that the risks associated with semi-automatic weapons similar to the AR-15, which are compatible with large, military magazines, are collectively unjustifiably large when weighed against what is called hunting advantages of such weapons. According to the inquiry, it is fully possible to conduct all forms of hunting occurring in Sweden with other types of firearms. Many experienced hunters whom I have been in contact with have confirmed this. The advantages that the weapons may have in certain hunting contexts cannot, according to the inquiry, justify the risks to society that it entails if the weapons are permitted to be possessed for hunting.

An advantage that many have mentioned to me, and which I truly respect, is that people with functional variations can derive great joy from the possibility of presets that the weapon allows. I do, however, mean that that question should be able to be handled with exemptions.

In a balancing of interests, the commission finally considers that society's interest in limiting the possession of the currently relevant type of weapon weighs clearly more heavily than the hunting interest.

Vänsterpartiet shares that view. We also remind of the Committee on Justice's previous position when we have discussed hunting issues: that it is important that the control over dangerous weapon types is strengthened.

I would also like to mention that I appreciate that the government has issued new directives and that there is a desire to review the process for permit review and try to strengthen the reporting obligation that healthcare has and ensure that it is fulfilled in a relevant way. The Police and the National Board of Health and Welfare have been tasked with mapping out how this work is currently being carried out and how it can be improved so that regulations are handled in a better way than today.

We can reflect again on the serious events that occurred in connection with the drama in Örebro, which I truly think should mark that we must take the questions regarding weapons with the utmost seriousness.

(Applause)

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating weapons issues, and I would like to begin by expressing my support for the committee's proposal for a decision and thereby rejecting the motion proposals in this matter.

That weapons are something that creates debate and evokes opinions is a reality in our society. We still see extensive violence being perpetrated on our streets in settlements, often gang-related, where different types of firearms are used to harm and kill. The violence affects many both directly and indirectly, and we can all be in the wrong place at the wrong time and risk being harmed or even killed by a weapon fired in a conflict.

This trend must be broken. Safety must be restored, and the display of violence, ruthlessness, and total lack of respect for both human life and our values needs to continue to be met with powerful measures from our society.

We have all been touched and horrified by the terrible act in Örebro, where students who were only there to educate themselves became victims of a terrible act where a lone perpetrator with his weapons caused death and created sorrow and despair among people in Örebro but also shook everyone in our country. My thoughts in this debate therefore go to all those who were in some way affected by this terrible act.

Mr. Speaker! Despite these acts of violence, we must be able to hold two thoughts and perspectives in our minds simultaneously in a serious discussion. Weapons and weapons handling is an important issue that should be able to be discussed without overreactions and without resorting to drastic measures where they are not needed. Weapons are used today in our society in a responsible manner by hunters, sport shooters and naturally also by the defense and the police.

In this debate, we are addressing issues regarding weapons, and it can be easy, especially for certain parts of today's opposition, to call for stricter rules for all weapon owners in order to meet the increase in firearm violence. But this simplified path is both counterproductive and incorrect.

We must, of course, continue to have a focus on making it harder for gang criminals to commit acts of violence with illegal weapons – there is no doubt about that. But if, in the aim of appearing proactive, the efforts are directed so that they primarily strike against the Swedish hunting and shooting movement, which has been a fact when the Social Democrats have been in government during previous terms, this is a simplified and incorrect way.

We Christian Democrats naturally consider that measures from all parts of the justice system and also necessary legislative changes are needed to access criminals' possession of weapons and explosives. The problems are developing in an alarming way, with an increased use of weapons from conflict zones in our surrounding world. But there is also modification of, for example, starter pistols or 3D-printed weapons. We must give the police tools to meet this and also continue to tighten the penalties for these different weapons crimes, but it must be implemented in a way that does not create problems for ordinary hunters and sport shooters who actually both handle their weapons responsibly and have them securely stored in approved gun safes.

Mr. Speaker! We have today in Sweden a large number of registered weapon owners, probably approximately 620,000. Already today they are monitored through society's various control functions, which means that the person who owns a weapon is checked regularly, often daily.

I have said it earlier in the debate, but it is still necessary to repeat, it seems: It is not legal weapons that are primarily in focus for criminals or used in the shootings and other serious crimes that we see in Sweden. Instead, as I mentioned, weapons that enter Sweden illegally are used. This route must be fought with all available means, but it must happen without creating problems for those weapon owners who handle both weapons and handling blamelessly.

A few years ago, it was stated that only about one weapon per year from hunting or sport shooting was used in serious crime – i.e., a very small, marginal part. According to Brå, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, gun violence has increased by 200 percent over ten years, and it is stated that 98.5 percent of the weapons seized in crimes are smuggled and have never been registered in Sweden.

After the incident in Örebro, Brå, as mentioned by previous speakers, conducted a review of the development regarding legal weapons in cases of deadly violence. It is still very few legal weapons that are involved in deadly violence. During 2014–2021, the weapon was legal in only 19 of 307 cases. In the majority of these cases, the victim was a close relative, and often drug use and/or mental illness were present in the perpetrator. It is therefore more about that society, through targeted interventions, should ensure that the wrong people do not have access to and handle a weapon – instead of making it more difficult for all law-abiding and responsible weapon owners.

It is important to say that in most of these cases it is common hunting weapons that have been used and not AR-15 or AR-10, as has been said earlier in the debate.

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. Making things difficult for law-abiding gun owners is not the method to stop the increased number of shootings occurring on streets and squares. Tougher measures against gang crime require powerful actions, and an important step is, for example, to divide the Weapons Act so that it distinguishes between legal and illegal gun owners.

As the debate has shown, a large number of announcements were made during previous parliamentary periods. It was the Tidö parties, the Centre Party and in many cases also the Left Party who, with a clear majority regarding weapon owners and handling, said that it would be done in a different way. It was a clear signal from the Riksdag to the then government that there were proposals to meet the wishes of hunters and sport shooters.

The previous government did not have the will or the ability to carry this out. But I am pleased that the new leadership for Sweden now has processes underway to implement simplifications for those weapon owners who behave themselves. It is high time to bring this process to completion.

Mr. Speaker! In the Tidö Agreement, among other things, a number of changes and a new path are mentioned regarding weapons issues. Following an investigation, this is now being prepared. It shall provide the opportunity for simpler weapons handling for law-abiding hunters and sport shooters.

As an additional measure following the incident in Örebro, the Police Authority and the National Board of Health and Welfare have now been tasked with presenting proposals to ensure that society can better identify when there are signals that individuals are unsuitable to have access to weapons for which they have previously been granted a license. The assignment is to be reported in parts during the autumn of this year and final reported next year. I see it as a necessary measure to ensure that we can to a greater extent prevent future incidents with legal firearms.

It is also important that we do not go further than what is necessary. Petter Löberg sees a problem in his statement and reasons from a foreign perspective that does not include the hunters and shooters who behave themselves. Not with one word does he mention how they should handle their weapons and that it is not there that the problems lie.

Unfortunately, Petter Löberg also shows an ignorance of weapon types in the exchange, for it is a fact that it was not an AR-10 or an AR-15 that was used in Örebro. It was a common semi-automatic weapon – a type of weapon that has been permitted for over 40 years. But the Socialdemokrater act as usual to ban and complicate.

Mr. Speaker! This debate shows that there is a difference. It is possible to choose a different direction regarding weapon ownership for law-abiding and responsible weapon owners than the path that the previous S-government argued for. The many announcements during previous years show that there is a majority in Sweden's Riksdag that wants to go a different way. We have received a government basis that now implements that path.

I move, as I have said, for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and for the rejection of all motion proposals.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! The fatal shootings have hit Sweden hard in recent years. The criminal gangs and organized crime have claimed lives and created great insecurity. Individuals acting alone have committed mass murders on unknown persons. The deadly violence and murder in close relationships still continue.

Centerpartiet has therefore stood behind the historically large investments in the police and the rest of the justice system. We have been in favor of increased penalties and the introduction of new tools and methods to combat this serious crime and to give social services and municipalities an expanded crime prevention mandate.

We have, however, said no to the introduction of visitation zones and anonymous witnesses on the grounds that those tools are neither effective nor legally secure measures against serious organized crime or gang criminality.

For the same reasons, we are now against the proposal to again ban legal, semi-automatic weapons based on their appearance. The purpose behind the proposals has, among other things, been stated to be to stop the gang shootings. Therefore, it is important to note that in the criminal environments, legal weapons are not used – it is exclusively illegal weapons. This is shown, among other things, by the 10–20 weapons that the police seize from criminals every week.

I myself asked the Commissioner of the Swedish Police about this last week, whether the weapons being seized are legal or illegal weapons. I received the answer that they are only illegal weapons. It is therefore nothing that is resolved with today's proposal.

During the previous parliamentary term, a number of decisions were also passed in the Riksdag, often with broad political support, to instead improve the conditions for the country's hunters, shooters, weapons collectors, and weapons dealers. But none of these decisions have been translated into actual policy by the Tidö Government. Instead, the Tidö Government is now moving in the opposite direction, despite what many of their members say here today, by now proposing that certain hunting weapons should be banned, not because they are dangerous or unsuitable in themselves, but because they have a military appearance.

It should however be said that it is not the members in the chamber who are saying this, but the signals and messages we receive from the government are that this is what is to be done. This is done despite the fact that the same type of weapons have been used in shooting and hunting for a long time without any problems. As several have said in the debate, the semi-automatic weapons in Sweden have been permitted for hunting since 1987.

The Center Party has always stood up for law-abiding gun owners and consistently said no to treating shooters and hunters as a security problem just because society has failed to handle organized crime.

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party is against an inefficient ban on weapons based on their appearance, but that does not negate the fact that legal weapons have been used in horrific crimes. We therefore see, in line with the government, that the work with licensing needs to be developed and quality-assured. For the whole of society, preventive work regarding mental illness, substance abuse, and social exclusion is needed to identify potential risk individuals.

In other countries, screening is carried out through interviews at the police before a trial to obtain a weapons license. There are current requirements for certificates from healthcare regarding history concerning mental health, illnesses, and substance abuse. This needs to be considered for introduction in Sweden, and there is also a need for effective opportunities to revoke licenses when necessary. This would, unlike a ban on a specific type of weapon based on its appearance, be an effective measure.

Mr. Speaker! Let us leave semi-automatic weapons for a moment! I want to talk about hunting and shooting as a lifestyle. There are over 600,000 gun owners in Sweden who hunt and practice sport shooting in various disciplines. They collectively own almost 1.5 million weapons. Hunting and sport shooting are deeply rooted in Swedish society and are part of the popular movements. This should be valued highly in today's security situation and not be disparaged through various types of restrictions.

We believe that the country's hunters, shooters, weapons collectors and weapons dealers should not be seen as a problem but as an asset. They deserve respect for the resource they are and should not be met with suspicion.

Part of the organization and the lifestyle is shooting ranges. More and more shooting ranges are being closed today or are becoming subject to various restrictions for unfounded reasons. This needs to be stopped, as Sweden's total defense is being built up again. The shooting ranges are needed.

We could look at our neighboring country Finland and how they value these issues there. The government should therefore review how shooting ranges can be protected from such restrictions that affect hunting and sport shooting and, in the long run, impair our ability to defend ourselves.

We have now been informed that the question is being monitored from the government's side, and that is good. But I move for the approval of the Centerpartiets reservation 2 regarding a motion on shooting ranges.

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

Martin Melin (L)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden's weapons laws are among the strictest in the world. They are based on the principle that weapon ownership is not a right but an opportunity. Therefore, permits are required.

We then have two purposes that can grant permission to own weapons. It is hunting, and it is sport shooting. The requirements placed on the person who wants a weapon are that the person is law-abiding, mentally stable, and does not have a documented abuse. Furthermore, the weapon must be registered, and it must be stored in a secure manner. We are probably all in agreement that this is good and that it should be so. We do not want legal weapons to end up in the hands of violent individuals or in criminal environments – not in any way.

During the winter, there has been a debate, not least among hunters and sport shooters, regarding whether weapons of the AR-15 type should be allowed to be used for hunting. Models of AR-15 have existed for over 50 years, but they have only been approved for hunting for just over two years. The government, with the Sverigedemokraterna and, as I understand it, also the opposition parties, wants to say no to this.

AR-15 may however continue to be possessed and used for sport shooting by those who have a license for them. But they must absolutely not be used for hunting. There are those who are against this, who think it is wrong and who think that the AR-15 is an absolutely excellent weapon for hunting, and there are those who think that weapons of the type AR-15 do not belong in hunting.

But somewhere I think the debate has been a bit too much about the weapon itself and perhaps not so much about the one who holds the weapon. We all know that it is not the weapon that kills. It is the one who holds the weapon who kills.

I understand if just hunters feel singled out here, and I do not think that should be the intention. On the contrary, we should be proud of the hunting culture we have in Sweden and the hunters who actually look out for our nature conservation and animal welfare.

In Sweden, we have a strong hunting culture, and we must safeguard it. The hunters I know are very careful about how they handle their weapons. They are proud of how they manage their hunting. They are also proud of being good hunters, and that is not just about being skilled marksmen.

My hope is that we will also in the future have skilled hunters, even if they may not be allowed to hunt with weapons of the type AR-15.

As I said initially, Sweden, just like the other Nordic countries, has strict weapons laws. That is good. That is how it should be. It is also good that they are being reviewed now, and it is good that one listens to those who will ultimately handle the weapons: the hunters and the sport shooters.

The government is now reviewing how to make concessions in parts of the weapons laws and tighten them where necessary. I have full confidence that those working on this will produce a result that will be well-received by both hunters and sport shooters.

(Applause)

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for the approval of reservation 1, so that I do not forget it.

Mr. Speaker! We are here debating weapons. It is the Justice Committee. In normal cases, I belong in the Committee on Environment and Agriculture. But here, the interests coincide when it comes to hunting weapons. That was why I wrote my motion.

Weapons, who handles weapons, who has access to weapons, who has weapons at home and how one handles weapons evokes strong emotions. It is a great responsibility for those who have weapons to behave correctly and follow laws and regulations, sometimes unwritten rules, in order to maintain the acceptance for this.

As the speaker before me, Martin Melin, said, it is not a right to be a gun owner but an opportunity.

Sweden has a large number of weapons in relation to the population. Last year, there were approximately 660,000 registered weapon owners who together owned approximately 2 million firearms. These are collectors, target shooters, competitive shooters, and above all, hunters. 80 percent of all registered firearms are for hunting purposes.

I am a hunter myself. It is exactly 19 years ago that I received a license for my first weapon, which I inherited from my uncle. I would like to dwell a bit on hunting.

It is a subject that engages many. It is approximately 250,000–280,000 per year who purchase hunting licenses. Sweden has a very high acceptance of hunting. It stands out among other countries, even among the Nordic countries.

Sweden sets the hunting ethics high. It is a prerequisite for the high acceptance. In Sweden, we want hunting to be close to nature, local, and full of consideration for the wildlife's conditions and the public's opinions. Sweden is a unique country. We have pursuit hunting for traffic-injured wildlife. We have a hunting calendar based on each species' ecology. And we have a good education that all hunters must attend.

But the hunt affects many more. It concerns people who are out in the forest and countryside for completely different reasons: mushroom pickers, forest owners, canoeists, hikers, scouts – you name it. Most Swedes are in the forest at some point, sometimes in organized forms.

Not everyone is positive about hunting, even though it has a high level of acceptance. Sometimes it is about the wildlife populations being too large and eating up the pine saplings. Sometimes it is simply that people do not want animals to be hunted.

In order for hunting to continue to have high acceptance, it is important that hunters hunt in such a way and with such weapons as there is actually a public acceptance for.

Military weapons, weapons that look like something from a video game, have no business being in the forest. There is a big difference between different weapons.

On a dog walk or a mushroom walk, one can encounter a hunter with a weapon that I believe everyone would call a military weapon, except possibly those who themselves own such a weapon. A hunter with a broken weapon – if it is a shotgun – or with the bolt in the magazine shows that they have actually removed the cartridge. If you meet that hunter, you feel safe. But if a hunter has a weapon that looks like something from the world of video games, you get scared, unless it is a military person. This does not give the hunting association a good reputation. That is why I raised this motion from the very beginning.

It is primarily about the AR-15, but it has many sibling weapons, the AR-10 and so on. Therefore, we are talking about weapons with a military appearance. We know that these weapons have a – how shall I put it? – status within certain circles. The AR-15 is a class 2 weapon. It is the weapon used most in the world when it comes to school shootings. It is the weapon the murderer used in Brussels when two Swedish football supporters were shot dead, and it is the weapon that was used in the attempted assassination of Donald Trump in July.

Despite this overwhelming knowledge, we have previously not had a majority in the Swedish Riksdag to change back to how it was before August 2023, when the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency changed the regulations so that it became possible to apply for a license for these weapons, not only for sport shooting but also for hunting purposes. I think it was wrong. It was raised in the Weapons Inquiry. I sat in the reference group myself. There are many, many things in the report that one can read. The advantages that the weapons may have in certain hunting contexts, compared to other semi-automatic hunting rifles, cannot, according to the inquiry, justify the risks to society that it entails if these weapons are allowed to be possessed for hunting.

They are compatible with larger magazines. They are made to fire many shots. They are glorified in many circles. They are simply weapons that are not designed for hunting from the very beginning. Then there may be huge advantages with them in certain types of hunting, but there are other weapons. And the advantages do not outweigh the disadvantages of them being out there.

If you are a marksman, you belong to a sport shooting club. You have completely different rules. You must practice. You must demonstrate your weapon ownership in a completely different way. You must be more goal-oriented.

If you are a hunter, you can get your license, and then you have the weapon in your cabinet and so on. It is very rare that legal weapons from hunters come out and are used for anything else. But among the police and others, there are fears that the weapons we are now talking about – if they become available for hunting, which they now are – become susceptible to theft in a completely different way than other hunting weapons are today.

Mr. Speaker! So then came the horrific act in Örebro. Ten people were shot dead at Campus Risbergska, and six people were injured. The latter came home from the hospital this week. We had a school shooting in Sweden with horrific consequences. It was not a weapon with a military appearance that was used, but we still had a school shooting. The statistics also show that this will probably happen again at some point. We do not want these weapons to be easily accessible out there.

We received a completely different opinion in society. The Tidö parties, the government, and SD changed their minds. They said that one should now ban weapons with a military appearance and follow the weapon investigation's proposals. As it stands in today's report – which was therefore withdrawn to then be debated today because one was supposed to come to a new law, which they have not done – the purpose of the restriction is to restore the situation to what applied before Naturvårdsverket changed its regulations, and one intends to return with how a model for the redemption of current weapons shall be designed.

Mr. Speaker! We have debated this today. I have tried to ask questions. From the representatives of the government parties and the cooperation party, it sounds as if they do not actually want this ban. When I have asked when it will come into force, I have also not received any answer.

I hope that people actually take this seriously and see to it that it is implemented. The easiest thing would have been to stand behind the motion so that we would have received a declaration and shown the direction and what the Riksdag considers regarding this. That is what has been chosen not to do. Conspiratorially, I can imagine it is because one does not want to stand behind a motion from the Green Party. Regardless, one could have already shown what one wants instead of stammering in the way we have heard here today.

I hope, however, that what is stated in the report is correct and that, during the mandate period, a ban on weapons with a military appearance for hunting purposes is promptly reintroduced.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 14 May.)

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