Weapon issues

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! We are debating the Committee on Justice's report on firearms issues. It is a report that handles the motions submitted during the general motion period, i.e., in the autumn of 2025, and is not to be confused with the government's upcoming bill on new firearms legislation, which is expected to be submitted to the Riksdag in three or four weeks.

This report deals with a number of motions and also contains four reservations. They concern the review of the suitability assessment in weapon license cases, the suitability of firearms for hunting, and the question of a weapons amnesty.

The weapons investigation has submitted proposals for new rules for suitability assessment, and these have been handled by the government. We are simply awaiting the referral to the Council on Legislation and subsequently the bill, which will land in the committee in the near future. The issue has also been commented on by the Minister for Justice in interviews, for those who wish to take part in some deeper reasoning on this issue in advance.

Regarding the suitability of firearms for hunting, the government has decided on an amendment to the ordinance which means that the Swedish Police Authority will, from August 2025, no longer grant permits for the possession of certain semi-automatic weapons for hunting and the culling of trapped animals. There are also proposals that have been referred to the Council on Legislation regarding that the ban should appear in a new weapons act.

In view of the decided amendment to the ordinance and the ongoing work in the matter, the committee considers that there is no reason to issue any motion to the government in these matters.

Mr. Speaker! The committee also sees no acute reason to urge the government to introduce a time-limited weapons amnesty. Shooting violence in criminal environments has almost halved in recent years. The government continues to move forward with a more offensive policy to get at the illegal weapons – it is these weapons that actually constitute the problem out in society – and above all to get at the criminal environments that benefit from such weapons possession.

Mr. Speaker! I move for the rejection of all reservations and for the approval of the committee's proposal for a decision.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! The Centre Party has always stood up for law-abiding gun owners and has consistently said no to treating shooters and hunters as a security problem just because society has failed to handle organized crime. It is only the Centre Party that does not think we should take almost a quarter of a billion of our common tax money and a lot of hours of the police's time to remove a weapon that is not used in the deadly shootings. I would say that this is poster politics at a high level.

In the preamble, reference is made to the Council on Legislation referral which has been announced and which we expect to arrive. It is desired to ban the AR15 because it is a dangerous weapon, but it is considered that the approximately 7,000 AR15 weapons that remain should be allowed to remain. The owners can be allowed to voluntarily redeem them, but there is no compulsion. This is where my question comes: Why should the 7,000 weapons that still exist in the homes of hunters and sport shooters be allowed to remain if one now considers them so dangerous that they should be banned?

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! One almost has to follow this issue in some kind of chronological order. This decision was made by the government and SD against the background of the attack that occurred about a year ago in Örebro. At that time, it was referred to that this weapon, for a number of different reasons, was not considered suitable for hunting. Then a decision was made that these weapons should be recalled from those who had been granted a license for possession.

Then we come to the principle that things should be able to be revoked. If someone has been granted a license to possess a weapon, we come to another principle regarding whether the state should be able to withdraw such a decision. The Government and SD thought it was a rather complicated matter and did not feel completely comfortable with that part.

As I understand it, the criticism against this type of weapon remains. However, one does not want to move towards a principle that says one should be able to recall weapons that people have once been licensed for. As I have understood it, this is the reason why one has landed on the different conclusions.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! That is absolutely correct, and I can acknowledge the member's account of the proceedings. I also appreciate that one works according to principles and weighs them against each other.

It is still surprising that the government and its coalition partner Sverigedemokraterna act in this way in an issue that they themselves say is very important. They say that they cannot allow this weapon to be purchased or possessed in the future. On the other hand, 7,000 copies of this weapon are to be allowed to remain, despite it being stated to be so dangerous, because it would mean such an administrative burden to get them in. The government and Sverigedemokraterna have indeed presented a solution with a buy-back that is to be financed with approximately a quarter of a billion.

It is difficult to understand the Government's view on this weapon. Is it dangerous or not? Can the hunters be trusted or not? One moment you say that you do. The next moment you say that the hunters should not be able to get more weapons. Is it because you have concluded that 7,000 units of the AR15 is a reasonable amount for our country? It is difficult to understand the inconsistency in these decisions.

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

Adam Marttinen (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I am prepared to agree. This is a complicated story where one perhaps moved forward a bit too quickly in the beginning and was forced to back down. That makes it complicated to understand the underlying reasoning.

I don't actually think that anyone considers this weapon in itself to be dangerous, but there are other reasons why it is not considered suitable for hunting.

Personally, I think it can absolutely be appropriate for hunting. It is up to each individual to choose what they consider appropriate for hunting. I do not think we should ban weapons for hunting because of their appearance. The appearance has, in fact, been presented as one of the reasons for no longer granting permits for this weapon for hunting.

I understand the Centre Party's objections. I believe there are fundamental problems in this entire matter. I was also one of the members who expressed criticism quite early. As a Member of Parliament, however, I have a responsibility to handle the issue based on the conditions that exist.

The question lies ultimately with the government and, at this moment, the Government Offices. A proposition will be submitted with more detailed directions for just this issue to be debated further.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Initially, I would like to move for the approval of one of three reservations from the Social Democrats. It is reservation 2, which we have together with MP and V, regarding the suitability of firearms for hunting.

As the previous speaker has mentioned, a bill is on its way to the Riksdag. We will, of course, be prompted to carry out preliminary work and have a rather extensive debate about it. It will be exciting to see how this develops. Some of the questions also concern what is being raised here today.

Violence with firearms is not an abstract issue, Mr. Speaker. It is not merely a theoretical discussion about paragraphs and regulations, but it is fundamentally about a reality that costs human lives to an all too great extent.

This concerns both legal and illegal weapons. It is an incredibly small, if any, spill from the legal side of Vapensverige to the criminal environments.

Fundamentally, weapons are a construction for ending lives, and with this follows a great responsibility. It is about the construction of the weapons – they are made to destroy tissues and end lives. We need to think about that when we talk about weapons.

Weapons are also a means of violence. There are several examples of ordinary, legal hunting and firearms being used for violence in a close relationship and contributing to people being threatened or feeling unsafe in their own homes.

We very rarely talk about it in this chamber, but weapons are also used in connection with people choosing to end their own lives. It is many times legal weapons that are used. It could, of course, also have been done in another way – that is not the problem in itself – but legal weapons are used to end lives in various ways.

The massacre in Örebro last year was an event that in a dramatic way changed the conditions for the view on who should handle the legal semi-automatic weapons, and how.

The government was at least initially very powerful and declared very clearly that this type of weapon fundamentally does not belong in our hunting grounds. These weapons belong to the organizations in our society that have a monopoly on violence – in this case, the military and the police. Fundamentally, semi-automatic military-like weapons should not be out in our forests and hunting environments.

One can compare this with the regulations surrounding another phenomenon. I know that the first deputy speaker is very interested in cars of a certain brand, which we shall not mention here in the chamber. The car as a phenomenon is rigorously regulated. We force future users to undergo extensive training and tests before one is granted permission to drive a car on the roads. We inspect our cars regularly so that they shall be safe for both the driver and others. We have an extensive apparatus to ensure that people who perhaps should not have a driver's license also lose it in connection with doctors' reporting obligations and other matters.

We have this because a car, in the wrong context, can end lives, harm people, and be dangerous. We see that as completely obvious – and it should also be obvious when it comes to weapons, which can be translated and compared in all possible other ways. They are useful objects that we have and that serve us well in many contexts. They should also be handled with this type of caution.

I am pleased that we have often had a political consensus in this chamber on precisely the issues of weapons. I experience that it has slowly but surely moved from being a rather polarized debate to us being able to reach an agreement, have a good dialogue, and find a way forward – not least given the heavy pressure that the dreadful gang crime and the shootings have entailed.

Just as Adam Marttinen said, we can now also see the results of the decisions we have made here over a period of ten years regarding the multi-doubled penalties for illegal weapons possession. We now have a completely different view on whether one is caught with an illegal firearm, for example.

The previous situation was completely ridiculous, to speak plain Swedish. A person could be caught with an illegal weapon in the morning and then be out again as a free man or woman in the afternoon or evening. It was a completely unreasonable situation, and we have finally corrected it.

I can also say a little about the reason why we have chosen to look at specifically semi-automatic weapons. Everyone knows now that it was not an AR15 that was used at Risbergska, but it was another type of semi-automatic weapon.

With this said, our discussions are actually about three things. It is about ethics, it is about security, and it is about the signaling value, Mr. Speaker. I have already touched upon the signaling value. We do not want a weapon culture such as we see on the other side of the Atlantic in America – I was about to say in our neighboring country. There, one has an almost religious relationship to one's weapons.

Weapons are items of utility. We Social Democrats have always protected the importance of hunting and the incredibly important role people in rural areas play in ensuring that wildlife management functions. We also have respect for the people who have this as an interest and a great recreation in life, namely being out in the forest and fields and hunting. It is a healthy relationship with weapons. Having weapons because one thinks it is stylish and cool and looks intimidating is an unhealthy weapons culture. That type of culture does not belong in Sweden. It is this that I mean when it comes to the signal value.

I want to say once again that the people who make great contributions to wildlife management in our country are heroes in every possible way. We must absolutely not try to complicate things unnecessarily for these people. We have a country–city conflict that we often talk about, which is about society withdrawing, and we see that various service facilities and other things are being closed. The issue of the importance of weapons can also take on such a role if it is handled poorly. These are people who make a great effort to ensure that balance is maintained in our zoological systems.

Mr. Speaker! We look forward to the debate that will take place a bit further ahead. In a few weeks, we will begin the work on the new bill regarding a new weapons law. I hereby conclude my opening remarks.

(Applause)

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! I have a question for Member Löberg in view of the fact that the Social Democrats have signaled that they will support a ban on the semi-automatic weapon AR15.

When it comes to deadly violence, murder and shootings, it is always a bit sensitive to talk about money at the same time, but it cannot be denied that the redemption of the approximately 7,000 AR15 weapons that exist in the country would involve a large cost. It is about redeeming a weapon that is proven not to be used by the gang criminals, which is not used in crime and which was also not used in the horrific mass shooting last year.

Preliminary figures estimate the cost for redemption to be over 200 million kronor. It is admittedly voluntary, but it needs to be budgeted.

My question is: Does the member believe that this is an effective use of tax money and of the police's time and commitment to prevent and counter the serious organized crime we have in Sweden today? Is this the right way to go, or could the 250 million kronor be used in a more effective way to prevent and deter crime?

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! The member describes a conflict of interest that exists between economy and correcting a decision that perhaps was not good from the beginning.

Some decisions that we make, or for which we simply miss the prerequisites – in this case, it was the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency that made different types of changes that opened up for this – naturally cost money. Incorrect decisions cost. Unfortunately, we make many such decisions every year in this chamber. These are decisions that we have to change and adjust, and where there are large – often gigantic – costs linked to it.

When it comes to AR weapons, I want to say that they have not been used in Sweden in these criminal contexts. However, when one takes an international perspective, one sees that they are the most common weapons in the school shootings in the USA. The AR15 is an absolutely overrepresented weapon when it comes to the horrific school shootings where children in schools in the USA lose their lives. There are also other examples, such as the events in New Zealand and others, where this type of weapon has been used.

Internationally, this weapon is not well regarded by police authorities, among others. This explains why our police and our law enforcement agencies are very clear that they would prefer not to have this type of weapon out in society. Even if it is only 7,000 weapons, they must be removed sooner or later.

The risk that the police encounter the weapon at, for example, a school shooting means that they end up in a high-intensity situation that is very serious for the police who are first on the scene and must intervene and act according to the routines. Therefore, there is great concern that these weapons should be out there at all. In that case, we are talking about the international perspectives that show that AR weapons are unsuitable.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! This is a conflict of interest. The member says that this is a problem and refers to international perspectives, but in Sweden, this is not a problem, because we have a different arrangement. We have the Swedish hunters.

We need to have respect for these weapons and the negative aspects that would exist in their use. But we must also have respect for the fact that we have a strong tradition of hunting and shooting in our country.

We are a gun-free country. But the number of shootings in gang environments, which has increased drastically in recent years even though we see a certain improvement, cannot be linked to the legal, licensed weapons that exist in many Swedish homes. It is those we are talking about.

A license is required for AR15. For decades, semi-automatic weapons have existed in Swedish homes. They have not been used in gang shootings and other shootings. I myself asked the Commissioner of the Swedish Police at yesterday's meeting in the Committee on Justice whether legal weapons have been used in such contexts, and they have not. The gangs use illegal weapons.

I agree, however, with what the member raised regarding licenses. It is important. But to ban a weapon that is in many Swedish homes and is not used incorrectly, and to spend nearly a quarter of a billion to buy them back when most consider that they are not a problem, we do not consider at this time to be the right way to use money in crime prevention work. Do the Social Democrats consider that?

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! This is based partly on respect for the people who have purchased AR15 weapons. They have, of course, purchased them in good faith. They assumed that the regulations would continue to look as they did when they decided to purchase this weapon. If we now change the rules, which I hope, because these weapons do not belong among the general public, the society must, of course, bear the cost. For me, it is self-evident that these persons should be left harmless.

It has been discussed whether an appraisal should be made and whether the market value should be guiding in the redemption. I think that is completely obvious if there is a ban, even when it concerns accessories for the weapons, which one may have purchased. For me, it is a self-evident matter if we have made the wrong decision.

It is also about respect for the consequences of retroactive legislation. New legislation often does, however, mean that one must adapt after having had other circumstances when, for example, one acquired an object or did things.

Regarding the question of whether semi-automatic weapons have been used or not, they have nevertheless appeared in hunting environments for a long time. I will also say that it was such a weapon that was used at Risbergska. That is a statement of fact in this context. It was terrible. That is why we need to have a broad perspective on the question of military-like semi-automatic weapons. But it is correct that the AR15 as a specific weapon type or commercial designation has so far not been used in Swedish contexts. It is important to say that. But internationally, it is a weapon with a bad reputation.

As has been said, it is not fun for an ordinary berry picker to encounter a camouflage-clad young guy with an AR15 weapon out in the woods. I have heard several stories and testimonies about how that makes one feel very insecure.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are dealing with a motion report from the general motion period. There are 31 motions. The Committee on Justice rejects all motions as work is already underway to review the weapons legislation. Some of the Riksdag's earlier announcements will be implemented. What has been implemented so far is that the EU's weapons directive has been implemented.

The Tidö parties and the Center Party have for a long time cooperated to facilitate matters for the country's hunters, shooters, and collectors. This has resulted in approximately 30 joint announcements, for which decisions have been made here in the Riksdag. There is therefore very broad support for facilitating matters for the country's legal gun owners. Unfortunately, both the Social Democrats and the Green Party have opposed all these proposals and announcements. This is also evident in the committee report that the Social Democrats and the left-wing parties still want to further complicate matters for the country's gun owners.

Mr. Speaker! What has happened then with all these previous announcements and with the investigation and the new weapons legislation that we refer to in the report? Well, an investigator was tasked with producing proposals on how the announcements should be implemented. To his aid, he had a reference group with one member from each party.

The Tidö parties' politicians, including the Center Party's representative in the reference group, were in agreement on how new legislation should be designed according to the announcements. The investigator noted this and thus received both oral and written information during these meetings on what the Tidö parties and the Center Party considered. Any misunderstanding could not be a question.

Mr. Speaker! The investigator was fully aware of what a large majority here in the Riksdag expected from the investigation. Nevertheless, many of the points remained uninvestigated. Instead, other proposals were investigated. It was proposed that the AR15 should be banned, even though it was not included in the investigation directive and the reference group had stated that they did not support this. There was, in fact, no mandate to ban already approved hunting weapons.

The investigator also did not report how the proposal regarding AR15 would be resolved in practical or technical terms. One reason why there are factual errors in the investigation was, of course, that the investigator, as he himself admitted, did not have particularly great knowledge of weapons.

Mr. Speaker! I am quite convinced that investigations concerning weapons need to be carried out by people with knowledge of both law and weapons if they are to be truly good. If better weapon knowledge had been possessed and the reference groups had been listened to more, this weapons investigation would have been better. AR15 is a weapon that is used for both hunting and shooting in large parts of Europe. As an example, I can say that in Finland, those who have an AR15 weapon for shooting can also hunt with it.

This weapon is appreciated by many people with disabilities as it can be adapted better than others so that they can continue to hunt and practice shooting, which is of course very good.

From the investigation, it can be clearly read that the police's requests and proposals have been valued highly despite clear directives and despite the Riksdag's decision and announcement to facilitate matters for the country's legal gun owners. It is, of course, noteworthy.

Mr. Speaker! This investigation, which was intended to provide answers to all of the Riksdag's motions regarding weapons, has now been used to draft new legislation. It is the one we are waiting for. It is the one we refer to. The Department has carried out extensive work in preparing a referral to the Council on Legislation. After that, a government bill shall be written, and that work is ongoing.

Mr. Speaker! The police shall hunt gang criminals and other criminals. It is wrong when one mixes up the country's legal gun owners with the country's violent criminals. Sweden's hunters, shooters, and collectors perform good deeds daily within both wildlife management and shooting competitions, and they also care for and preserve our cultural heritage regarding weapons.

Mr. Speaker! I must once again remind that Sweden, overall, has some of the absolute strictest requirements in Europe for obtaining and using weapons. Requirements are set regarding knowledge, test results, storage, and suitability. Furthermore, Sweden's weapon owners are checked daily via the suspicion and criminal records register. Anyone who does something wrong and is simultaneously a weapon owner loses their weapons.

I want to correct the Social Democratic member who said that we have such immense control over cars here in the country. They must be inspected every or every other year. Vintage cars are not inspected at all after 50 years. But the control of weapon owners in Sweden is actually even stricter. They are checked daily via the criminal registry. It is a completely different level of control than what is had when it comes to cars here in Sweden. That argument perhaps was not the best from the Social Democratic member.

Mr. Speaker! When the police and unclear legislation made things difficult for the country's legal gun owners, we politicians brought forward these 30 announcements to facilitate things for them. The knowledge of the Police Authority regarding legal weapons has been shown to be lacking on several occasions, and it must improve. But it is not strange that it falls short when the Police Authority does not even require that the person to be employed to work with weapons issues has weapons knowledge. It should, of course, be a basic requirement.

It is also clear that the issue of weapons has for a long time not been a prioritized issue for the police. The police are fully occupied with combating serious crime and, in addition, all our everyday crimes here in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Shooting ranges that are not inspected and approved by the police in time are currently without activity, while we have a war in our immediate vicinity. This is obviously not acceptable.

For comparison, I can say that in Finland, 300 new shooting ranges are currently being built and they are subsidizing hunters and shooters who exchange their older weapons for more modern weapons. Finland has been at war and knows that hunters and shooters are a great asset if Russia comes. Here, Sweden has much left to learn.

Mr. Speaker! We know that the police are overloaded with work, and we must reduce crime in the country. Therefore, we are also investigating the possibility of relieving the police of tasks including weapon licenses and supervision of shooting ranges. This is being prepared at the department. We have previously had three announcements regarding moving this activity to a new wildlife authority.

Mr. Speaker! The report we are debating today concerns, among other things, that the Social Democrats have for a long time wanted to ban certain types of weapons entirely. This concerns semi-automatic weapons. It would mean that approximately 100,000 of the country's hunters would need to return their weapons.

It is a hunting weapon that we have had in Sweden for over 40 years, and it has worked well. This applies in particular to our people with disabilities, who find it easier to both hunt and engage in shooting.

We have a shooting movement in Sweden that uses AR-15 and other semi-automatic weapons. But when it is specifically hunters who have these weapons, they become so much more dangerous in the Social Democrats' world, which is a bit astonishing.

Why do the Social Democrats see the country's hunters as dangerous, while turning a blind eye to the fact that gang crime has been allowed to grow during their eight years in power? Furthermore, they left behind a psychiatric care system that does not function and where a multitude of people are in a queue to receive care. S's solution to crime is apparently to instead continue to hunt the country's hunters and shooters.

Mr. Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report and reject all reservations. The police should hunt criminals and not the country's legal hunters, shooters, and collectors.

In order for the police to be able to keep up with their tasks and the serious crime, we must help to move tasks away from the police that another authority can perform instead.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank the Tidö parties and the Center Party for a very good cooperation on these weapons issues.

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! Here we saw a member in top form of the old classical style. I have debated the weapons issues with Sten many times. Today, I requested a reply primarily because I reacted quite strongly to the description of how the investigation work, in which both Sten and I were involved, has functioned.

I do not think it is appropriate to comment from the rostrum of the Riksdag on the qualities, suitability, and knowledge of individual civil servants and investigators regarding various matters. It is inappropriate. One should not be doing that.

Furthermore, the single-person investigation in this case has directives to follow. In this case, it was the Moderate Minister of Justice, Gunnar Strömmer, who wrote additional directives to, among others, that investigation.

It is constitutional. The investigator shall act based on written directives and draw their own independent conclusions. That is the basis of the Swedish investigation procedure and it has always been so.

I really hope that we do not want any other order of things than that we should have independent investigators with integrity. Small handwritten notes from some who sit in a reference group, or comments where one senses some kind of majority in a reference group, do not work in a single-person investigation.

Then one has to work in a different way. That can be done, for example, through a parliamentary inquiry. If one appoints such an inquiry, we have a different order of things. In our society, we shall have respect for the integrity of individual investigators.

Then there is an enormous amount to say about the AR-15 and the weapons issues per se. What I want us to have a small dialogue about, Sten, is the view on how we should treat the investigators and how we talk about officials.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! It is relatively simple. There were very clear directives from the Ministry of Justice. There were also very clear directives that a reference group should be included in this work.

There is a reason why the directives were clear when we were to resolve the announcements. It was to facilitate things for the country's hunters, shooters and collectors. That was what we put forward. That was not what we received on the table.

We have received a number of proposals that actually go in the opposite direction. This has not been requested either in the directives or by a majority in the reference group.

If you sit down and conduct an investigation, you should read the directives in question. You are welcome to refer to where in the directives it stated that there was a mandate to ban the then-legal hunting weapons. Where in the directive did it say that?

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

Petter Löberg (S)

Mr. Speaker! First and foremost, both Member Sten Bergheden and I know that a number of changes were proposed that made everyday life easier for legal hunters and shooters. I want to say that the investigation fully carried out what was expected of it in the directives.

It was, for example, changes regarding weapon wardrobes but also regarding the handling of some surplus weapons that one had. It concerned, for example, collectors of older weapons who perhaps ended up caught in the middle in different ways.

We solved some of those things concerning transport issues and other matters where we jointly saw that there was a deficiency and that there were ways to make things better. I experienced that the investigation was led by people who were very sensitive to finding ways to simplify for legal hunters and shooters.

Proposals will soon be on the table of the Riksdag. Much of what will be in the bill, I assume, has been prepared in the single-person investigation. All of it was not bad, one might think.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the contribution, Petter Löberg! No, not everything was bad. I can calmly agree with that. There was a good deal that was good in that part. But there were also a number of things where we now have to sit and discuss how to solve those questions.

The directive stated that we should divide it in the weapons legislation. We were to facilitate for those who exchanged weapons over the counter. We were also to look into whether muzzleloaders from 1890 should be license-free or not. There were announcements regarding this.

You can read in the investigation and see if you see anything of this. Those parts were skipped in the investigation, and instead, things were investigated that one did not have directives for. I think that deserves criticism.

This is a very important issue. There is a large majority in Sweden's Riksdag, over 60 percent, who believe that we should improve and facilitate for the country's hunters and shooters based on the conditions that exist.

Then one needs to present proposals that fully go in the direction of facilitating. Otherwise, one abstains from writing in that part if one is unable to manage to facilitate the whole.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Sten Bergheden, for the presentation! It is always exciting to listen to you.

I also pressed the button for a point of order when the member spoke about the Weapons Inquiry. I sat myself in the reference group towards the end, and I perhaps do not think that one should express oneself in this way about those who work in or with an inquiry. But if we are still to go into what certain members in an expert group and other such things do, I can say that I am surprised that the member himself did not listen to expert authorities and others.

It is heavy referral bodies, among others the police, who think that certain weapons and other things should be banned. It is often about the police needing more tools and that it is what we should listen to. We should listen to the expertise, they say from the government. But just here, the member and others apparently know better than those who work with this every day.

My question was actually another one, because the other one has already been discussed here. When I listen to Member Sten Bergheden, it sounds like he does not want to ban semi-automatic weapons with a military appearance. Nevertheless, the reservations in the report are rejected precisely because there is ongoing work on this. We had the same exchange of remarks last year, when the government said it would return. An agreement had been reached with the coalition parties to ban the AR-15. The weapons were also to be bought back, but in that part the government has now changed its mind.

What does it actually look like? Do the Moderaterna really want to carry this out?

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the questions!

Let me begin by saying that I accept the Tidö parties' proposal for a decision. However, I do not personally share the view when it comes to the description of the AR-15. I do not know how many emails I received during the period when we discussed the proposal to ban the AR-15. They were emails from girls, women, and other people who wanted a weapon that could be better adapted to both training and hunting. They were also emails from people with disabilities, who can adapt the entire weapon and use it for hunting and shooting. This shows how important it is to be able to adapt a weapon to the individual who owns it, and in that regard, the AR-15 fulfills a major function.

Furthermore, I do not think it is the appearance that should determine which weapons we hunt with, but it is up to each hunter to decide.

Is the next step from Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna to go in and ban the AR-15, which we have had for 40 years, even for all shooters active in Sweden? They also have these weapons, sometimes several of them, when they compete in different disciplines.

Is the weapon as dangerous as the Social Democrats and the Green Party say? Is the appearance so extreme? Is the intention to take the step to proceed with banning even the target weapons? Is it, according to the Social Democrats and the Green Party, okay for target shooters to have these weapons, while the hunters absolutely cannot manage to handle them? There, I think the entire argumentation fails.

In one sense I can accept this, and I think it is good that the government has backed down so that we do not recall weapons that have already been handed out. But we must move the discussion forward. Weapon development continues all the time, and the weapons are getting better and better functionality. This we must manage, and we cannot stop the development. All our old hunting weapons once in time came from military weapons.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! As the member knows, I am myself a hunter and a gun owner, and I know that it is not always easy to use the largest weapons. I myself have a Tikka 6,5, which suits me well.

The problem we see with the AR-15 is that when it is used in a hunting context, it occurs out in public. These weapons have a signal value. We are not out to ban the weapon for sport shooters and others who are on ranges under controlled forms and in a context. But when you are out with your dog or picking mushrooms in the forest and encounter a person with such a weapon, it gives a different signal than a hunting weapon of a traditional type. That is our criticism, and I think that the feeling of safety and what society accepts is paramount over the individual's ability to use whatever weapon they want. There are also good alternatives.

If I understand the member correctly, he accepts the agreement but does not personally want it to be this way. Does that mean that in the future, work will be done to ensure that the AR-15 becomes available for hunting again? Or is the question concluded here?

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the question!

What happens in the future will be for future members and governments to look into further. Now we are where we are now, and it is from there that we take this weapons legislation.

I want to address Emma Nohrén when she says that all expert agencies spoke about this. Read then what the referral bodies Naturvårdsverket and Försvarsmakten wrote in their responses! They are not at all as positive as the police in this situation, and that is important.

I think this weapon has become the subject of an extremely large discussion, because we have a number of weapons that are closely adjacent and resemble the AR-15. We cannot go our own way here in Sweden. We have no problems with either hunting, shooting, or collecting weapons in Sweden. These weapons are used throughout Europe for both shooting and hunting. I think it is remarkable that just the hunters in Sweden should be so extremely dangerous that they cannot handle this weapon while the hunters in the rest of Europe can.

Now, as has been said, this agreement has nevertheless been made, and it must be upheld. The next step is to look further into how we resolve the Weapons Inquiry in a good way so that we get positive effects that can facilitate things. The Tidö parties and the Center Party stand behind many of our announcements, and even the Left has been involved in certain issues and provided support when it comes to facilitating things for the country's hunters and shooters. It is actually only the Green Party and the Social Democrats who have taken a separate stance and thought that we should tighten the screws on the hunters a bit more.

Does Emma Nohrén share the Social Democrats' view that we should ban all semi-automatic weapons for hunting? It is a rhetorical question, but you can take it next time.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! Vänsterpartiet stands behind the reservations that we have marked in the investigation, but I move for approval only of the reservation regarding the weapons amnesty, namely reservation 4.

The other reservations, regarding the suitability assessment for weapon licenses and the suitability of weapons for hunting, are covered by the forthcoming proposition, which has clearly been indicated here. They will therefore be able to be debated when the proposition is addressed.

I want to mention that the suitability assessment should encompass more than register checks, as has been mentioned earlier. Hopefully, there will also be stronger supervision of those who have mental health problems. But we will have to come back to this.

Vänsterpartiet has for a long time championed the issue of a weapons amnesty. The reservation is based on a motion from the general motion period and aims for a recurring weapons amnesty and an amnesty for surrendering explosives.

The Tidö parties' motives for not approving this are difficult to understand, in any case for me. Why is every chance not taken to limit what I believe we all perceive as – the terrible violence of shootings and explosions? Is it only stricter penalties that should apply in the Tidö parties' Sweden? Or should one also be able to take preventive and simple measures against the gangs, but also when it concerns risks of other violence?

The proposed amnesty could also prevent other acts of violence. I would like to relate to what Petter Löberg just presented from the rostrum. It occurs that legal weapons are used both for suicide and for violence against others, including men's violence against women and children. In connection with the amnesties in 2018, the Police Authority also wrote on its website that this could save lives.

Through recurring amnesties for illegal weapons and illegal ammunition, it is possible to reduce the number of weapons in society. In the current situation, it is of great importance that firearms circulating in gang criminal circles or that can be accessed via these are taken into custody, which a weapons amnesty can contribute to.

It is about a measure with a certain crime-preventive effect, as one measure among several. I want to believe that we agree that it is always important both to reduce the number of illegal weapons in society and to reduce violence. The crime-preventive effect is limited, but I mean that we should also take advantage of that.

An amnesty means, as many perhaps already understand, that anyone can anonymously hand in firearms and ammunition as well as explosives to the police. One then avoids legal consequences even if the possession was illegal. Since explosives are not covered by the Weapons Act, special amnesty rules for explosive goods are required.

Would this then have an effect? Yes, I assert it. During the last weapons amnesty in 2018, the police received 12,000 weapons. They were handed in primarily in the metropolitan regions, and individual weapons could be linked to the criminal environment. Almost 30,000 kilos of ammunition were also received.

Amnesties also occurred before that. In 2018, it was the fourth. During the first, 1993, 17,000 weapons were collected. During the second, 2007, 13,000 weapons were collected. During the third, 2013, the figure was 15,000 weapons.

Summarizing this, we have thus so far received 57,000 weapons. Summarizing the ammunition, it concerns 96 tons of ammunition.

The explosive items have only been subject to amnesty once, in the autumn of 2018. It did not involve any enormous quantities, and one could also not see any connection to specifically criminal gangs. Also here, however, I believe we have an effect. Even though the shootings in themselves have decreased, the explosions have increased, and we are not finished with either the gang-related violence or violence in general in society, if we are talking about school shootings or violence in close relationships.

Is there anyone listening now who would take pleasure in this? Does it concern you at all? I want to say that this matter of increasing safety in general concerns us all. But it can also be the case that one encounters an illegal weapon. One might have inherited it or bought a house and found something in the nooks and crannies that one had not had control over previously. In that case, one can also hand in such weapons or such ammunition to the police. One does not need to explain anything, and the police do not have the right to ask questions.

Against this background, I believe that the government should take the initiative for new weapons amnesties to get people to hand in illegal weapons, illegal ammunition, and illegal explosives. I move for approval of reservation 4.

(Applause)

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Amnesty sounds heart-wrenching – here, a lot of weapons are coming in that disappear from the criminal world. Now, that is not quite the case. The thing is that the police receive a lot of weapons that have nothing to do with the criminal world. It concerns old muzzle-loaders from the 1800s, toy pistols, and a number of other things.

As Gudrun Nordborg herself said, it is individual weapons that can be linked to the criminal world. At the same time, one has to take care of perhaps 20,000 or 30,000 other weapons.

If I am to have something creative in this, I might wonder: Why should these amnesties be presented as if it is only just now that you can hand in weapons? Why can we not instead make it so that the police can receive the weapons at any time so that we get rid of them?

The fact is that this widow who finds a weapon in the barn gutter, in the stable, or somewhere else, a weapon that has stood there for 50 years since her husband died, has committed a crime by having an illegal weapon in her home during that time. Why should she have to do that when she could have had it submitted directly if the order had been different?

Amnesty with the time limits that the Left proposes sounds nice and kind-hearted, but it could be arranged in a better way to get these weapons to the police. At the same time, we could, with information, ensure that we avoided getting all these toy guns in.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the questions.

I think it is a bit wrong to focus solely on the violence of the criminal gangs in this context. As the member himself gives examples, this can apply to anyone – I also raised that in my speech – who might "find" something one is not entitled to possess.

Where I mean that this with amnesties is a very valuable thought. I also mean that the amnesties we have had as temporary measures have been something that has been noticed and discussed.

Then I would absolutely not mind if this activity became continuous. I do not believe that the police have major concerns about some toy gun appearing in this context either. The intention, however, is that we should get rid of such objects – so I could express it – that resemble weapons and can be used to intimidate or be destructive and aggressive.

I would like to see a continuation of this. So far, however, the government has sometimes said that one could have this with a certain pulse of five to six years. Therefore, I absolutely think it would be time to seriously address the issue of amnesty again, as it was a long time ago now.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Gudrun Nordborg for the contribution.

Of the weapons that come into the police, all of them go to scrap. One aspect that is raised when I am out and talking with weapon collectors and others around the country is that weapons can come in from, for example, this widow who has a high collector value that she had no idea about. Today, these weapons go to scrap. It is also something we need to look at: Should the police scrap everything that comes in, or should it be looked through to determine what kind of weapons they are? Is it a rare weapon that could be part of a collection for someone out there, where perhaps there is a value in selling it or moving it forward rather than just scrapping it.

There are many aspects to this. Now, however, the police have scrapped this many weapons. Many of them, I know, have been toy pistols. A few have been involved in the gang criminal environment.

Those who were stolen from the Government Offices during the Social Democratic government have not yet come to the police for amnesty. We will have to see when they come.

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

Gudrun Nordborg (V)

Mr. Speaker! I thank you again for the comments.

I would absolutely not have anything against the police being given the right to sort and determine what is scrap, a toy gun, an old weapon that cannot be used at all, or a weapon that can be used but has no particular value. But if a weapon were to be found that is valuable, it would be a point if society could take advantage of its value by developing suitable ways to pass the weapon on to obtain an income that perhaps can contribute to more and better preventive measures.

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

Ingemar Kihlström (KD)

Mr. Speaker! We are therefore discussing weapons issues, and just as several of the previous speakers have said, we are now debating the current motions for the parliamentary year. We will meet in the chamber again in the near future to discuss the new weapons law in the speaker's chair and in exchanges of remarks.

I would like to begin by expressing my approval of the committee's proposal for a decision, which entails the rejection of all motion proposals.

Weapons are and remain an issue that evokes strong emotions and engages many. It is not difficult to understand why. We live in a society where we all too often see gross violence on our streets and squares, often in gang-related settlements where firearms are used to harm and kill. This violence affects not only those directly involved but also completely innocent people. We can all have the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The development must be broken. Safety must be restored. The ruthlessness and the total lack of respect for human life that characterizes the gross violence in today's society must be met with powerful measures.

Mr. Speaker! We have all been affected by the gun violence that characterizes our time. Many of us still carry in our thoughts the horrific act in Örebro, where young people who wanted to pursue an education fell victim to an unimaginable act of violence. A lone perpetrator with a weapon caused death, sorrow, and deep despair – not only in Örebro but in our entire country.

At the same time, we know that there are many other examples where people lose their lives through firearms, and it is important to say that in almost all cases it is with illegal weapons. All these acts create anxiety, fear, and frustration. My thoughts today go to all those who in some way have been affected, alarmed, or otherwise touched by these horrific crimes.

Mr. Speaker! Despite that, we must manage to hold two thoughts in our heads at the same time. We must be able to conduct a serious and composed discussion on weapons issues without overreactions and without resorting to drastic measures where they are not needed.

Weapons are used in our society in fully legitimate and responsible ways – by hunters, sport shooters and naturally by our defense and our police. These activities are an important, natural and historical part of our Sweden. In today's debate, we hear, not least from the opposition, demands for generally stricter rules for all weapon owners as a response to the increased firearm violence. It is a simplified path, Mr. Speaker, and it is a wrong path. It is also counterproductive.

Of course, the focus must be on making it harder for gang criminals to commit violent crimes with illegal weapons. There is no doubt and no room for disagreement there. But when measures instead strike at the Swedish hunting and shooting movement, as we saw during the previous Social Democratic government, then the wrong target has been chosen.

The Christian Democrats believe that all parts of the justice system must be given powerful tools to access criminals' possession of weapons and explosives. The problems are developing in an alarming direction, with weapons from conflict zones, converted starter pistols, and now also 3D-printed weapons. The police must be given further conditions to meet this, and the penalties for serious weapons offenses still need to be tightened. But this must happen in a way that does not create problems for law-abiding hunters and sport shooters, that is, people who handle their weapons responsibly and store them safely in approved gun safes.

Mr. Speaker! In Sweden, there are today slightly over 620,000 registered weapon owners. These individuals are already covered by extensive and recurring checks through society's various control systems. It bears repeating: It is not the legal weapons that are primarily used in serious crime. The criminals instead use weapons that have been smuggled into the country and that have never been registered in Sweden. This illegal market must be fought with full force – but without making those who follow the rules suspicious.

The facts are clear. A few years ago it was established that on average only one weapon per year from hunting or sport shooting occurred in serious crime. The Crime Prevention Council shows that gun violence has increased sharply, but it has also been shown that 98.5 percent of the weapons seized during crimes are smuggled.

After the incident in Örebro, Brås's review showed that only 19 of 307 cases of fatal violence during the years 2014–2021 were linked to legal weapons. In these cases, it was almost exclusively about close relationships, often in combination with mental illness or severe substance abuse.

This clearly points out that the solution is not to make things difficult for everyone, but to ensure through targeted interventions that the wrong people do not have access to weapons. For us Christian Democrats, it is obvious that we should not lump hunters and sport shooters together with society's worst criminals. Making things difficult for law-abiding gun owners does not stop the shootings on our streets and squares. Therefore, it is important to divide the weapons legislation so that it clearly distinguishes between legal and illegal weapons and gun owners.

Mr. Speaker! Just as has been mentioned in previous contributions, a large and broad majority in the Riksdag during the previous parliamentary term, including parties that are in opposition today, directed several motions to the government regarding the need for simplifications for law-abiding gun owners. It was a clear signal from a clear majority in this chamber.

In the Tidö Agreement, a new direction was established even in this area. The government's investigation, which has been discussed in exchanges of replies, is now in the implementation phase. The purpose is to simplify weapon handling for responsible hunters and sport shooters, even if one does not go quite as far as some of us have proposed in announcements. At the same time, the focus must be sharpened towards the criminals.

As has been mentioned earlier, the bill will be dealt with later in the spring. We are now completing a task that the previous government received requests to undertake but chose not to do because they lacked the will or the strength to carry out the work.

Mr. Speaker! As a consequence of the incident in Örebro, the Swedish Police Authority and the National Board of Health and Welfare have been tasked with developing proposals to better detect signals when a person is no longer suitable to possess weapons. A final report on the assignment will be presented this year, and it is a necessary and wise measure to prevent future tragedies.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the debate shows that there is a clear alternative in weapons policy. It is we who choose a path that safeguards security without hitting law-abiding people. The majority in the chamber that previously pointed out this direction remains. We Christian Democrats will continue to argue and act so that this becomes the direction, that is to say, tougher measures against serious crime in combination with reasonable and responsible rules for those who behave. This shall also apply to weapons possession.

I therefore move for approval of the committee's proposal for a decision and rejection of all motions.

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

Ulrika Liljeberg (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today we are debating motions within the area of weapons. We are discussing, among other things, hunters' and sport shooters' semi-automatic weapons, for example the AR-15, and it is rarely I have seen such inconsistent policy.

It is claimed that these semi-automatic weapons, AR-15s, are so dangerous and that there is such a great risk of them falling into the wrong hands that one wants to ban them, even though these legal weapons are not used by criminals at all. At the same time, Sweden's hunters are to be allowed to keep the nearly 7,000 AR15s they already have, even though they are claimed to be so dangerous and pose such great risks. And if the hunters still want to hand in their weapons, all other parties are prepared to give almost a quarter of a billion of our tax money to that.

Centerpartiet says no to that. We are the only party that is against a ban on semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15 for hunting. I will explain why, but I want to say a few other things first.

The deadly shootings have hit Sweden hard in recent years. The criminal gangs and organized crime have claimed lives and created insecurity. Individuals acting alone have committed mass murders on unknown victims, and the deadly violence continues on streets and squares but also in homes.

In line with several members, I would like to send a warm thought to those who were affected by the horrific act in Örebro a year ago. It is such crimes that have made the Center Party stand behind the historically large investments in the police and the rest of the justice system. We have been for stricter penalties and the introduction of new tools and methods – all to be able to combat this serious crime as well as give social services and municipalities an expanded crime prevention mandate.

We have, however, said no to the introduction of visitation zones and anonymous witnesses. The reason is that those tools are neither effective nor legally sound measures against organized crime. For the Center Party to say yes to a proposal within the legal area, the measures must, in fact, be effective, legally sound, and evidence-based. That is exactly the reason why we are now against the proposal to again ban hunting with semi-automatic weapons in the form of AR-15s based on their appearance and alleged risk.

The purpose stated for banning those weapons for hunting is the great risks associated with the weapon itself as well as the risk that they end up in the wrong hands: the hands of gangs and organized crime. These are relevant reasons – if they were true.

We have had semi-automatic weapons for hunting in Sweden since the 80s. We have had AR-15s during the period 2023–2025, and there are up to 7,000 AR-15s in our country. The question is: Do these legal weapons end up in the wrong hands? That is the expression in the report.

At the Justice Committee's meeting yesterday, I asked Police Commissioner Petra Lundh whether the weapons used or seized from the criminals are legal or illegal weapons. I received the answer that they are only illegal weapons. This proposal therefore does not solve the problem with the gangs' weapons.

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. Members have also, here in the speaker's chair, highlighted the strength it represents for a country in terms of defense to be able to have this hunting corps.

However, we need to have continued secure licensing, which others have also highlighted.

It is however only the Center Party that does not think we should take almost a quarter of a billion of our common tax money and a lot of hours of the police's time to get rid of a weapon that is not used in the fatal shootings.

I have said it before: I think this is poster politics at the highest level. I move for approval of reservation number 3.

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! We are here today to debate weapons issues. But this year, simplified preparation applies, which means that most of these questions are of little consequence. That is also my entry point into the issue today.

We have three reservations. One concerns the suitability assessment regarding weapon licenses. There, we see that a more coordinated system would be needed, so that it is possible to flag also for future parts. For example, there is no prohibition against lying to one's doctor if one were to be asked about something that might need to be caught, for example, mental instability that would not be suitable regarding weapon possession in the future.

We also have a reservation regarding the suitability of firearms for hunting, which I will return to. And we have a reservation on the weapons amnesty, which the Left Party (V) explained creditably and which we stand behind.

For the sake of time, I will move for approval only to reservation 1.

Mr. Speaker! I am a hunter and a gun owner in Sweden, which is a country where, compared to other countries, there are very many hunters and very many gun owners. We have a traditional folk hunting, which does not exist in many other countries, and we have an allemansrätt, which gives the public access to almost all nature in our country.

In Sweden, we have a high acceptance of hunting. It also stands out compared to other countries. And we have a high level of trust in our hunting corps. But trust can be destroyed quite quickly.

In 2023, the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency changed its regulations and made it possible to obtain a license for semi-automatic weapons with a military appearance. They felt that it was too difficult to determine what constituted a military appearance or not. There was an immediate surge in license applications, particularly for weapons that have been part of the debate, such as the AR-15 or those with larger calibers like the AR-10, but also others.

The weapons really look military. That made me notice the issue and I also received the question: "Should the hunters have them? That is not what we want to encounter in the forest." It became a small debate. I was asked by the media to comment. But often nothing happened, because no one on the other side of politics wanted to stand up for those weapons. Then there was no one to debate with. Finally, Svenska Dagbladet wrote an article where I and a representative for Sverigedemokraterna spoke about the weapon from different perspectives. Last year I also wrote a motion, which was taken up last year, about reintroducing the ban. The issue simmered.

Then the terrible act happened in Örebro, almost exactly one year ago. The issue gained momentum, even though it was not such a weapon that was used. But one sees that school shooters, lone wolves who commit acts of violence, have a preference for precisely these weapons. The AR-15 is by far the most common weapon in school shootings. It was used in Christchurch in New Zealand. The MAGA movement has also proposed that it should become the national weapon in the USA. It has a symbolic value.

It is not more dangerous than other weapons, except that it can be reloaded quickly. If one inserts a larger magazine, one can fire many shots at once. But if one is going to hunt with it, it is not more dangerous than anything else. But it has a symbolic value and an appearance that I and my party consider that we should not promote and not have out in society.

It is perfectly okay that it exists in the sport shooting world. There, there are competitions, organized forms, and other licensing procedures. But it has nothing to do with the forest. If you are out picking mushrooms or are out with your dog and encounter a hunter, you should not have to be afraid but be able to ask: In which direction should I go? The hunter should be holding a broken weapon. But if someone comes with a weapon that looks like something from a video game, I think that the vast majority will reflexively become afraid or feel uneasy.

It in turn smears the hunting corps, I believe, and we may not get that trust. It will lead to a different view on who should have weapons and who should not. Already here one sees the contradictions regarding what these weapons achieve.

For my part, it is obvious that such a weapon belongs on a shooting range or among those who have those needs, but not in the hunting corps. Therefore, we want to ensure that the ban is established. I thought, in my simplicity, that we would have already banned it after last year, when all parties except Centerpartiet agreed that it should be banned. Now we realize that there will be another debate before it comes to pass. And the weapons that are already in use and that should be redeemed are apparently to remain out in society. I am not so afraid that they will end up in criminal circles, but the 7,000 licenses that are out and the weapons that are out in the woods and fields, I believe can tarnish the hunting corps and reduce the public's trust in weapon owners.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again move for the approval of both reservation 1 and reservation 2.

(Applause)

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! Now I have had the opportunity to pose my question to Emma Nohrén.

First and foremost, I would like to ask a perhaps more decisive question given the work that lies ahead of us. Does Emma Nohrén think it is the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency that should decide which hunting weapons we should approve and use here in Sweden, or does the member want the task of deciding which weapons are suitable for hunting to be transferred to the police? Today, we have the arrangement that the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency produces lists of the weapons that are approved. Does the member want to change this, or is that arrangement good?

Next question: How does the member view that some people with disabilities actually need these weapons and plead for them to be allowed to remain in these contexts? How does the member view that? Should they stop hunting because they are perceived as dangerous when they go out into the forest and are going to hunt with these weapons?

Then we have the third question. Just as I said, these weapons are used. In Finland, for example, the person who has a license for a shooting weapon is automatically allowed to use it for hunting as well. In Sweden, we have divided it into shooting weapons and hunting weapons. In Finland, it is automatic. There, it is known that the person who has a permit for a weapon is approved for it and is allowed to use it for what is functionally possible.

This is getting a bit strange. Mushroom pickers, as Emma Nohrén spoke about here, are afraid of these weapons in Swedish forests. Are not Finland's and the rest of Europe's mushroom pickers equally afraid of these weapons out in their forests? Are just Swedish mushroom pickers extremely afraid of these weapons?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the questions! I believe I have covered all three.

Yes, we probably still think that Naturvårdsverket should have that task, but they are to follow the laws and regulations that exist. So, there should not be any difference if the task were transferred to the police, but it would be the same regulations and the same legal basis that one would use. When laws, rules, and regulations are drafted, one often has referral rounds and consults with the expert agencies that are involved in this. As it is now, I think it is a good arrangement, but there should not be any change if it were the police that had the task. They would have the same background to take a position on.

When it comes to hunters with disabilities, there are already certain adaptations that one sometimes has to make regarding motor vehicles and other things. There might perhaps be a possibility for certain special permits for weapons. But I cannot see that this should be a reason to grant a general permit – that, given that group, it should become accessible to everyone. There could potentially be a possibility to get an exception regarding certain parts. One also has specially adapted stocks, supports, and other things, if I remember correctly.

Are Sweden's mushroom pickers more afraid? No, I don't think so. But I think we as a society have a responsibility to ensure that our citizens feel as safe as possible. I also think we have a responsibility when it comes to the symbolic value, as I see it, of these weapons; they have no place in society. We have a folk hunting that is quite similar to that in Finland, but in the rest of Europe it often looks different – one might not encounter the public in the same way when hunting. I see no reason for them to use this weapon either, but we can only govern Sweden. That is what I can comment on.

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

Sten Bergheden (M)

Mr. Speaker! I did not receive a completely clear answer to the question regarding the police or the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, but I still perceive it as Emma Nohrén thinking that it is better for the task to remain with the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. This is covered by the referral process that has taken place, and the police want to take on something that is called the valve in this context: to again be able to decide which weapons should be removed for various reasons. In that case, we have made a shift. It may become an interesting discussion ahead, and we will see where we land.

Regarding the second question, I actually do not think that Swedish mushroom pickers are more afraid than either Finnish or European ones. I understand that Emma Nohrén is trying to protect the mushroom pickers. I pick mushrooms myself and think it is nice. But I do not get scared when I encounter these hunters in the forest.

These weapons are used more for stalking. They are perhaps not used in contexts where one is out with many hunters at the same time, but it is more of a precision weapon to be able to hunt game and other things. Therefore, I do not believe there have been so many among the mushroom pickers out in nature. I have at least not heard that any mushroom picker has been afraid of it. But it is possible.

Then I come to the final question, and I want an answer to that. The Social Democrats have for a long time, since 2016 I believe, worked in Europe to ban semi-automatic weapons. Does the Green Party also stand behind that idea, to ban all semi-automatic weapons? We have had them in Sweden for over 40 years. Will they disappear if there is a change of government by continuing to remove the semi-automatic weapons from the country's hunters?

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

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the questions! This is an interesting discussion – I look forward to the report, when it arrives. I do not actually sit in this committee, so I am not as well-versed in the recent turns. It will be exciting.

Actually, it is not the mushroom pickers I am worried about, but I am actually worried about the hunting association's reputation and the high level of trust people have in them. If the hunters start to look like some paramilitary organization when they are out, I think it could reduce the trust for all hunting. That is what I see as the big issue.

There are other parts and other weapons available that do not have this appearance. The potential advantages that exist do not outweigh them. It has nothing to do with hunting; it is simply a matter of removing them from a hunting context.

When it comes to other semi-automatic weapons, we have, as the member himself says, had such weapons for 40–50 years. It was indeed one of those that was used in the school shooting in Örebro, but I see no reason why we should ban all semi-automatic weapons overnight. On the other hand, we should probably ensure that the weapons that are out are appropriate and intended for hunting purposes so that we do not start mixing up precision shooting and sport shooting with hunting shooting. We have hunting weapons that work for tracking hunters and others.

The chairman says that it is often lone wolves who use these weapons at poaching sites and such. I would say that most would probably become even more afraid if they saw a lone person with such a weapon standing completely silently by the roadside. That is probably not a good argument.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 11.)

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