The opponents of the revised firearms act in front of throw, Minister of justice, Karin Keller-Sutter , to spread untruths. A ” Yes ” over to a disarmament of the citizens, they say.

From the point of view of the Federal Council, the vote of 19. May order minor Changes in order to enable Switzerland to remain in the Association of the Schengen – and Dublin-States. The shooting tradition is preserved, – said Keller-Sutter recently in front of the media. “No one will disarm.”

The community of interest of Switzerland (IGS) Shooting contradicts: In the case of a ‘ Yes ‘ would “dramatically change a lot,” said IGS President Luca Filippini on the Monday before the media in Bern. It would be the end of the Shooting as a national sport.

From A to Z wrong

The Bernese SVP national councillor Werner Salzmann was “shocked” about the statements from Keller-Sutter. These are from A to Z is wrong, he said. Peter Lombriser, the Central President of the officer Association, noted that the talk about the compromise that got out of Switzerland, reportedly, was a fairy tale.

He considered the revised law as an “absolute disgrace”. The citizens of a country are only as free as the arms act, where you were, said Lombriser. “Every unjust regime has abolished first the right to the possession of weapons.”

exception permit needed

The bother to Protect that semi-automatic weapons would apply with a large magazine, as prohibited weapons. For the buy it need, therefore, a special permit instead of a weapons acquisition license. Protect, acquire such a weapon, would have to prove after five and ten years, that they protect a member of a club or regularly shoot.

if you already have such a weapon, she would have to report within three years of the cantonal weapons office, if it is not already listed in a cantonal weapons registers.

need proof unacceptable

In the case of a Yes 80 percent of the shooting sports used guns, prohibited weapons, the opponents criticize. That exception would be granted permits, change nothing: On something forbidden, there is no legal claim, therefore, the Amendment was serious. Unacceptable also the required need proof.

Tobias Dillier an officer in the Obwalden Canton, warned against bureaucracy. The new rules were held by the officers of the road district and exiles you to the office. Anyway, not legal, but illegal weapons are the Problem.

Possible further tightening

The shooter, but it is not only adopted, but also to possible future tightening. With the revised weapons law, Switzerland intends to implement the new weapons policy of the EU, and this should be reviewed every five years.

It was now clear what will result from this Review, say opponents, with Further tightening of the rules were foreseeable, including the total prohibition for semi-automatic weapons. Against such a change in the law could, however, be again taken to the Referendum.

non-Schengen at risk

the Federal Council is the implementation of the EU weapons Directive is especially important because in the case of a no, the end of the cooperation with the Schengen and Dublin States threatens. This would end – unless the EU Commission and all EU member States were to Switzerland within 90 days.

At the launch of the campaign, Federal councillor Karin Keller made it clear to Sutter that there is a price to pay, if the Adoption of the EU weapons Directive would exit fail at the ballot box: the automatic Schengen. This would cost Billions.

Clearly, the Federal Council was last November, when he wrote at the opening of the consultation process for the weapons regulation of an amount of eleven billion Swiss francs, to the detriment of the Swiss economy.

The Shooters are convinced that the Commission and the States of Switzerland. The EU is arguing is of no interest to a white spot in the Schengen area. That Switzerland would have to give up their Schengen membership, therefore, an empty threat.

terrorism is just an excuse?

The Protect reminded that the new EU weapons Directive had been justified by the fight against terrorism, after the terrorist attacks in France. These, however, were without a legally obtained weapons. The EU have brought either a little confused or but the terrorism is just a pretext to disarm private households, said Salzmann.

The Federal Council, in turn, Protect against the throw, to speak as a reaction to their work of enlightenment now, not more of the “fight against terrorism”, but of “abuse prevention”. The Federal Council have taken an argumentative turn, because he is afraid, apparently, that the voting public will vote in an informed no.

Finally, the opponents also General EU-critical arguments: If Switzerland is the EU arms right under throw, you’ll throw yourself elsewhere, said Salzmann. A connection to the framework agreement does not want to connect to the IGS in the referendum campaign, according to Filippini. (Dec/sda)

Created: 25.02.2019, 13:45 PM