The Swiss Parliament or the government will take of their own accord in the next few years hardly calls for a further tightening of the arms law. This is shown by the discussions in the run-up to the vote to the adaptation of the Swiss weapons law to the EU weapons Directive.
The last vote on a possible, in Switzerland triggered a tightening of the arms law, which Voters rejected in February 2011 with 56.3 percent. The Initiative “For protection against gun violence” group for a Switzerland without an army (GSoA) want to ban the assault rifle to the Armoury, and a Central weapons register.
Total disarmament?
risk for further restrictions places the opponent on Sunday clearly adopted revision of the law in Brussels. They rely on article 17 of the EU weapons Directive. In fact, it was an automatic, every five years, gripping the tightening mechanism, of course, on a full disarmament of private persons, but also ends warned SVP national councillor Sylvia Flückiger in the referendum campaign far and wide. Even more dramatic is the warning of the President of the IG Basel sport federations: at the Latest in 2027 will be implemented is an absolute, total prohibition for Private.
in fact, nothing of a disarmament or intensification of the weapons law is in this ominous article. It is only stated that the EU will have to refund Commission to the European Council and Parliament in the autumn of 2020 and every five years thereafter, report on the application of the Directive. If necessary, you can then make legislative proposals. According to Christa Tobler, Professor at the Europe Institute of the University of Basel, is a provision, as occurring in practically all the EU directives: “the content of a possible later Amendment to the article says nothing.”
“Extremely unlikely”
in Addition, Tobler considered a proposal for an outright ban as “extremely unlikely”, because of the hunting tradition in many EU member States: “Furthermore, a ban of private weapons is not the EU Constitution should be compliant, because it goes too far.” This is because the principle of proportionality would be violated. Andrea Schläpfer from the Institute for European and international economic law at the University of Bern, shares this opinion and adds: “A prohibition is not currently provided. It should come to a tightening would not be a Takeover by Switzerland automatically and would be again subject to optional Referendum.”
Should be recorded in the next few years, Europe, of a further wave of terror, it is possible that Brussels could respond with a further tightening of the arms law. This, although also in the present EU weapons Directive, the reservations in many European countries are so that attacks can be effectively combated. (Editorial Tamedia)
Created: 19.05.2019, 16:20 PM
