Proposition 51K2263

Projet de loi réglant des activités économiques et individuelles avec des armes.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Feb. 7, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive arms trade

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Robert Denis (MR) abstained from voting.
• Philippe Monfils (MR) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

May 18, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Our reporter is colleague Stijn Bex. This is a sui generis report. He made a verbal report but there was also a pressure test out. But first, I would like to give the floor, with pleasure, to Mrs. Martine Taelman. Just a moment, Mr Bex. The President has the word.

Mr. Speaker, I am intervening very briefly and only to — we have already done that this morning in the committee, colleagues, but I would like to repeat it again — to thank Ms. Deboutte and her services, the legal service and all the services of the Chamber who worked tremendously hard this night and this morning to get all the documents printed here on your banks, once again heartily thank you for the work they have done. thank you .

From experience, also following all aspects of this discussion, I fully understand, Mrs. What you said. I take advantage of the circumstances to compliment all the services of the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Mrs. Minister, when I was appointed as a reporter at the committee meeting on Wednesday last week while we were regulating the work on this legislation, I never dared to suspect that one week later I would already be here to report on our discussions. But it was clear to all members of the committee and also to all members of the Parliament that after the dramatic events that took place last Thursday in Antwerp, we had to provide very strict answers to the demand from society to quickly approve a new weapons law.

We have organized our work at an accelerated rate, thanks for this to President Martine Taelman. We held hearings on Tuesday, and we debated on Wednesday and this morning, in order to come here today to report.

Ms. Taelman pointed out during the discussions that it ⁇ does not mean that we have therefore conducted the discussions less thoroughly.

Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to report extensively on the discussions we had yesterday and today, but I would like to refer to the explanation that Mrs. Minister gave to the draft law. The Minister said that the Government Agreement of July 2003 already agreed that we would revise the legislation of 1933 with two objectives: first, the reduction of private possession of weapons and, second, bringing our Belgian legislation in line with the European Directive of 18 June 1991.

The amendments made to the legislation in 1991 were not sufficient. The next clashes remained. First, the number of categories of weapons included in the legislation was too large. The powers to grant all kinds of permits in these licenses were too fragmented, which led to a diffuse policy. There were numerous security risks due to the free sale of certain categories of weapons, due to the lack of traceability of some weapons and due to a too light regulation for the profession of arms dealer. That is why we have now proposed a number of changes, including, first, and this is important, the fact that every weapon is subject to licensing.

That’s why we have now proposed a number of changes that, first and foremost – which is very important – make any weapon licensed. A legitimate reason is required to acquire a weapon and any license is, by definition, temporary and must therefore be renewed. That does not mean that we are permanently providing for a smooth regime for hunters, sports shooters and collectors because these groups in the past have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not the ones that cause problems, that they can handle weapons in a responsible way.

There is a new classification of weapons into three clear categories, there is a concentration of the power to grant permits to the governor, the penalties for violation of this weapons law have also been increased, and an amnesty period has been provided for people who are not in line with the law.

Following this explanation by the Minister, the submissions of the various bills linked to this bill have been given the opportunity to explain their proposals.

Mr Monfils briefly stated, with reference to the explanation to his bill, that given the possibility of a rapid spread of weapons such as that which exists at present, more supervision is needed and that measures must also be taken to transpose the European directive to which I referred at the time.

Mr De Man referred to the bill he submitted together with his colleague Caslo to allow pepper spray to be used for self-defense in certain circumstances, specifically for traders and specific freelancers. He also referred to the explanation in his proposal.

Ms. Gerkens referred to the proposal she submitted together with Ms. Nagy to clearly regulate the uncertainty existing today around the spread of police weapons that are no longer useful for police services and to prevent those weapons from entering society.

I myself then gave an explanation to the bill I submitted together with my spirit colleagues Lambert, Muls, Roppe, Storms and T'Sijen, in which we also outlined — like the government's draft — a complete reform of the Arms Act, by which we want to counterbalance the tendency to take arms in the home in the function of self-defense, by which we want to strengthen the monopoly of violence of the government and that also included the broad lines of the draft that I described thereafter.

Mr. Speaker, in order to make it clear that we have acted quickly, but not half-workingly, I would like to briefly quote what people we heard at our hearing on Tuesday. These were Bart Horemans on behalf of Pax Christi, Mr. Jef Vermassen as lawyer, Mrs. Anne-Marie Moermans, who has experience in the production of luxury weapons as director of NV Verrees, Mr. Ilhan Berkol of the GRIP, Mr. Piet De Gryse, conservator of the Royal Army Museum, Mr. Philippe Kodeck, secretary general of the Fédération des associations belge de collectionneurs d'armes et de munitions, Mr. Jean-Marie Demaret, vice president of UNACT and Mr. Brees of the Royal Association of the Belgian Arms and Munitions Associations. By hearing these persons, we gained a good insight into the views taken by the various stakeholders regarding this draft law.

Mr. Speaker, I will not go too far into the general discussion we have had. I think that the colleagues will soon have a chance in their interventions to come back to elements which they believe should be repeated here today. In particular, I would like to focus on a number of important discussion points in the article-by-article discussion.

There are two elements that were discussed in the general discussion and which I would like to mention here. First, it is now regulated how to legally possess a weapon, but the question was asked whether the illegal weapons trafficking should not be addressed. The Minister responded that in the draft the criminal sanctions for illegal possession of weapons will be substantially tightened and that she will also work on an action plan to counter illegal possession of weapons, together with the College of Prosecutors General, which she will invite for consultation after the entry into force of this law.

Secondly, we also discussed in detail how we can ensure that an impulsive purchase, as we unfortunately knew last Thursday, would be made impossible as soon as possible. Some colleagues were asking party so that the government would quickly settle this through a KB. However, according to the explanations of the minister and the experts from the administration, the law does not allow this. Nevertheless, we have found a compromise in which we will bring the law into force as soon as possible, in particular on the day of its publication in the Official Gazette. I will return to this later, in the article-based discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. A first point I would like to point out was quoted yesterday by colleague Wathelet. He said that Article 9 speaks of the legitimate reasons for carrying a freely available weapon. Also in Article 11, § 3, 9 is the concept of legitimate grounds for the acquisition of a licensed weapon. Mr Wathelet feared that using the same terminology would create the impression that it was about the same content twice. This was extensively discussed. The Minister has made clear that Article 9 only covers transactions with freely available weapons, while Article 11 covers transactions with licensed weapons. The text of Article 9, the wording used there, is in fact already common today. This is the case and there is justice. This, therefore, cannot be confused in any way with the very clearly defined lawful reasons of Article 11, which are about something very different.

Mr. Monfils also had a proposal in Article 9 to introduce an additional category in the law, namely the declared weapons. It would be about hunting and sports weapons. Mr Monfils considers that a licensing requirement for the aforementioned weapons is not desirable. However, we have considered that it is important that all weapons in the future be licensed, precisely in order to permanently avoid incidents in which people in a flagship of philosophy can quickly purchase a weapon.

Also in the discussion of Article 11, which describes the legitimate reasons under which a weapon can be purchased, the question – which was raised, among other things, by Mr Wathelet – was raised as to what is the situation of persons who receive a weapon through an inheritance.

Mr Wathelet proposed, in this context, to make it more flexible to obtain a permit for those people who clearly do not intend to use the weapon as a firearm. He proposed exempting them from submitting a medical certificate and passing the practical test set out in the article.

The committee’s argument was that the aforementioned proposal was not desirable. It would open the door to abuse. However, we have clearly discussed the possibilities for someone who would in the future acquire a weapon through an inheritance.

Under Article 17, paragraph 2, the aforementioned person is given the possibility to apply for a permit. He will also have enough time for it. If he applies for the permit within three months, he may, upon obtaining the permit, keep the weapon intact.

If the person concerned does not respond to the legitimate reasons, he has a number of options. He can sell the weapon to an authorized arms dealer. They can also neutralize the weapon. In this case, according to some colleagues, the weapon could lose too much value. For those who want to keep track of their weapons, but find it, even financially, has too much value for them to have it neutralized, there is the possibility to place the weapon in custody with the authorized arms dealers.

Therefore, sufficient solutions were offered to address the problem of inheritance.

During the discussion on the granting of the permits, Mr. Laeremans raised questions regarding the time limit set in Article 11 for the chief of the corps to give an opinion. The term is three months. Mr. Laeremans wondered what would happen if the chief of the corps did not proceed to give advice within three months. The Minister replied that the deadline is clearly a deadline of order. There can therefore be no presumption of consent if the chief of the corps would not give the advice. The Governor may extend the period within which the Corps Chief can give advice. This must be done in a motivated manner.

Later came the question of what to do if a person applies for a permit, but the governor hesitates too long to make a decision. The Minister referred to the case-law of the Council of State, where there is always the possibility of dismissing the governor. If he does not respond, this is a refusal decision that can be appealed before the Council of State. For all clarity, it was stated that the governor must also justify a positive decision.

Ms. Van der Auwera submitted a number of elements in order to make the procedure for obtaining an authorisation contradictory, but it was answered that there is in any case an obligation to hear the person concerned in the procedure and that therefore no additional safeguards should be provided in this regard.

Colleagues, I would also like to briefly address the discussion concerning the definition of the legitimate grounds, contained in Article 11 § 3, 9°. Among others, colleague Laeremans, colleague Gerkens and myself have asked questions about the scope of the six concrete conditions under which one can speak of a legitimate reason. More specifically, there were doubts whether the first two reasons, hunting and fauna management activities and sports and recreational shooting, should be included. After all, Article 12 gives people who hold a hunting or sports shooter license the opportunity to purchase a weapon in a simpler way. The question was whether the points a and b, to which I referred, are still included in the law.

The Minister replied that these elements remain in place, since at the moment not all Communities have a decree concerning the authorisation of sports shooters and recreational shooters. Until such a decree is issued, that provision may, however, provide a legitimate reason for sports shooters and recreational shooters to purchase a weapon and related ammunition. The Minister has said that the provisions on hunting and fauna management activities and sports and recreational shooting should be seen as the transition to community and regional decrees in question.

Ms. Gerkens also asked for explanation as to what exactly is meant by the term "personal defence" under denominator d. The Minister responded that there is a ban on the use of firearms, unless there is a legitimate reason to do so, listed under point 9. The term "exercise of a profession involving special risks" may include, inter alia, the following professions: bodyguards, accompanyers of money transport and jewellery. The Minister stressed that from now on, persons who claim that they need a firearm for their personal defense, because they are subject to an objective and high risk, must also effectively demonstrate that possession of a firearm that greatly reduces the high risk and can protect them.

Previously, this condition did not exist. The different police zones interpreted the concept of “personal protection” each in their own way. The bill eliminates this uncertainty. It provides a clear definition that will be further supplemented by a ministerial circular letter.

On the sidelines of that discussion, Mr. Laeremans also asked the Minister how much it would cost to apply for a gun permit in accordance with the procedure in Article 11. The Minister responded that the maximum amount that may be imposed by the municipalities is 25 euros. On Article 29, several colleagues commented on the fact that, according to their reading of the article, preventive checks would be possible without the authorization of the investigation judge. The Minister pointed out that in the opinion of the State Council no comments were made on this article. The first two articles relate to judicial investigations. The last two members are about administrative investigations. Therefore, it is about completely different things. In the context of a judicial investigation, it is always true that a house search in a private home can only be done with the permission of the investigation judge, just as all other rights of the defence must be guaranteed.

The inviolability of the private home in the context of an administrative investigation is also exempted by the explicit mention thereof in the article, also with respect to authorised persons who hold weapons in their private home.

Preventive controls in a private home are therefore subject to restrictions. The resident must give his permission.

In order to clearly demonstrate the distinction between judicial and administrative investigation in the article, we have adopted an amendment, according to which the provision will be classified more logically and including the first two paragraphs in paragraph 1 and the last two paragraphs in paragraph 2. This should eliminate the uncertainty.

With regard to Article 32, which deals with the renewal of permits, we have taken into account a number of suggestions made during the hearing. In the future, when renewing a permit, a medical certificate will need to be submitted again. It will also need to prove that the legitimate reason that originally existed to apply for a permit is still valid.

In the discussion of Article 37, we also adopted a suggestion from the hearings. We have accepted an amendment by Mr. Van der Maelen, which aims to provide in the Advisory Board a representative in Dutch and French language of independent associations or organizations that demonstrate actual experience in the management and prevention of the problems arising from the possession and use of light weapons. We have included that, because in this way not only representatives of people who are hobbyistically or professionally engaged in weapons will sit in this advisory board, but also people who are very aware of the risks of the spread of those weapons will be able to give their voice.

Before concluding, I would like to briefly refer to the transitional measures provided for in the draft law. Article 42, paragraph 2, provides that for weapons which in the future become licensed by the new law, a declaration could be obtained within six months in a simplified manner. Collega Van der Maelen has cited that since the publication of this bill there may be a certain suspicious period within which an increase in the sales of the non-licensing weapons could be established. This increase in sales was confirmed by the Minister. Mr Van der Maelen wanted additional guarantees that the persons would be adequately controlled. During the discussion there was a balance of for and against. In the end, the result was the following. If the licensed weapon was acquired after 1 January 2006, the license is granted only temporarily for the duration of one year, after which one must re-enter the procedure and apply for a license under the strict conditions prescribed by the law.

I would like to add another element to the framework of the report. In Article 47 governing the entry into force of this law, the legislator has decided to make a maximum number of articles, in the present case those which are not subject to the announcement of implementing decisions by the government, immediately, on the date of publication in the Belgian Staatsblad, into force. This means that from the day of publication it will no longer be possible to make an impulsive purchase solely on displaying the identity card. Given the discussion I have just outlined, and in which it turned out impossible to settle this through a royal decree, this is indeed the fastest way we could deal with the sucking.

So far, my report. If you agree, I will immediately give my personal comment on this bill.

Go ahead, Mr Bex.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, I stand on this floor with a double feeling. On the one hand, I am very pleased that there is finally a stricter gun law. My party spirit has been pulling the car here for years.

When I submitted our bill, I and colleague Lambert walked into a weapons store a little further here, near the Parliament. We then demonstrated that we could buy a hunting weapon only by showing our identity card and Visa Card. The gun dealer even said that we got the bullets for free because — he said — to be able to drive a car, there must also be gasoline in it. We received the bullets for free. Some have interpreted it then as a cheap advertising stunt. I think the events of last week have sadly demonstrated that this was all but a cheap publicity stunt, but that we have already placed our finger on the wound and made very clear what is wrong with the legislation.

That is why I stand here with a double feeling because I deeply regret that today we must also remember the victims of the shooting last week in Antwerp. I regret that these victims have been needed to make other parties realize that weapons are very dangerous and that we urgently need to change something in that regulation. It is a good thing that this file finally comes into a current acceleration. Spirit has been saying for years that weapons do not belong in the living room, in families. State Secretary Els Van Weert, as a member of the Chamber six years ago, already put the arms file on the agenda and made numerous proposals to ban weapons from households. This, however, was not taken to her thanks by other political parties and by gun lovers. Several parties ran on the basis of the arms lobby and did not have the courage to defend the public interest, with the consequence that the bill failed in the previous legislature.

As spirit chairman, Els Van Weert stated in the negotiations of the government agreement that there should be a stricter gun law. She was threatened by weapons freaks.

Colleagues, the weapons law discussed here today is largely in line with the draft law for a stricter weapons law submitted by spirit colleagues and myself. The strength lines are the following. The categories of weapons are classified again and in a simpler way. There will be a stricter policy on weapons ownership and weapons carriage. The profession of arms dealer is stricter regulated and the traceability of the weapons is guaranteed at the top.

Prosecutor Jef Vermassen has in his book "Murderers and their Motives", and also this week in this Parliament demonstrated with conviction that several murderers subsequently declare that they would ⁇ not have committed that murder if there had been no weapon nearby.

I am not talking about accidents. Several studies have shown that when a frightened home father gets a gun in the house to protect his family from, for example, thieves, there is a greater chance that he or someone in his family becomes the victim of this and not the potential thief. Weapons simply do not belong to a family.

That a weapon can be used in an act of despair is too clear. However, there are also numerous examples of regrettable accidents in families with a gun. I will give one. A couple of years ago in France, a father struck his daughter when she wanted to get a cup of yogurt out of the refrigerator at night. The father thought there was a thief and pulled the weapon out of his nightclub.

Colleagues, today a new weapons law is a great relief for spirit. Buying a weapon without having a prior license will become impossible. This is an important step, but we are not there yet. Spirit will also remain very attentive in the implementation of this law. There are still some technical implementations needed. These should not become backdoors to remove the law.

For example, in a circular it will still have to be described how those legal grounds in Article 11, which one must meet in order to be able to apply for a permit, must be correctly defined. This should be interpreted very strictly. We will be vigilant, but we also have confidence in you, Mrs. Minister, that the weapons lobby and some friendly politicians will not abuse these possibilities to remove this law. Their

Mrs. Minister, I have already referred to the memorandum of explanation and to the comment you gave in the committee. That reassures us that you intend to further shape this in a sufficiently rigorous manner. Their

Colleagues, I heard people from the weapons lobby this week, and not only this week, and in the past, everywhere declaring that a stricter weapons law is nonsense, because that it opens the gate for illegal weapons use. I do not agree with this. We must, of course, have a strict law that regulates the legal possession of weapons in order to then be able to take strict action against the violators of that weapons law. So it’s not a story of whether a strict weapons law or weapons on the black market. No, there is a need for a strict gun law and a need for a strict control of the black market. Their

Mrs. Minister of Justice, you already stated this week that you really want to make the fight against weapons on the black market a priority. There will be consultations with the College of Attorneys General to address this issue. We really hope that this will succeed, that the illegal weapons circuit will be tackled hard. That improved traceability, which is inscribed in this law, is already a step in the right direction. Their

Another important aspect is the collection of weapons. Spirit has been asking for this for years. The city of Leuven has already successfully done this on a small scale in the past. A similar operation took place in the province of Eastern Flanders a few weeks ago. Almost 5,000 weapons were successfully handed over by private owners or brought into order with existing regulations. These actions were accompanied by a large awareness-raising campaign in which people were alerted to the dangers of arms possession. Their

Mrs. Minister, we also hope that the entry into force of this law will be accompanied by a large-scale campaign to encourage gun owners to surrender their weapons. We must organize a large awareness campaign with sufficient agility and we must encourage people across the country to deliver their weapons effectively. Their

Let’s be clear, we don’t want anyone who is currently in possession of a weapon to point the finger. We only want to alert them to the dangers and give them the opportunity to legally give up their weapons. A firearm simply does not belong in a family home. Their

Colleagues, I would also like to point out that with this legislation we absolutely do not intend to criminalize hunters, sports shooters or to take away or complicate their hobbies. Hunters and sports shooters are often in order with the regulations when exercising their hobby. They have already passed severe tests. There are cowboys who abuse current regulations. They need to be removed and the new legislation is a guarantee for that. However, we are truly convinced that those gun lovers, those hobbyists, those hunters, those sports shooters will benefit from strict legislation.

Ladies and gentlemen, I go around. The law that will be passed today is a milestone for spirit. We have been asking for this attention for years, and that against different parties. I refer to the Flemish Interest, I also refer to some members of CD&V and VLD, who in the past have constantly defended the armed culture, who make proposals to be able to defend not only your family and yourself, but also your possessions, armed. Filip Dewinter has recently made another call to give people the opportunity to shoot into thieves. But it must be clear: if you encourage people to bring a weapon home, you only create insecurity; you do not create security with it. Providing armed solutions only makes society more dangerous.

So to the Flemish Interest I say: you are wrong. You may be allowed to use the word “security” as a slogan and make suggestions to shoot back armed, but the facts of the last few days have mistaken you. The mirror presented to you now must make you realize that your so-called solutions only lead to more problems and less security.

I would like to conclude with a positive call. Approve this law well. Demonstrate to society that politics can provide powerful solutions to problems. I am 100% convinced that a stricter gun law is good for everyone.

As you spoke on behalf of your group, the general discussion has already begun.

The following members shall speak before the general discussion: M. Wathelet, Mrs. Van der Auwera, M. Monfils, Mr Annemans, Mrs Lambert, Mr Marinower, Mrs Gerkens, Mr De Groote.

Any initiative aimed at improving gun control, increasing the guarantees of good use and reducing the risks of accidents can only be welcomed. In addition, Belgium must ensure that its national law is in line with the European Directive 91/477 of 18 June 1991 and with the new UN Protocol on the Trafficking in Weapons. by

We all remember the tragic events of last week in Antwerp. Like many, I wondered how it was still possible today to enter an armoury, to choose a firearm and to be able to take it without the slightest formality, without the slightest preventive control, without the slightest verification. Such a situation, yet permitted by our law, is unacceptable and requires a proportionate, concerted and prompt response. by

The project that was submitted to us this week pursued a triple goal: to end the free sale of firearms, to stricter control of the market and to significantly reduce the number of weapons in circulation. The CDH obviously agrees with the philosophy of this project because it is part of the continuity of its objectives, the list of which is drawn up in its summary. The project aims to limit the number of weapons, whether they are in possession or in circulation, and the number of accidents they generate. by

Certainly, this project alone would not allow to fight against large crime, against large arms trafficking, against the parallel trafficking that exists today. Therefore, we also look forward to the initiatives announced by the Minister in order to significantly reduce the number of firearms held by criminal circles and acquired through parallel trafficking. This project will also not prevent all blood crimes, but if it can save one life, one life, it will have already partially achieved its goal, which is positive.

We will vote on this project. We found it important not only to stop the free sale of firearms, but also to stricter control of the weapons market and to significantly reduce the number of weapons in circulation. Although imperfect on some points — I will return to it later — it fulfils some of its goals in a logical way. The possession of a weapon will be subject to a permit. In order to obtain it, conditions must be met. From now on, a hunting license will be required to obtain a hunting weapon. The purchase of a sports gun presupposes that its holder is the holder of a sports shooter license. by

Outside these hypotheses, permission for detention may be granted only under certain strict conditions, as set forth in Article 11.

All firearms will be or will be – we hope that will be – registered in the Central Register of Weapons. They may no longer be sold or transferred except to persons authorized or with an authorization.

These are goals aimed at securing the weapons market, which we also firmly support. We hope that these goals will be achieved.

However, if it actually shows progress, the text could raise certain practical problems for the different categories of people covered by the project and could thus give rise to discomforts sometimes disproportionate in view of the general philosophy of the text.

Thus, there are persons whose legitimate reason for the possession of the weapon is only the possession as such: historical weapon, collection weapon, weapon received in inheritance or representing an important patrimonial property. It would have been, in our opinion, preferable to allow them to hold it as a collective weapon, without allowing them to acquire or hold the related ammunition.

This possession of weapons is forbidden to them by this text, because they do not have a hunting license or a sports shooter license. For us, it was therefore appropriate to exempt those persons from the obligation to provide proof of their aptitude to handle a weapon — a criterion of Article 11 —, while the other conditions for obtaining the authorisation are, of course, ⁇ ined.

At least, for example, a person who inherited a rifle or acquired a weapon of significant patrimonial value, without having the will to use it, would have been exempted from providing the proof – points 7 and 8 of the project – of being able to manipulate that weapon for the shooting. We regret not being able to reach consensus on this issue in the committee. We believe that this proportionate approach to the problem would have enabled all holders of a weapon to return to the legal regime and effectively subject the possession of a weapon to an authorization. This would have effectively responded to the common security concern that we all seek.

On the contrary, the work in committee allowed some improvements to the original text. I am ⁇ pleased that the committee has unanimously adopted our amendment to appeal to the Minister of Justice in the absence of a decision by the Governor within four months. Indeed, such an appeal in any case before the Minister of Justice guarantees to any applicant an additional degree of jurisdiction and a quick and efficient procedure: before the Minister, the deadlines are provided while an appeal to the Council of State can be subject to a much longer deadline.

Once this text has been drafted, Mrs. Minister, it will be up to you to implement it and, given the number of initiatives that this text entrusts you, the work is important. The number of references to the elaboration of royal decrees, present in the text, is enormous. If I am not mistaken, there are twenty-nine.

A number of initiatives, clarifications and improvements will be needed; you will have to refine this text through your royal decrees. Therefore, once again, you have an important responsibility: you will have to make sure that this project is a success and that it achieves the objectives we set for it today.

I do not hide my concern about the means that need to be implemented to ensure the effectiveness of this text. We truly hope that budgets will be available, in particular, to ensure the proper functioning of the central register of weapons. The governor’s services will have to issue all the approvals, permits and permits. Finally, all statements of persons who have acquired weapons, which are currently on free sale but which will be subject to authorization tomorrow, will have to be registered under acceptable conditions. Furthermore, the deadlines during which all persons who possess weapons for free sale will be able to declare them are quite limited. This will have to be done very quickly. But we hope that this will not be done in the rush and that people who need to register a weapon will receive an optimal welcome, so that they are not discouraged from entering this new system of reporting, which aims at better traceability and regulation of the weapons market.

By supporting this text today, Mrs. Minister, we set a meeting with you in a few months, in order to proceed quickly to a first assessment of the effectiveness of the consequences of this law. Per ⁇ we will have to go back on a number of points. We will see if the objectives have been achieved by the budget component and by the various royal decrees that will have to be taken. Only proportionate legislation and only the necessary means will enable us to ⁇ the goals we set ourselves today. We will ⁇ have the opportunity to go back on this and discuss it with you, or your successor. Do not see anything special in this allusion; today, everything is a matter of time!

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, we have always been in favor of a stricter weapons law, just like everyone else. In the past, however, this was not always clear. We remember the past years. The issue of stricter arms legislation has been on the table for several years. However, thanks, among other things, to the PS, there was never really progress.

It is very unfortunate that, due to the tragic events of the past week, the processing of the weapons legislation has finally come to an acceleration. It may be a good thing, but I think such things could have been prevented in the past.

The objectives of the stricter weapons law are to ⁇ transparency of the weapons market, including through a centralization of the permits to the governor. There will also be stricter recognition for arms dealers. We also want to come to a uniformity and thus also to a limitation of private weapons possession.

How does the legislature want to limit private weapons ownership? Weapons for hunting and weapons for sports shooters are also licensed. Anyone who is currently in possession of a licensed weapon will need to obtain a new license after the entry into force of the law. People who are currently in possession of a non-licensing weapon will also need to obtain a permit after the law comes into force.

Mrs. Minister, you mentioned it yourself in your presentation after the general discussion: there will still be a lot of technical implementing decisions needed. Transmission letters will be required to know how permits should be applied for and granted. You literally declare at that point: "Al ⁇ implementing decisions will be necessary in this regard, in particular for the recognition of the arms dealer or on the traceability of the weapons, it will be necessary to ensure that the entry into force of the provisions contained in this draft law does not depend on all those decisions."

You mentioned the core of the whole problem yesterday morning. This is the entry into force of the Arms Act.

The intention must be that in the future it will no longer be possible for anyone to enter a weapons store, buy a weapon there, go home with it and carry a massacre along the way. You declare that this will no longer be possible in the future, as the arms in question may now also become licensed. At the moment, such a weapon can be easily obtained by showing an identity card.

If you ensure that the law can enter into force within a few weeks, we could reconcile with the fact that no transitional measures will be established. However, Mrs. Minister, you said yourself: “We will have to take care of ...”. That is not enough for us. From tomorrow, or preferably as soon as possible, the above situations should be avoided. We have therefore suggested you to modify the Royal Decree of 1991 to the extent that a hunting or sports weapon can no longer be obtained by simply showing the identity card. A sort of morality study would then be necessary. Among other things, the legal history of the person who wishes to obtain a weapon should be examined. It should also be examined in which environments the candidate resides, what his sympathies are and so on.

Such research can easily take several weeks in such a way that emotional purchases are no longer possible. You say that there are legal arguments for not implementing these changes and that there is a need for advice from the State Council, which would not actually accelerate things. Mr. Minister, we believe that for such a KB, in the short term, an opinion of the State Council can be obtained. In the whole societal context, where security is a priority for all parties, there would be few people who would step into the Council of State to challenge that KB to expand. We think this is still a very meaningful option, Mrs. Minister, in anticipation of the entry into force of this weapons law.

All in all, we will make sure — I hear that also from members of the other groups — that that entry into force will come soon. In the future, what happened last week should not happen again.

I heard Rapporteur Bex in his presentation and his report also say that you intended to address this by introducing a sort of retroactive measure that actually consists in providing that anyone who has purchased a weapon during this year, a weapon currently non-licensing, will have a three-month period after the entry into force to report it to the Governor and obtain a license. It will be in three months, Mrs. Minister. The deadline was eventually adjusted. You can then report to the governor to say that you have a gun in the house. This could prevent something.

I think we should have little illusions. If someone has bad intentions with a weapon he has soon purchased, he will ⁇ not spontaneously report it to the governor. He will also not apply for permission. You argue that there are sufficient elements from the police services and from the weapons register to be able to track those people. The reports of the Committee P on this subject are very clear, the weapons register is not functioning. It is like a seed. So I think this involves few guarantees to immediately prevent such dramas from happening.

The key in this whole debate, Mr. Minister, is the entry into force of this law. We will see in the coming months that this will happen quickly, that the law will be promptly published and will enter into force on the date of its publication.

This law is not only about the purchase of weapons but also has a lot to do with the arms trade and the export of weapons. I think that in the future there will probably be a repair legislation. Alleszins, what is now aimed at, making the weapons market transparent, knowing where the weapons are and issuing licenses, can happen in this way. Mrs. Minister, we will ensure that you have not purely tried to extinguish a single fire and have played on the — rightly — public opinion but that this is also effectively done by the entry into force of this weapons law.

First of all, I would like to congratulate Mr. President. Bex for his report. He obviously committed a forgivable and positive speed excess since the work was completed last night and he presents us today with an extremely comprehensive analytical report. Obviously, I do not necessarily agree with his opinion on the second part of his speech in which he explains his position regarding this bill. by

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, there are times when the parliamentary procedure leading to the adoption of a bill must be somewhat shaken. I believe that the noise of the street does not stop at the walls of this House and that, therefore, it is normal that we take into account not only the social problem posed by the possession of weapons but also the demand of citizens to react by law, quickly, to the recent drama. This is what led me to ask, a few days ago, that, very soon, a law be passed that remedies the current deficiencies of the legislation. This is what we are dealing with today and we welcome it.

But this fundamental debate should not hide the reflection on the true author of the drama, namely the criminal. The gun killed, but it was still the criminal who pushed the gun. And it is hard to see that at present, everything is focused on our work, completely forgetting the crapule who committed this act and ⁇ also the motivations and connections of this individual with the xenophobic and racist currents that our country knows. I know that this is the matter of justice but it is still important to recall it from the top of this tribune.

The culprit is not the rifle or the armorist, it is the monster who had premeditated his act and who has found the way to accomplish it. It is also likely that if the weapon had not been sold to him, he would have found other solutions in the parallel market.

Nor would I like to take advantage of this dramatic situation to make all gunholders criminals. Hunters, sports competitors, collectors, possessors of weapons by inheritance, all these people are, like all social categories, worthy of attention and cases of disappearance are obviously not frequent. If I say this, it is simply because we might have the impression that a widespread suspicion is transmitting through this bill. Certainly, no one is questioning the concern of going beyond the current law and of preventing one from entering an armor shop and buying, without the slightest control, a devastating weapon. But the question is whether, and this is what has occupied us, if we should take measures such that they create unreasonably enormous difficulties for many weapons owners. Unless, of course, and this is the impression I have after attending the debates, that some have used the opportunity to try to drastically reduce the possession of weapons by individuals.

I would naturally be among the first to consider this solution if I had the certainty that reducing or eliminating the possession of weapons would lead to a parallel reduction in crime. Unfortunately, this is not the case, and everyone knows that the illegal arms market carries far more risks of aggression than that of the sale of arms to individuals. by Mr. Melchior Wathelet spoke about it a moment ago.

Asked whether the minister was considering fighting against the parallel weapons market, she merely answered that in the bill the sanctions against illegal weapons had been increased. Therefore, he did not answer the question raised. The problem is not how many days of imprisonment or a fine of euros risks a crime found in possession of a kalachnikov. He is not sure that he will be in prison. Rather, it is about dismantling the chains that feed this parallel market. On this point, we have not obtained, so to speak, any precise answer to the question which, however, concerns a large number of citizens because it is this parallel market that provides the great crime.

While the proposed law strictly regulates the possession of weapons by individuals, it is obviously not the single and definitive solution to all crime problems. In any case, it should not be believed by the public. The law that will be voted may reduce crime – in any case, I wish it – but it will not solve the whole problem.

The proposal that is being voted is not new. It dates from several years, although it has experienced some changes compared to the original project. I have no intention, unlike some of my colleagues in the House – isn’t it, Mrs. Gerkens – to go back on the history of the project, except to remind that it has been discussed for ten months in the Senate. It was extremely bad; I must acknowledge that Ms. Onkelinx’s project is better. He was misdirected. We will not return to this point. It is still that he failed. It was rejected in plenary session because parliamentarians did not very well understand what was going on! So bad for them!

Since then, in other words for three years, Mrs. Gerkens, nothing has happened! You should know that it is not the parliamentarians who have blocked the filing of a bill in parliament. Nor were they the ones who blocked the bill on which the State Council issued a second opinion in July. by

I do not want to judge anyone here. But it would also not be necessary that one "comes to break my feet" with ancient history, otherwise one could recall all that happened, the way it happened and the path of this project to this day. by

For my part, I am not interested in the past; I am more interested in the essence of the problem. I am not concerned with the procedure, but with the content of the bill. by

Mr. Minister, as we observed yesterday on the occasion of the hasty examination – this is not a criticism since it was so decided – points remain obscure, problems of interpretation arise; there are even uncertainties as to the future content of large royal decrees and implementation. Fifty articles were reviewed in more or less 4 hours. by

That is why I had proposed, at the beginning of the week, an operation in two times. First, voting a law to respond to the legitimate anxiety of the population, this has caused me a lot of problems with the professionals of the thing. Then, after a few months of operation and on the basis of the opinion of the Advisory Council established by this law, a more serene reflection, after the municipal elections, at the end of the year, on the elements that pose problem in order to reach a consensus on the whole problem of weapons. by

This was not admitted. We were content with a quick review and a bright vote in Parliament.

As the Minister refused to carry out a further review of the text, amendments had to be submitted. That is what I did. by

The basis of my reflection focused on the situation of the categories of citizens essentially holding hunting and sports weapons. by

The bill imposes for them a fairly binding authorisation system that, under certain circumstances and after certain periods, will lead the holder of a weapon to either abandon it or make it completely unfit for fire, reducing its value to nothing. I am speaking here in particular of weapons richly decorated and ciseled by engraving craftsmen who are still exercising their art in our country and especially, why not say so, in the Walloon Region and, in particular, in the Liege region.

Since there is obviously no question of keeping hunting and sports weapons for free sale – no one defends this view – I have proposed a reporting system with the presentation of a certificate of good life and morals, which allows a waiting period that can be exploited by the police to make a judgment on the personality of the buyer, heir or collector.

The declaration procedure is not a foul initiative. It comes in the right line of the system promoted by the European Directive of 1991 on weapons which provided for a particular category of weapons subject to declaration. Unfortunately, this solution was not accepted and the generalized authorisation procedure was ⁇ ined, which I regret.

No major amendment was accepted in the committee except for one. And it is precisely the amendment that further reinforces the suspicion thrown on all gunholders by establishing a less favourable derogatory regime for those who would have purchased a weapon between January 1, 2006 and the entry into force of the new law. by

Finally, as you will ⁇ understand, I hold a mixed feeling from this debate. We needed a legislative response. That’s what I asked for, that’s what was done and I look forward to it. But it was also necessary, in our opinion, to think longer-term and find specific formulas for categories of holders (hunters, shooters, collectors and heirs) that obviously have certain specificities.

We did not want it, and that is regrettable. by

Meanwhile, my party, MR, has just broadcast a press release, in which, while welcoming the text of the law, he emphasizes the fact that it is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to quickly set up the Advisory Council on Arms so that it can give opinions both on the draft execution decree and on any modification of the law that would be useful to adopt. “The MR believes that the new law on weapons voted today will require an evaluation and, if necessary, improvements to meet in particular the special situations experienced by both sports shooters and hunters or collectors.”

I could only take note of the lenient promises of the head of the Central Register of Weapons. This does not work today. The P-Committee has spoken about this. I will not let you read it again. We are no longer able to read the murderous texts of the Committee P. The answer is that it will be better tomorrow and that we have a plan. But, Mrs. Minister, that this plan was not implemented a number of years ago, because the central register has been in a catastrophic state for a long time; yet it is an essential pivot in the organization of arms control. Knowledge of weapons and traceability are essential. For now, due to service deficiencies, weapons appear, disappear, are exchanged without anyone knowing exactly what is happening. It has even been cited cases where a weapon was registered 100 times on behalf of 100 different people. I don’t think there were 10 real exchanges between collectors or gun lovers. Obviously, this is an error of the central register.

I strongly commit you to put order in this service, as well as to provide the financial means necessary for the enforcement of the law. A few months ago, governors raised an alarm cry saying that with the means they had at their disposal, it was impossible to fulfill the authorization and control tasks imposed on them by law.

If the central service does not function, if the means of equipment and personnel are not given to the supervisory authorities, this law will be only a piece of paper. by

I hope that the law enforcement work and the subsequent reflection of the Advisory Council will effectively bring order in the individual weapons sector and reassure the public opinion.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the Flemish Interest has supported the establishment of this law, which in terms of speed – in the history writing one may say in terms of hasteness – is, in my opinion, a unicum.

More and more legislative work is being carried out at the rhythm of television news. It is a tendency that could generally inspire a number of philosophical considerations about norms and values, about the creation of norms and laws, and about the sources of our law. It is certain that the law will be controversial.

Nevertheless, whoever wants to get a gun in the home, must indeed be able to give a responsibility for it. It is also logical and desirable that the police should be asked for advice and that tests should be carried out. That will inevitably work dissuasively and prevent foolish or criminal purchases. We know that a number of practical objections can be raised against the law, but due to the way the debate was conducted, they could not be solved in a normal way.

Finally, the question must be asked why and by whom a law that makes impulsive arms purchases impossible has been postponed for so long. The Liberal Party has been in power since 1999. Even the Greens were in power for four years after 1999. The Socialist Party will be in power for 20 years. There has been a lot of talk in recent days about a so-called crushing responsibility and the so-called in-heat-heart-looking. I sincerely hope that everyone in political Belgium is willing to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, allow me to speak briefly on behalf of the PS Group as part of the discussion of the draft law submitted to us today by the Government on weapons and which aims to regulate the economic and individual activities related to weapons.

The emotion aroused by the events of the last few weeks cannot leave us indifferent and imposes us a lot of humility. Nevertheless, I would like to remind you that in this area, the position of my group has never changed. Yes, we want a strict framework for the release of weapons. Yes, we believe in this regard, in the name of the precautionary principle, that significant and practically verifiable guarantees should be imposed on the possessors of weapons. by

A society that promotes the values of peace and dialogue must strictly regulate the use of weapons because it cannot ignore the risks incurred and the disastrous consequences of abuse. by

One could long wonder about the purpose of possessing a weapon in a society like ours, and above all as we want it. Isn’t a weapon used to intimidate, hurt, or even kill? Yes, I dream of a society without weapons but I am aware that the road is still long. by

I ⁇ ’t want to go into stigmatizing a category of people: hunters or athletes are not criminals. I know and respect the arguments of hunters and other athletes. Nevertheless, I believe that a licensing regime, even relaxed, is indispensable for them too. I think it was fundamental to have a clear legislation for everyone and to avoid as much as possible any categorization. by

I would also like to remind myself that the discussions on this subject are not from yesterday. The arguments of each other could be exchanged and discussed. Weapons legislation has evolved in most EU Member States. On the other hand, it is from 1933. The partial changes made in 1991 did not fill certain gaps and were not sufficient to bring our regulation in line with the European Directive of 1991. by

The current system, based on the simple declaration, is not satisfactory. The simple declaration acquisition system is not in principle satisfactory. In fact, the procedure only presupposes that the authority is informed of the purchase without being able to intervene on the convenience of the purchase. That is why we support the centralized authorization system at the governor. Indeed, what is more normal than seeing gunholders be subject to a control over the legitimacy of the reasons invoked? The general authorisation obligation is essential for good prevention, with authorisations issued for a limited and renewable period. by

The next point I wanted to highlight is about improving the traceability of weapons. It is planned to create a national identification number for all weapons manufactured or imported in Belgium. It is important in fact to have a clear idea of the number of weapons in circulation and to make appear on the surface as many weapons as possible. As in other areas, it is quite legitimate to know the origin and destination of a product. by

A few words about the conditions imposed on the profession of armorist. They will now have to demonstrate their professional aptitude and justify the origin of their financial resources. We can reassure them: these new provisions should make the profession more transparent. Those who work in legality and have nothing to blame will not be worried. These new measures could also strengthen the sense of legitimacy and security in the profession. by

Furthermore, as the committee long discussed yesterday, it was appropriate to provide for transitional provisions to the bill that is submitted to us and to be attentive to abuses that may occur before the entry into force of the law that we are about to vote. In fact, according to some, in some regions of the country, many weapons that under the rule of the new law will be subject to authorization have been purchased in recent weeks by people wishing to benefit from a more flexible regulation. The amendment submitted by Mr. Van der Maelen’s provisional authorisation for firearms acquired after 1 January 2006 will allow some control over purchases during this period that could be called suspicious. This solution offers all the desired legal guarantees.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, in order to participate in the construction of a more just society from which violence is banned, it is essential that the law we are going to vote for is rapidly applicable and leads to concrete results. It is therefore with conviction that my group will vote in favour of the proposed bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Justice, we are now at the closing point with the vote on a bill whose discussions — I said this yesterday in the committee — began many decades ago. Everyone is talking about the bill submitted under Minister of Justice Verwilghen. Yesterday I quoted from a contribution in The Standard of 2002, about the period during which Minister Verwilghen’s bill was discussed. The contribution revealed that the first reactions that could have led to a bill to restrict the purchase and carrying of hunting and war weapons date back to 1886. A second series followed immediately after the First World War. That eventually brought us to the Arms Act, which was passed in 1933 and which is now undergoing a number of major changes. The same press article reminded the Minister of Justice Vranckx, who in his term of office 1968-1972 also made the fight against organized crime a priority. One of the many measures he then proposed was the tightening of the Arms Act of January 1933. Minister Vranckx then got a full lobby over him. In 1970, in the middle of his legislature, a union of arms dealers was also established for this purpose. Minister Vranckx’s bill was removed.

The history of the arduous struggle to put a stop to private firearm ownership brings us all to the heart of the discussion. In a rule of law, the government has the monopoly of the use of force. It logically derives from the concept of the social contract, in which the individual gives a portion of his freedom to the government, and in exchange the government guarantees the security of all of us. Therefore, it was a little painful, colleague Bex, to hear you say during your speech that the liberals would always have been those who stood on the side of the weapons carriers and the weapons industry. However, it is sufficient to refer to what happened in the previous legislature when a number of parties signed for the fact that the draft-Verwilghen, which formed more than the basis of the current draft, has not been approved.

It is also important to recall, to the extent necessary, that the examination of this draft law began several weeks ago, before any very dramatic event occurred in Antwerp, so that the impression that the Parliament started the discussion only after the murders occurred is incorrect. It is true that the whole debate has come in a current acceleration.

Another element underlying the current legislation is what was shown in the report of Committee P last year. I quote from a French-language newspaper report: “One same poor appartenant to 100 persons different and 47.300 arms and possession of persons deceased, some il y a plus de 10 years.” That is the aberration that, with the legislation, should finally come to the past.

There should be no more possibility of charging for impulse purchases — which have become actual since last week — or the implementation of the theory of opportunity, which seeks to seize weapons at home at the moment of an escalation of a dispute, with all the terrible consequences thereof, because such shooting incidents with weapons are in most cases fatal, if not yet cause ⁇ serious injuries.

The present bill, which the VLD most ⁇ supports, also deprives, to the extent that could be possible, of all possibilities for the Van Themsches or others of this world or of this region.

One of the main features of the new text, which originates in the draft-Verwilghen, is that one speaks of permits. No one will be able to walk around with a weapon without having given it a prior check, which may lead to a possible license. For individuals a registered and manageable weapon possession, which is what is intended here. The sports and hunting weapons enthusiast or possessor cannot object to the current legislation. The intention is, even with them, that the rotten apples would disappear from the world.

The figures from the federal police have already been cited. Allow me to add a few more. Weapons ownership is increasing. In 1998, 527,807 registrations of defensive weapons were made. Three years later, in 2001, there were already 569,000. In the same period, the number of hunting and sports weapons increased from 115,000 to 154,000 weapons. More recent figures indicate an additional increase for 2002 to 587,660 and for sports weapons to 168,000. The registered weapons are only the tip of the iceberg.

For the weapons in circulation, Knack believed in a report in mid-August 2002 that he could handle the figure of 2 million. When the possession of weapons increases, and when the possession of weapons causes the increase of violence, because it is much faster to provoke or facilitate that violence at certain moments of crisis, it is also true that that core task of the government to protect its citizens must be taken into account and the abuse, or the misuse, of weapons must be discouraged or countered.

The design that was on the table and which now prevails has different goals. We believe that some of these goals have been achieved.

I will take as an example the central register of weapons, about which you, Mrs. Minister of Justice, were questioned several times last year. Then you predicted that by the end of 2006 the shortcomings of the central register of weapons could be absorbed. I therefore consider that it was important for the committee to be able to question the person responsible for that central arms register directly on the occasion of the discussion of this draft, where the data you have already cited confirmed that at the end of 2006, at the beginning of 2007, the problem of the central arms register should belong to the past.

Another positive element is that the authorisation will no longer work with 196 different Commissioners, who each have to give their advice. Indeed, it was noted that there was absolutely no uniformity. Now, the present bill provides for regularity and uniformity, by transferring that power to the governors.

There has been a fairly long discussion, Mrs. Minister and Mrs. Chair of the Committee on Justice, on the procedure in the period prior to the draft law, in particular because there has been a significant increase in the purchase of weapons in the past period — this has been highlighted in various arguments.

The committee stood still on this for a long time yesterday. I think the compromise that has been reached on this issue is important. For those who possibly – and this is not an intentional process – would have made use or “abuse” of the period immediately preceding the approval of this Act, if a permit was requested and obtained, it would be a provisional permit and not immediately a permit for 5 years. We also believe that the concern in this regard has been addressed in the present draft.

I close my discussion with a comment on funding when it comes to granting the licenses. Mrs. Minister, we have expressly urged you that, as with so many projects is necessary, the resources would be in stock, because otherwise we would not only have missed the purpose, but also because that catastrophic date could have many consequences. You have assured us in the various answers that there should be no problems in terms of staff or financial resources, since the priority for everyone should be at the same level. In this sense, Mrs. Minister, Mr. President, colleagues, our group will approve the draft later.

I was notified of a technical problem with the cables that would prevent us from recording our remarks. Does this seem to be repaired?

If I can risk continuing, Mr. Secretary, I would rather continue the debate before suspending the session. Technology is often stronger than our reason.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, dear colleagues, it is clear that, for environmentalists, this bill is important. While it is true that weapons are never but a means made or made available by individuals who commit serious acts, the presence of weapons reinforces and increases the violence of the acts made, banalizes it and often allows their perpetrators to have a feeling of overpower that makes it difficult to organize a society in mutual respect.

I will not extend on the content of this project since others have done it; we share it and support it in its objectives and in the means implemented. However, I will allow myself a little history, not to reshape the past but to avoid making the same mistakes and repeating the failed acts of the past.

In May 2002, a massacre took place in Schaerbeek, perpetrated by the same type of person, in a similar socio-political context. Four years later, in May 2006, the little Luna and her babysitter were murdered in Antwerp, using a legally acquired weapon. We believe that these two deaths and many more between these two dates could have been avoided if we had adopted this project four years earlier. by

How is such a history interesting? Today, as in 2002, a significant part of society and citizens respond to the violence, acts and racist statements that accompanied it. As today, in 2002, the government had promised to act to regulate the possession and trade of weapons after the Schaerbeek killing. But at the time, since things were happening in the Senate and not in the House, some senators, actively or passively followed by their parties, refused to bring the work to an end. Under the influence of Jean-Marie Happart and Mr. Monfils, at the time of the vote, MR, PS, CD&V and cdH prevented the completion of the work. by

Today, after further murders that could have been avoided, the government has made the same commitments; but today no parliamentary would dare to take the same position. This means that we will be able to lead to the adoption of a law that will regulate the possession and sale of weapons by ensuring their marking, their traceability, strict conditions for the sale and for the authorization to possess a weapon. But many decisions are needed and budgetary resources must be disclosed and granted to the bodies and administrations responsible for granting authorisations, approvals, registrations and providing for evaluations, monitoring and control. Our fears will be calmed only by the realization of these decisions and the confirmation of the means granted. The unfortunate coincidences of the calendar have allowed to accelerate the work but we must resist the temptation to make believing that by adopting a law today, government and Parliament bring the solution, the solution all made and immediate after a drama and a citizen mobilization. If we fail to concrete and provide the budgetary resources necessary for the enforcement of this law, we will repeat the mistake of 2002: take a commitment to citizens without reaching to translate it into facts. by

We must now prove that we want and can act against violence and against arms trafficking. This project contributes to this but is only a part of a construction project that awaits us. ECOLO will support this bill, ensure its implementation and ensure that its scope is not diminished.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, we will approve the new weapons law soon. This law is not perfect. What law is that, by the way? But it is definitely a big step forward, as the existing legislation has been a source of criticism for almost everyone, ranging from the judicial authorities and police officers to the sports practitioners, hunters, arms dealers and collectors.

Not everyone, colleagues, who has a gun is a criminal. But the unrestricted abuse of weapons had to be addressed. It is important to make impulsive purchases impossible. I think this is clearly stated in the bill.

On the other hand, who thinks that all the problems of the job are with the approval of this law, is wrong for. Euphoria is not at all in place here, colleagues, for how long have we not been talking about the famous weapons law. On the contrary, instead of euphoria may be humility and for some some reflection here at home.

When Minister Verwilghen at the time wanted to change the weapons law, there was resistance from French-speaking Belgium. Several parties have prevented a stricter gun law in the past. The then Minister of Justice, Mr. Van Parys, also tried in the past to reverse the tide, but he was also boycotted.

It is a painful conclusion, colleagues, but it should be of my heart. I note that only after the mp3 murder it was suddenly possible to approve the youth sanction law, though a light version.

I only note that after the mp3 murder suddenly it was possible to approve the youth sanction law, although, in my opinion, a light version. I also note that after the dramatic events in Antwerp, a quick adoption of the weapons law is possible. It is a pity, colleagues, that this can only be done after a crisis, and is based on emotional outrage. For in a week time the Parliament has proved that it can move a whole mountain of work, if the will is there.

We have a theoretical part, a vision. But now comes the big work: the practical development of this draft law, the implementing decisions. Colleagues, I ask you not to give the writing of the implementing decisions an opportunity to extract that law. Work needs to be done, and hopefully those implementation decisions will come as soon as possible.

I am worried about the time we will need. We hoped for a moment in the committee to be able to intervene quickly with the proposal to tackle impulse purchases accelerated by royal decree, but according to the minister, this was not possible. I wonder if this has ever been ruled by the State Council.

We must also be aware that this law will not prevent every murder with a firearm. The illegal arms trade will not disappear.

The systematic registration of all firearms is a good thing for us, and is ⁇ not superfluous, if one knows that in Belgium less than half of the number of circulating weapons is registered. It’s about 890,000 on one-and-a-half to two million; that’s nothing.

Unregistered weapons can also be registered. In other words, the market is made transparent.

The classification of the weapons was completely revised and greatly simplified, which significantly reduces the complexity. The principle is that all firearms are prohibited, except when they are licensed. That is, in my opinion, a good starting point. There is also a regularization.

As regards the licensing policy, the recognition of the licensing applications and the applications for recognition by the Governor seems to me to be a practically impossible task. This will require serious support.

In addition to the objectives of this draft law, namely preventing, combating, and addressing all aspects of illegal arms trade, it also aims to improve the safety of society, as is clearly stated in the draft law. The two important elements that are cited are the guarantee of the full traceability of all weapons entering our country and the security of the weapons market. When it comes to security, I would like to say that possession of a weapon only increases the sense of security, but in no way the security itself. I therefore take the opportunity — because it is in the draft law to guarantee safety — to state that for N-VA safety belongs to the quality of life. Guaranteeing that security to the citizens is therefore an essential task of the government. We want to add that right to security to the Constitution as a new basic social right, obliging the government to take concrete measures. The safety of citizens should actually be a central weight of policy, both in the field of prevention and repression, as well as in the field of aftercare. Therefore, with the placement of a new member in Article 23 of the Constitution, the protection of the security of the citizen is actually raised above the daily and interchangeable composition of the political majorities. I wish you all the courage to continue working together so that this bill will be translated in a proper way, but we will ensure that in the coming weeks at a equally rapid pace this paper law will be translated into a vigorous policy. First of all, you can count on our support.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, the group leader of the Flemish Interest asked recently what the socialists in the 19 years that they have served in the government, have achieved in the field of combating weapons. Can I remind you that it was under the leadership of socialists that this country was the first in the world to announce a ban on anti-personnel mines? Can I remind you that it was under the impulse of the socialists that this country was the first country in Europe to transpose the European Code of Conduct concerning international arms trade into its own national legislation? Can I remind you that it was the socialists who took the lead of the action to ban cluster bombs as the first country in the world?

What has the party that asked us this question achieved in this area? With each of the measures listed here, she opposed what the socialists, together with their government partners, have proposed, now rooms, then blue.

I adhere very closely to what the Flemish Interest proposes in relation to the problem of weapons control. On my list, there is one bill to legalize pepperspray. This is the contribution of the Flemish Belang to the control of weapons. That party dares to ask us what we have achieved in this regard.

The bill we are going to vote on in the future is fully in line with the action we deliver. I am against weapons. Our group is against weapons, but we are realistic. We know that weapons have always been and, unfortunately, probably will always be. We strongly advocate closing legislation and strict control so that weapons do not make innocent victims. There are 640 million small and light weapons worldwide. They cause 500,000 victims each year. 90% of them are citizens. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, therefore, is very right when he says that small and light weapons are the weapons of mass destruction of the moment. This is the situation at the international level.

Let us now look at the situation in Belgium. It is estimated that there are between 1.5 million and 2 million weapons in Belgium, of which 890,000 are registered. Also these weapons make countless casualties each year in family riots, in robberies, in theft, or stupidly due to accidents. Our group is very pleased that we can vote today on the proposed bill. After all, the draft law is a serious step in the right direction.

Let me summarize why we think the bill deserves to be approved.

First, all firearms will need a license in the future. Anyone who does not need a weapon, or cannot handle it, or does not meet any of the full values listed in article 11 of the law, will not be granted a permit.

Second, access to and exercise of the profession of arms dealer is strictly regulated.

Third, the registration of firearms enables traceability, which helps in the detection of crimes.

Fourth, there will be a federal government service and a weapons advisory council.

Fifth, assume it from me, the most important contribution to the control of the problem of the mass presence of weapons in our society lies in the arrangement that this bill provides for the stock of 1.5 to 2 million weapons present in our society. We have obtained through an amendment that anyone who has purchased a weapon in what we call the suspicious period and who will enter from 1 January 2006, within the year will have to pass the test of the strict criteria of Article 11. Those who do not pass this check will no longer be allowed to own a weapon.

Colleagues, with regard to weapons purchased before 1 January 2006 – this is even more important – the law provides that 5 years after the entry into force of the law, listen carefully, all weapons and all weapons owners will be subject to the test of the criteria of Article 11.

Colleagues, assume it from me, if in 20 or 30 years one will look back on what was approved in our Parliament at the beginning of this century regarding weapons, then one will inadvertently consider the bill as one of the most important and profound of all. For this reason, our group will soon approve the bill with full conviction.

Mr. Speaker, it might be appropriate to point out that the speech spoken now is not that of Philippe Monfils because my name appears on both screens. I do not believe that Mr. Neither Van der Maelen nor I would be happy if we exchanged speeches.

In the end, it is a beautiful picture.

Conversions in one direction or the other can happen.

God knows what is behind. The name of Philippe Monfils does not want to disappear from the screens.

Mr. Speaker, with my administration, with my cabinet – I thank them – I have worked enormously on this bill. We took things back to zero. We had consultations with the sector, with all interested persons, opponents but also so many others who supported the perspective of this bill. I did it with the inner conviction that it was necessary. I believe that, more than all the figures in the world, a movie like “Bowling for Columbine” shows the direct responsibility of those and those who allow the free movement of firearms.

The law is now clear. Those who do not comply with it will be subject to criminal penalties that have been increased. Moreover, Mr. Monfils, I committed myself before the Justice Committee to work with the College of Prosecutors General on an action plan aimed at the illegal movement of firearms. It is true that this law as such is important but it will need to be supplemented with many royal decrees. My administration and my team are already working on this.

That being said, this law will be directly applicable for an essential element: the end of the free sale of firearms as soon as it is published in the Moniteur belge. I think we all have the obligation to say, and there will be a large information campaign on the subject, that from the month of June — I obviously count on a will in this direction from the Senate — if everything goes as planned, there will be an end to the free sale of firearms. And much more: as we have just ⁇ on the tribune, an amnesty period will first begin for those and those who hold illegal weapons. The amnesty period will be six months. Furthermore, for all those who have acquired a firearm which, from now on, is subject to authorization, a deadline will also begin within which they must declare this weapon through the local police, which will allow them to obtain an authorization.

Attention to ! Anyone who has acquired a weapon after January 1, 2006 must, of course, as everyone else, declare that weapon. Their certificate of good life and morals will be checked, their criminal records will be checked and, if the examination is favorable, they will have a one-year provisional authorization. For the rest, they will have to comply with all the obligations provided for in the new law.

I think we need to be very clear in our message to the outside: from June, they will have a maximum of six months to comply with the whole prescribed by the law, otherwise they will fall into the illegality that I just talked about.

This is what I wanted to say in response to the questions. by

For the rest, I think everyone knows the essence of this law: the end of the free sale of firearms, a licensing regime much better aligned with today’s needs, a regime of transparency and traceability, much stricter licensing conditions for armoured artillery. by

I will conclude by telling you that this law is not a law of reparation. It will not repair the violence, the crimes that have been facilitated by the free sale of firearms. This law is rather a law of hope: the hope that it helps to reduce violence in our country, the hope that society, faced with horrors such as the double murder in Antwerp, and in memory of the victims, assumes concretely a “never more that!”

The government, by adopting the bill, and the Parliament, by supporting it, have, I believe, only done their duty. I thank them.