Proposition 51K2991

Proposition de résolution relative à certains problèmes liés à la mise en oeuvre et au respect de la loi du 8 juin 2006 réglant des activités économiques et individuelles avec des armes.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Liesbeth Van der Auwera
Ecolo Muriel Gerkens
LE Melchior Wathelet
MR Philippe Monfils
Open Vld Stef Goris
PS | SP Jean-Claude Maene
Vooruit Stijn Bex

Submission date

March 15, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

resolution of parliament personal weapon arms trade

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR

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 ¶

April 12, 2007 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to this in my written report, but I will speak personally.

by Mr. Maene and you are registered. Does anyone else want to register? Mr. Wathelet, you are still present everywhere!

Who else? Mr Bex is.

You start with M. Monfils, puis MM. Bex, Wathelet, Goris and Maene.

I will try to get to the point regarding the CPAS, before a short interruption.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to decrypt the course and content of this resolution on weapons. First, where does it come from? Does it respond to a new problem identified by parliamentarians, which they would like the government to deal with? What a baby! The issue of weapons has been known since 2002 and was addressed in the Senate during a debate on a similar project.

Does this resolution come from a difficulty for parliamentarians to write legislative texts on the subject? What a baby! Almost all groups have submitted amendments or bill proposals, and I will obviously not return to the dates and content of the texts.

The area is known archival. So what? Simply, this resolution is designed, I think, to allow many parliamentarians not to decide or not to make their choice known. They hide behind a resolution calling on a resigning government within three weeks to consider some changes to the law - changes that are still pellicular. Therefore, this text does not, in my view, offer any progress. It has strictly no interest as it will not be able to be implemented by the government, given the proximity of election deadlines. As the saying goes, “it doesn’t eat bread.” It is ⁇ difficult to vote against a text filled with good intentions, but it shows no improvement in practice.

The most absurd thing, in my opinion, is that the government is asked to consider measures already included in texts filed by many colleagues and myself. To give parliamentary work its full meaning, it would have been logical, not to address the government, to ask it to consider making arrangements, but to debate the proposals submitted. But that’s not what was wanted; a smoke curtain has been created behind which colleagues and groups are hiding who don’t dare to say yes or no to law changes.

It would be anecdotal if the law worked well. I do not intend to talk about it long, but I would like to remind you that this is not the case: less than 100,000 weapons on the million or the two million in circulation are declared. Police officials said they were overcrowded and technically unable to handle requests. Governors do not have sufficient staff and do not all apply the same case-law. The central register of weapons does not yet function properly. The necessary enforcement orders have not yet been taken. Finally, the Advisory Board has just begun its work.

Like everyone else, I am concerned about public safety. However, will the current law, both in its text and in its application, ensure this public security? No, it seems to me, since the essential goal, the removal of weapons from clandestinity, is not achieved.

A senior law enforcement representative had said during the weapons hearings that the law was too restrictive and that a too tough law could not be applied seriously and concretely. That is why I have proposed that we re-discuss in the serenity of this law and its application, after the elections, not to challenge its principles but to modalize its application and to recall the problems raised for a year by the banal functioning of this text.

I submitted a bill to extend the deadline for weapons declarations. Instead of voting yes or no on this proposal to return arms declarations to 31 December 2007, while voting seems to me to be the essence of the parliamentary, we strive to remove it from the agenda of the commission, as this was still the case yesterday despite the requests of my friends and myself.

This does not seem to be a good parliamentary work. I will again request that this proposal be included on the agenda of the next Justice Committee next week so that everyone can decide against or in favor of this text, as is the rule in any parliamentary assembly. But I have little illusions, Mr. President and dear colleagues: in this case, many parliamentarians make themselves the well-known expression "Courage, let us flee!" If nothing changes by the election deadline, I or someone else will put this issue on the agenda of that assembly as soon as the parliamentary entrance in October.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Deputy Prime Minister, colleagues, the tightening of the weapons law is for spirit a very important achievement in this legislature. It is clear that the law does not lose its purpose.

Not only has it become more difficult to obtain a weapon, but more than 100,000 weapons for destruction have already been delivered to the local police. It is of course the task of the Parliament to further ensure that this legislation is also properly implemented. In this context, the working group was established. This resolution is the final result of her work. It was explicitly not intended to change the starting points of the law, except ⁇ for some. However, for the vast majority of the colleagues, this was absolutely not the case. It was intended to find solutions to a number of different difficulties in the application of this law.

In this way, through the resolution and its implementation, even more weapons than is now the case should be able to get out of the water, either by a license application or by submission for destruction.

My group supports the current resolution. The Minister correctly pointed out in the Committee on Justice that the principles of the unilaterally adopted legislation – it is important to point out again that the legislation was adopted unilaterally by this Parliament – are still fully legitimate. It is the purpose of the law to combat violence and not to harass the citizen, as some now want to make them believe. The resolution contains proposals to further enhance the success of the law. Therefore, good information is very important.

At the passing of the law, a little year ago, we have already called for a large-scale awareness-raising campaign. Much has already happened in this area, but it is also good that this resolution reiterates the importance of that information and that the Minister in the Committee on Justice has already announced that it will take action. I can only welcome that, because in this way the objectives of the law can be achieved even better.

The fact that the Federal Arms Service will inform the Parliament every six months about the state of affairs regarding, on the one hand, the licenses requested and, on the other hand, the arms delivered, is also a very good thing. We also received a satisfactory response from the Minister. Regarding the renewal of the license, I believe that it is indeed appropriate that the Federal Arms Service would examine to what extent the degressive rate for weapons licenses – this means that one must pay relatively less when one applies for multiple licenses at the same time – will also be possible after 30 June, thus after the transition period. This can also be a threshold for people to enter into the law.

I would like to close to point 6 of the resolution, which deals with temporarily disabling weapons. This is not currently provided by law; weapons can only be made permanently unusable.

During the discussions, it was pointed out that it would be very useful if a system was introduced that would allow weapons to be temporarily unused in a safe way. We must only admit that during the many meetings we have had with the committee, we have not reached a viable solution. Even experts have told us that they did not immediately see a suitable solution for this, and that it would ⁇ require further research.

At the last meeting, however, colleague Denis came up with a proposal that weapons could be secured electronically. I think that can be further investigated. In this resolution, we therefore call for such options to be examined.

In that regard, ⁇ colleagues such as colleague Denis will say that we need to extend the transition period, waiting for us to come to such a viable solution to meet certain persons. I think, colleagues, that the minister on behalf of the government has shown very clearly why that would be a bad thing. By extending that transitional period for a second time, we would give the impression that the Arms Act does not need to be taken too seriously and that eventually there will always be a delay to escape the obligations of the Arms Act. That would be a very bad thing.

I think that the law already offers enough possibilities to those who hope that there will be changes in the future, which we will only agree to if this can be done in a completely safe way. Today’s law provides opportunities for gun owners who no longer have a legitimate reason to hold their weapons, to place their weapons elsewhere. He can make his weapon permanently unprepared, the minister said. He may sell that weapon, but he may also give that weapon in custody to a third party who has the permission to do so.

In this way, enough ways are provided, in my opinion, for the gun owners to effectively enter into the law. I hope that an additional information campaign can bring more people into the law. In this sense, we fully support the resolution as presented today.

Mr. Speaker, it may be possible to resume the genesis of this text given the fairly rapid adoption, at the House level, of the law of 2 June 2006 concerning the prohibition of weapons, law based, in my opinion, on excellent intentions in the climate of the time. Everyone agreed that a legislative change was necessary.

A number of bills were pending in Parliament and we all agreed on the objectives to be pursued by any amendment in the field of weapons: to ensure that the weapons market is as transparent and clear as possible; to ensure that these weapons are mostly, or even all, declared, detectable; to implement the set of safeguards so that these weapons are obviously used with the greatest precaution possible, only during hunting parties, sports shootings or in optimal conditions, all in order to avoid as many accidents as possible while remaining in a legal system to stop the accidents that have been known.

However, it is important to note that the enforcement of the law poses a whole series of problems. by Mr. Monfils mentioned the problem of police officers, governor services, various administrations that must, today, encode all these weapons, which must be "registered" to enter the legal system. All these services are overwhelmed with work and crumble under the submitted requests. This difficulty at the level of the law had already justified postponing the entry into force of the law to June 2007.

The second problem is the list of legitimate reasons for which you can possess a weapon: being a hunter, sports shooter or exercising a profession that, by its dangerousness, justifies the possession of weapons. However, two legitimate reasons are not retained and could never justify the possession of weapons: the sentimental or patrimonial motive.

It is known that in Belgium, many people hold guns at home for patrimonial or sentimental reasons.

It is in our interest that these people declare the existence of these weapons so that they can be listed. In this way, we will be able to have this true cadastre of weapons that will allow the most optimal use of these weapons.

In order for these weapons to become completely legal again, these people must be able to keep them. This should be done in the best way and especially with the most safety possible. This point was also the subject of an amendment that I had submitted as part of the analysis of the first bill. This amendment took into account sentimental or patrimonial reasons as legitimate reasons justifying the possibility of holding a weapon but also ensured that those persons were unable to use that weapon, which was temporarily disabled.

Thus, the objective of public security interest is fulfilled: this weapon is unusable. In addition, the objective of the general interest is also achieved, given that such persons have an interest in declaring the possession of such weapons. This mechanism would therefore allow to meet this double objective – which is also that of the law: to ensure that as many weapons as possible are declared and listed.

The third point I would like to address concerns the modalities for renewing the permit to hold a weapon. Every five years, all persons holding a weapon will be obliged to renew the authorization to hold such weapons. A number of criteria will be examined each time.

By entering a legal system, as in the past, some fear that the rules will change along the way and that the implementation criteria today will be stricter or harder to meet in five years. By declaring their weapon today, they fear that they will have to pay for it in a few years, for example if they are forbidden to keep it.

A proportionate proposal is included in the resolution. It is necessary to check whether the conditions are still fulfilled to allow these persons to continue to hold a weapon but it is also necessary to ease this procedure over time. A new procedure should not be reintroduced every five years. If the person still meets the conditions, he must be able to continue to hold that weapon.

The fourth element of my speech relates to collective weapons, panoplie weapons and folk weapons. Mr. Monfils, the working group will at least have served to this: it has made progress, given that there has been a firm commitment to review this list. It has already been reassessed by the Advisory Board. This new list of weapons for which no authorization is required will be extended and refined to better match and stick to reality.

You and I have been asking for this list for months. The answer is always the same: “It comes.” Simply put, this is only the third or fourth stage of this "panoplie weapons turn", during which this list was requested in the resolution. If “it comes,” I would like one day to be able to examine it! It is not because of the resolution that this list will be obtained. That is my problem. The resolution does not result at all! Ms. Onkelinx could very well have presented us with the list before the resolution begged her to do so. You have claimed it yourself!

Sure, I have claimed it, but ⁇ it is your experience that prevents you from trusting the government when it is engaged in a number of things.

[...] It is true!

While sitting in the opposition, I expect the government to fulfill its very clear commitment to drawing up a list.

He is waiting for it to be requested.

I suppose you, like me, will continue to ask for it.

I called every day to ask her, Mr. Wathelet!

every day! The fact that I have so little weight with this government definitely worries me! Because if you insist daily and, three months later, you still do not receive this list, despite a firm commitment from the government to establish it, it becomes very worrying!

It is a government at the end of the legislature, which has yet to win two months thanks to this trick that I denounce, namely this working group that, in the issue of weapons, has lost two months in parliament. This is what, unfortunately, leads us practically to the deadline and will not allow us to reach precise solutions!

I will return to this work group, Mr. Monfils! But no, why wait? Let’s see the abscess. There are, of course, a number of problems with the enforcement of the law. We have highlighted them: the feasibility of the law; the legitimate reasons for being able to possess a weapon; the modalities for renewing the authorization; the weapons of panoplie.

I understand the problems, Mr. Monfils! I am a member of the opposition. I can only join in the process of the possibilities that are given to me to advance this law, to point out the real problems and to try to find solutions. I try to play with the proposals that are made, to be constructive to happer every possibility to refine this text.

Now, if the government has no desire at all to take into account the resolutions adopted unanimously by the working group, Vlaams Belang except, and that the parliament again gives a very clear signal, with very concrete and adequate proposals, it may be worth asking about the credibility of the government, ⁇ more in your head than in mine.

Mr. Wathelet, what did you expect to help some colleagues vote on proposals submitted to Parliament, including yours? I agree, you reminded them. Nevertheless, you never took a step by saying that it was good to have resolutions but that it was time to vote for something!

Onkelinx is asked to see to what extent the enforcement of the law could be delayed. Proposals have been submitted on this subject. It was enough to vote for them.

A working group is organized to reflect on the ways of applying the law. What should I do? To say that I do not want to participate, that I do not want to contribute to the discussions, that I do not want to show in what the law can pose problems, that I do not want to communicate my proposals of amendments, that I do not want to put on the table the very concrete and very proportionate proposals that I have drawn up in matters of temporary deactivation of weapons, weapons of panoplie or a list of legitimate reasons?

I am sorry! As a member of the opposition parliament, I try to make my amendments! When a government does not accept to take into account the proposals we make, the amendments we make, I cannot do miracles! As soon as discussions take place within Parliament, I try to participate in them, to be as constructive as possible.

As the discussion progresses, it is forgotten that the gun law was voted almost unanimously by the representatives of the people present here, in particular with the support of members of the CDH groups, MR, FDF, etc.

Indeed indeed ! by Mr. Monfils had asked us to go very quickly, that’s what we did!

You still have many hours ahead of you to argue.

When I hear Minister Onkelinx stating that the project has been supported very widely, I acknowledge it. But Mr. Monfils remembers very well that there was a consensus to change it quickly afterwards, to improve it. The words of mr. Wathelet are quite relevant.

Where did this consensus come from? During a part of bellot somewhere? At least not in this parliament.

It is true that among the groups – I am not suspect, I have not voted for this text – prevailed the idea that it was necessary, a little later, in serenity, to consider how to change the law.

The Minister must not exaggerate. This is not the first time that the government presents us and makes laws pass in June to change them in October. A law is not intangible or poured in bronze for three centuries!

It is normal to consider that it was necessary to vote because we are representatives of the people and that the population wanted it, and to see afterwards to what extent it would not be appropriate to modify somewhat the elements of the law.

To say that the law has been passed, that everything is done and that we will keep it as it is for five years is not serious! The government itself, all the governments elsewhere, ask their majority to vote on amendments to laws that they were asked to vote three months or four months before. I think that is normal. The social evolution must be taken into account.

Mr. Speaker, I hear colleagues Drèze and Monfils here say that there was a consensus between the groups to amend the law that we unanimously adopted after a short time. I would like to introduce my colleagues and recommend their group leaders to contact our group the next time they want to reach a consensus within this meeting. We have never heard of it at all.

A favorable text gathered almost unanimous vote in Parliament because it proposed an amendment and allowed for progress. After analyzing this text, many MPs have submitted amendments so that it fully achieves its objective, including for the temporary deactivation of weapons or panoply weapons. A working group is set up in Parliament to refine this text, to detect possible shortcomings. The fact that the application period had to be extended by imposing a six-month moratorium shows flaws in the practical application of the law. Once this working group has been set up, it is normal for a member of parliament to reintroduce amendments and proposals submitted in a committee. It seems to me that it is no longer normal to seek to improve a law text.

When Mr. Monfils asked to quickly vote the law in June 2006, we actually went very quickly: in a week, it was voted. We fulfilled your wish by voting quickly.

(...) the amendments I had submitted, Mr Wathelet. When you climb the cocoa mast, you should avoid having holes in your pants!

Mr Monfils, I have mentioned some amendments. I have not forgotten to mention yours. I talked about this in the committee and in the working group; I highlighted some of the amendments you had submitted and I recalled some of the positive elements. I know how to recognize the merits of the amendments submitted by others and support them where necessary. You have to be honest to say it. As you point out, a text can be modified many times: today, for example, we will modify for the fourth time in the same year the text "Apetra".

On the five elements I have just cited, I think that the discussion of the working group has been fruitful, that the resolutions are proportionate and that they will allow the law to ⁇ its goal: a maximum of weapons declared, listed, inventory. If the elements made available to gunholders are proportionate, they will declare their weapons. This law will then become effective and will reach its goal, the one that we all pursue and which has earned us to adopt it virtually unanimously. This law will attain its objective with the improvement of the subject of panoply weapons, with its improved terms of renewal, with the issuing of legitimate grounds modified and its counterpart, the temporary deactivation and with the maximum improvement of the modalities of practical application of the law.

We hope that the government will take into account a resolution that – I suppose – will be adopted by all the groups, as was the case within the working group. This would be a positive signal for the June 2006 law to ⁇ the goal that we all pursued.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, I would like to thank first and foremost, as chairman of the working group that has been frequently discussed today, a working group appointed by the Justice Committee to evaluate the law of 8 July 2006, all the colleagues of that working group for their constructive cooperation. We have succeeded, though with some difficulty, because suddenly the points of view were very far apart, in order to come together to a consensus text that has emerged in the resolution that is presented today. All democratic parties have approved and signed them, for which I thank you. I would also like to thank the rapporteur, Philippe Monfils, who prepared an excellent report.

Why this resolution? There was an awareness that the law of 8 June 2006 showed a number of imperfections in its implementation and that in the applications some things could be adjusted. There was a willingness to work on it. This law was implemented very quickly. We also know in what circumstances, namely the terrible events in Antwerp. They made that in those days there was a social support to immediately tighten this weapons law, so that at that moment a number of people, who know the sectors from short, already felt that some adjustments would be needed. We were also confronted here later. I continue to find it very positive that all democratic parties have decided to support this.

A good weapons legislation should be based on three drivers. First, it is intended to get as many weapons out of the illegality as possible. I find it much more important that both I and the police know that my neighbor owns a weapon and that it is registered, than that he owns a weapon that I do not know he owns, and also the police do not. Registration is the goal and should lead to greater security. How will we persuade those citizens to register their weapons of which we know that there are many tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands among the population? How will we motivate those people? In this regard, we were looking for additional elements and possibilities.

Second, from the pursuit of greater security in society, we need to make people even more aware of the dangers of weapons. A weapon is and remains life-threatening and it cannot be sufficiently emphasized that dealing with weapons is not appropriate, a fortiori not by people who are not ordinary or incapable of dealing with weapons.

Finally and also important is the element of legal certainty of the gun owner, of the one who today possesses a weapon and who also possesses it in a correct manner, who has a license, who has a blank criminal record, who can deal with it, who has passed tests for it, theoretical and practical. This gun lover, hobbyist, shooter or member of a shooter association, should be given the legal certainty that he can continue to practice this hobby and this hobby should not be stigmatized by a number of prejudices that we may still read or hear from time to time.

We wanted to proceed in that sense and in the first three points of the resolution we have focused primarily on the first driving force, the need to raise awareness of the danger of weapons and, above all, the fact that we want to punish the illegal carrying of weapons. There is a big difference between the presence of grandfather’s yachtbugs on the roof and someone who runs over the Grand Market in Brussels with a handgun gun on pocket. These are two completely different situations. We therefore found that wearing weapons should be treated strictly. The Minister has stated in the committee that it already stands behind the points one, two and three of the resolution, namely better informing and raising awareness of the citizens. This was well received by our colleagues.

Then we also emphasized that adequate and accurate communication is very important, also at the policy level. Therefore, we ask to report the state of affairs to the Justice Committee semestrially. The Minister also agreed.

Finally, as regards the legal certainty of gunholders, it is very important that the provincial governors deal with the issuance of permits to hold weapons in the same way – I cannot emphasize this sufficiently. We know that there are already guidelines in this regard which urge the governors to deal with the issuance of licenses in the same way, but yet I still receive reports every day showing that the governors of the ten different Belgian provinces grant licenses in very different ways. We must remain absolutely attentive to this and I invite all colleagues to follow this matter closely, together with the government.

For a further conclusion, I will focus primarily on the hunters and the people who hold weapons out of emotional considerations, for example because they inherited them. There the question was asked whether it was not possible to make a firearm temporarily unusable, thus reversible. That is not to bring the weapon to the test bench in Liège to destroy it permanently or to make it completely useless, thereby losing its value. We often talk about very valuable weapons. Belgium has a very ancient tradition of knowledge and skill in the artisanal manufacture of weapons.

We are known throughout the world for this. It remains, of course, a weapon, but if we look at them closely, it is often also a piece of art. For such weapons, we sought a solution to make them temporarily unusable.

The committee has heard a number of experts, and frankly we have not immediately succeeded in finding a ready, closing, safe and legal solution to make weapons temporarily unusable. Meanwhile, we have learned that such systems exist abroad, in Switzerland and Germany. In the EU, there are other countries with similar weapons legislation that already have systems allowing weapons to be temporarily unused. I therefore invite the Minister to investigate in a fair and open manner what these systems are, in order to take an example of this, if possible, in order to introduce such a system in our country. We call on the government to address this issue.

We are also ⁇ pleased to hear from the Minister in the committee that she is in principle positive to this. He wants to explore this possibility. Of course, we also think that this should be closing. It is all good news for the holders of such weapons that within the foreseeable time, in the coming weeks, the government will propose a system that ensures that one can continue to keep such a weapon in the home. It has been temporarily rendered unusable. The gun can no longer be shot impulsively. So it gets the power or effect of a baseball bat.

The five-year renewal of the license for the possession of weapons was a delicate point about which there was a lot of discussion. In the discussion of the Arms Act in June 2006 in the Committee for Justice, it is clear by colleagues, but I think also by the government, said that it was assumed that no additional administrative obligations would be imposed in order to acidify the lives of gunholders. It would be limited to the necessary applications and renewal of permits.

There is a huge debate on this. Should someone who has been in possession of a weapon for five years take a new theoretical and practical exam, take tests, and submit a reasoned application again? Should the Governor again take this into account? Opinions on this were divided. My personal point of view on this subject is that I do not understand why someone who holds a weapon for several years and whose circumstances have not changed, should again pass all the tests, theory and practice, and submit an application. I think, for example, of a jeweller who has already been robbed several times and for that reason made a request to the governor and also received one, and who is still a jeweller, still has a blanco criminal record and can prove that he regularly went with the weapon to test shoot. If the circumstances of rebus sic stantibus have remained the same and one can prove that, I do not see why the whole procedure should be repeated.

However, we have not reached that. We have urged the Minister to re-examine to what extent this could be facilitated for the administration without the security and the issuance of licences being thus mortgaged. We have heard many testimonies from police officers, from the police zones and from the people of the provincial governments that they are overwhelmed with these administrative obligations. We have therefore requested to examine whether it contains elements that can be simplified, in the interest of the administration but ⁇ also in the interest of the applicant party. Personally, I think that solutions must be found for this.

There was also a debate about the degressive rate. This is a matter for the Minister of Finance. He must make a judgment on that. The question is to maintain the degressive rate for the transition period. This is included in our resolution.

It can be said, I am a little proud that even from the opposition – for example by Mr. Wathelet – it is stated that progress has been made. Progress is being made in this resolution. In connection, for example, with the amendment of the list of firearms of historical, folkloristic or decorative value, the Minister has indicated that the advisory council is already considering this. The working group is working on it. We also insisted on this.

Finally, there is the medical certificate. From a request for administrative simplification, it was examined whether this could not be eliminated. After all, a number of doctors did not know exactly what to do with such a request, the request to issue a medical certificate to explain whether or not someone should have a hand gun in the home. This is a heavy responsibility for the doctor. I can imagine – whatever happened – that some doctors chose not to issue such certificates. Also for this there is a solution because it turns out that there is an ongoing conversation between the Minister and the Order of Physicians and the Association of Sports Shooters.

All this together brings me to my final point, namely whether or not the amnesty period for the declaration of weapons should be extended. We have had a meaningful discussion on this in our working group. In the end, we left this open and left it to the Minister himself to assess whether he considers it necessary to extend the period. The debate showed that some parties chose not to extend the period anymore. It is stated that it has already been extended and that now it has been good, it should end on 30 June.

This should not be a matter of fetishism. Whether we extend this period or not is not a political matter for me. It is also not a question of whether sp.a, PS, VLD or MR, or anyone else, will surrender to another. I am concerned here with the practical feasibility of what we demand today from the government.

If we advocate solutions that make weapons temporarily unusable, temporarily unprepared, that must still be poured into royal decrees. The implementation decisions have yet to be written, the technique has yet to be precisely determined, after consulting examples abroad. All this will take some time.

Soon, colleagues, there are – as most of you know – elections. In short, I wonder where the minister and the administration will find the time – I all hope they will find it – to put everything in place before the end of June, for example, to take all the measures to be able to report the weapons that are currently eligible for temporary unprepared before 30 June, and immediately to make those weapons unprepared. I am rather in favour of asking the Minister to extend that period, ⁇ not by 6 months but maybe by 1 or 2 months, functionally, in proportion to what you consider necessary to convert your legislation in accordance with the resolution into implementing decisions and to give the gunholders the opportunity to settle with the law in time.

For, colleagues, you must not forget that those who today want to face the law in order are good citizens, with a blank criminal record, who want to keep that also blank and who today want to indicate their weapon, but who at the same time feel ⁇ bored and unhappy because the declaration of a weapon is usually equivalent to the issuance of the weapon.

To those who today have a weapon with which they have emotional ties, and for whom temporarily unpreparing that weapon would provide a solution, we should give the opportunity to be able to hold their weapon, though unprepared, but let us therefore take the necessary time to work out that and to suggest to the citizens how to do so. It is my approach to eventually move to a short, functional extension of the term.

Mr Bex asks for the word, Mr President.

Mr. Stef Goris, I have a question in this regard. With regard to this temporary inoperability, you must admit, however, that during the work of our working group we have been looking for possibilities, but that the specialists that we have heard about it could not provide us with a viable solution until the end of the work, except for a very limited category of artisanal fighter weapons from which the frame can be removed.

During the last meeting – I referred to it myself – we received the suggestion from colleague Denis to examine a particular track. However, I myself think it is very difficult at this time to predict whether there will be a possibility to make weapons temporarily unusable. We also have nothing to fool the people in this matter. Moreover, it is very difficult to estimate within what timeframe we could make such a solution operational.

I have just referred to the possibility indicated by the Minister in which weapons holders who do not have a legitimate reason to obtain a weapons license at this time may give that weapon in custody to a third party who has the necessary permits for this. That seems to me, frankly, a better starting point than a further extension of the transition period. That is a better way of working, so that we do not have to extend the transition period and in which we make very clear to the people what the rules are.

Mr. Goris will decide.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for being able to guess my thoughts so well that I will decide. However, I would like to answer briefly to Mr. Bex.

Mr Bex, I think it is of the utmost importance that we give a very clear signal, today, in the debate, to the holders of such weapons, that there is a solution in sight.

You yourself asked Minister Dewael last week or even a little longer ago why so many weapons have been lost or stolen in the past time. I warned months ago that a lot of weapons would disappear in the illegality. Why Why ? Well, a number of citizens, who may be absolutely in good faith, have a blank criminal record and have never hurt a fly, are emotionally yet so bound to an inheritance of a grandfather, for example. Therefore, they prefer to say that they have lost their weapons, rather than having to be torn into pieces by the police. That is the attitude of a lot of people.

We, as legislators, need to take this into account. Instead of disappearing that weapon in the illegality, we must ensure a viable solution, in which that family member in question can hold the weapon, but that it does not pose a danger to society. That is a first point.

Second, there are currently systems to make weapons temporarily unusable. It is true that the experts we have heard in the committee did not have the right answers. Meanwhile, I – but also colleague Denis has cited that example in the committee, like other colleagues – continue to look for solutions. Well, I repeat it: in other, by the way, neighboring, European countries where similar weapons legislation is already in place today, there are already systems in place. Germany is not the least. We know the German fundamentality. If the Germans publish and apply it, I think it will succeed. In Germany today there is a system that makes weapons temporarily unusable; it is the system that Mr. Denis named. In this case, a rod is inserted into the loop or the chamber, in such a way that the weapon cannot be loaded. With an electronic system, there is a blockage that makes it impossible to remove that filling. Connect to it a system where a lock is attached, for example, to the tractor inside the beugle, in the same way as there are already security systems today to secure hunting weapons from use by children or anyone – these are classic locks with a key. For example, the key could remain in the possession of the police. That could also be a solution.

Well, you say that the deadline must absolutely end on June 30. Let us then say to the people who now have such a weapon, that there will be a system, but that they must temporarily accommodate their weapon with a knowledge who has a license, because he is, for example, a hunter or sports shooter.

If we absolutely let the deadline expire on June 30 and we say to the people who today have such a weapon that there will be a system and they can temporarily accommodate their weapons with a knowledge who has a license – a hunter or a sports shooter for example – there is, of course, a problem. A weapon is a moving property and I remember from a distant and gray past as a law student that a moving property is owned by the one who owns it, unless the contrary is proven. It is therefore always difficult to hand over an inheritance, of which there are no documents of whom it is actually owned, to a third party in the hope that it will someday be returned. That is not easy. Then one must already think of a system in which an intermediary – the police or I don’t know who – is activated. Therefore, it is very difficult to create legal certainty for this.

I am therefore rather in favour of – I repeat it again – that we let go of the fetish of that extension and think from practical considerations. Let us copy a system that exists in the neighboring countries, and let us also look at how it is evaluated there. Let us also apply this in Belgium. All of this is not so difficult. We can implement it in the shortest possible times. In view of the need to put the laws and KBs on paper, we can, meanwhile, extend the so-called amnesty. Not to renew to renew, but to enable the execution of those applications.

That is all I say about it. I thought this would be wiser and more reasonable for the people who today look forward to the outcome of this debate. What will happen? Today is April 12th. Tens of thousands of weapons — if we can believe the numbers, hundreds of thousands — and thus tens of thousands of weapons owners are now waiting for the signal from the government and parliament to know what is going to happen now. We now say there will be no extension. That is, the weapon must be declared before the end of June, but at the same time we also say that we will find a system – because in principle we agree with it – in which we can temporarily, expertly and safely deactivate the weapons. We do not have it yet, but in the meantime one must give up his weapon.

That is a contradiction. People will wonder what they should do. Do they keep their weapons and wait until the system is ready to temporarily disable it? Then you go over the date of 30 June and you find yourself in the illegality from 1 July. These are often people who have never received a single mention on their criminal record. What response do we give to these people today? I think that question must be answered in all clarity today. I repeat it again. To remove all misunderstandings about this, the best solution, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Bex, is to keep up with it for another two or three months. Not to get them involved, but to give the minister the opportunity to work out it. We differ in opinions about this, but this is my personal belief.

Mr. Goris, I am thrilled by the importance of this resolution when I listen to the speeches.

Mr. Goris, I would like to reply. The discussion we are currently conducting has also been carried out during the work of the working group. We have found a good formulation in which we can both find ourselves.

First, I just wanted to clarify that my question to Minister Dewael and the answer I received to it concerned the year 2005. It is very difficult to deduce from it the consequences of a law that we passed only in 2006. I also said this to everyone who asked me about it.

Secondly – and there is a fundamental difference in view, – you say that there are people who have never had a criminal record, who have never had an entry on their criminal record, and who today threaten to get into illegality. This is of course essential to our law. It is not enough to never have a criminal record to possess a weapon. A number of other conditions must be fulfilled.

Whatever solution we find to the problem we have just addressed, we will in any case be confronted with people who say that they see what the law is and that they refuse to abide by the law. I would like to paraphrase a former party fellow of you, in particular Jean-Marie Dedecker. He found that if everyone on the motorway was driving 140 kilometers per hour, we would have to set the maximum speed at only 140 kilometers per hour. We agree that it is a good thing that it is clearly stated that those who drive faster than 120 kilometers per hour will be arrested for it and they will be fined for it. At some point, this will also be necessary with this new weapons law. At some point, those who refuse to subscribe to the logic of the law will have to bear the consequences for it. This is something that we need to make clear.

Mr. Goris, the intervention of the President allows me to dive into this breach.

You say people are waiting for the outcome of this debate. But what exit? Don’t fool the people, Mr. Goris, there is no way out of this debate! It is just a resolution that polently asks the government to do things. The problem has been raised for months and you have never wanted to discuss and vote for or against the amendments and bills we have submitted.

Now you want to blow up this resolution as if the whole people were waiting for it to be voted! It will be voted unanimously, as was the case in the committee. I will vote for her too. But what will be the consequence? It will be zero. Don’t let the people in Flanders believe – in Wallonia, I will denounce this attitude! – that the simple fact of taking a resolution that gently asks the government to do things will make them do!

You must either vote on a text or not vote on a text. The government either agrees or disagrees. He puts his majority in action or not. This is the parliamentary political game, nothing more!

Going away by saying “Yupie, the population is saved because we voted a resolution” is deceiving people! And I disagree, Mr. Goris!

Mr. Goris, would you like to decide? You are really going about the time you have been granted.

However, I feel obliged to give the two applicants a brief answer. I will begin with the last applicant, Mr. Monfils.

In all clarity, it is not the intention – I have never said it – that the present resolution ends the debate and everything is clear. On the contrary, it is my full conviction – it is again a personal conviction – that the debate will continue during the next legislature, because still not sufficiently achieved the goals that we all want to ⁇ and which, by the way, also wants to ⁇ the law. The law is not sufficiently practical and enforceable.

I never intended to say that with the present resolution everything would suddenly be resolved. On the contrary, with the present resolution we have once again exposed the pain points and we offer a number of solutions. Indeed, we rely on the understanding and goodwill of the government to realize a number of things during the last weeks before the end of the amnesty period.

I advocate that, in the event of a lack of time, the period of amnesty should be extended by the necessary weeks, read eventually months, strictly because of the need to come to the necessary implementing decisions.

I would also like to respond briefly to Mr. Bex’s comment. A blank criminal record is not a reason to be allowed to hold a weapon. Mr. Bex, of course, that is not a reason. I have never said that either. Remember, however, that the criminals and gangsters of this world with very long penalties will never ask for permission from the governor. They will always be armed. Therefore, you must remember that the current law does not provide a solution to firearm crime. The aim is to make society safer. However, the aforementioned group will not be reached by the law. Let that be clear.

Who is concerned with the law today? These are the brave citizens who have been holding a weapon with them for many years, with which, unfortunately, sometimes – which is also especially bad – a family drama happens. For this we must find solutions. We can also find them. Practical solutions are possible. I also advocate for that. Let us, however, stay with the matter as it is today and find solutions for it.

This is what I want to decide. I make a final appeal to the Government to find solutions with the necessary reasonability and the necessary common sense and within the time it has. If the deadline is too short, I call on the Government to seek in that case at least the necessary insight to extend the said deadline with the useful time.

There are still three registered speakers. Please excuse me for prolonging the afternoon session, but otherwise we will never reach the end of our torments. He will subsequently intervene. Maene, by Mr. Laeremans and Mr. by Denis. The Minister may intervene, if she wishes, but it is a resolution.

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, 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!

I cannot deny it to you.

This is because the Minister asked for it.

Yes, you let yourself be persuaded by the Minister, but not by the President!

The [...]

We will not go back to the emotional context, as everyone has spoken about this issue. I had the impression of reviving the debates that were held here both during the vote on the law of 8 June 2006 and during the consideration of the bill aimed at extending the transition period until 30 June 2007. It was then that a working group was formed. His mission was to study some problems related to the application of this law.

This working group has done its work well. We spent a lot of time together. Its chairman recalled in detail what we have achieved, and I am delighted to learn today that he has found a solution that we had sought in vain during the expert hearings. They had explained to us that it was materially impossible to foresee a system of neutralization with sufficient guarantees. We hear that a new system has been set up in England, so that it could be introduced to us sooner or later.

Until now, this device is not known to us. The Working Group considered that there were still no valid solutions with sufficient technical guarantees to be held. On the other hand, several exchanges have proven interesting, especially when it came to the need to inform and raise awareness of our citizens about their rights, of course, but also about the risks posed by weapons.

There are two conclusions after this long discussion. First, it is useless to oppose citizens against each other or to seek to stigmatize certain gun users. Hunters are not potential criminals; sports shooters are not. Coming from a region where hunting is a highly developed activity, I would even say: that hunters continue to hunt and possess as many weapons as in the past. Furthermore, the enforcement of the law does not seem to harm them. I had to clarify it once again.

And I add that the purpose of the law is not to prevent these people from using their weapons under conditions that have been defined very clearly. The goal is to prevent such amounts of weapons from continuing to circulate. The president cited alarming figures.

He talks about 100,000 missing weapons. But that is worrying! Fortunately, this law has been adopted. Where are those weapons? There was really a danger. Therefore, it is important to recall that, first and foremost, the law that has been voted aims to ensure better security for our citizens and to combat violence.

The word is given to Mr. Laeremans and then to Mr. Denis.

I will exhaust the list of speakers enrolled in the discussion of this project before closing the session this afternoon!

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin with a response to the words of Mr. Goris. He claimed that this would be a consensus text and that all democratic parties have approved and signed the text. That is twice flagrantly wrong, colleague, and you know that too very well. You are very well aware of this.

First, the text is not consensual. There is indeed an interesting finding and there is progress. We have also expressly said this. It delights us. On the other hand, however, we also said during the preparation of the text that we would not approve it, nor can we support it, because it is absolutely insufficient and long not clear enough and ignores the responsibility of Parliament itself.

Second, if you say that all democratic parties have approved the text, then again you are not telling the truth. You do not have any serious argument, colleague Goris, to say that we would not be democratic or, for example, less democratic than the Socialist Party. You know that very well. You have no serious argument to demonstrate our so-called undemocratic character, but you live, work and think in slogans against our party. I regret this, because you are different, in normal doing, but a wise person. I regret this, ⁇ of you. I did not expect it from you.

I come to the subject. We regret this resolution, as it demonstrates the abdication of Parliament. You acknowledge the problems. at last . This is positive and it delights us too. In this sense, the working group has ⁇ benefited, but on the other hand, the working group has been a large doofpot or a paralyzing machine which prevented the legislation from being changed and which delayed everything and eventually allowed nothing to be changed.

You acknowledge that the weapons law, the rush law that was passed here last year, overrides its purpose. As a legislator, we must acknowledge this. We should also conclude that most gun owners do not have confidence in this legislation to declare their possession of arms during this amnesty period. Nevertheless, you have not taken advantage of the opportunity to amend the law or to ensure that the law can be amended and to create trust among the bonafide citizens who possess a weapon, for example by giving closing guarantees that valuable family items can remain in possession. These are sometimes very valuable pieces, worth many hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of francs. They are not used. They are heritage. However, if one wants to remain fully within the law, one will have to surrender them. Confidence could also be created by, for example, a smoother attitude regarding the motivation of those who already possess a weapon or by converting the five-year expiration of the weapons license into a five-year reporting obligation. We also made a very concrete proposal for this. However, we note that we are followed in principle, but that the legislator refuses to do his work.

Through the reporting obligation, the harassment of arms owners would cease, such as the medical check, repeated every five years, theoretical trials, repeated every five years, and practical trials, repeated every five years. Every five years, the same stupid practical trials are repeated. I’m saying stupid, because for people who have to repeat the tests every five years, it’s very stupid. We do not have any problem with the fact that these tests must be done when submitting a weapons license. On the contrary, one can and must be strict, but the people who repeat tests every five years testify to a tremendous distrust of the citizen. It does not show good, orderly legislation.

In addition, there is also again every five years the peppered weapons tax, which was approved here at the end of last year, and everything indicates that it is intended solely to use the weapons owners as milk cows.

I found in the working group that there is absolutely no principled objection to amending the law in that sense and to convert the five-year permit into a reporting obligation, but it is not possible to express that.

During the hearings, however, it was very clear that it would cause very serious problems, including with the security services. The five-year renewal will ensure that both the police services, as well as the provincial services, the governor's services, ensure that people who could otherwise be engaged in real safety in society now have to engage in the re-doing and re-doing of stupid trials. That is a waste of time, and it will ensure the removal of people who are useful on the street, who are useful as police officers, as police inspectors in the field, and who can thus fight the real criminals. They will now be used to make the lives of honourable citizens difficult and very difficult, with all the consequences thereof. For example, people who fail in certain trials or in medical trials, or are temporarily medically incapable of functioning, for example after a myocardial infarction or a cerebral infarction and thereafter no longer come to, as soon as they are fully recovered, re-establish themselves in order with their weapon, the sanction to have to hand over their weapon license. These people are de facto expropriated and disarmed. This is very extensive.

Although you acknowledge that these problems exist, that the five-year licensing obligation is problematic and that the hearings in this area have made very clear that the police services will get a discomfort at work, you do not use that to change the gun law and you do not proceed to change the law. You even carry the right of initiation to amend the law, completely transferred to the government instead of taking the necessary initiatives yourself.

You do not even have the courage to extend the notice period by several months, to a considerable extent beyond the upcoming government negotiations, so that clarity can again be created by the new majority after the elections.

This means the abdication of Parliament. It is indeed unparliamentary. I have rarely seen a parliament actually give all the right of initiative to the government, and even to Minister Onkelinx. This is unparliamentary and therefore undemocratic. Mr. Goris, you do not believe in our own abilities. You do not believe in the power of popular representation, on the contrary.

Mr. Monfils has an excess of right that you are deceiving the population when you say that with the resolution everything will change for the population. On the contrary, you actually say that we can do nothing more, that you give everything to the government and put all confidence in the hands of the government, although at the same time you make clear that you have problems with the text. You are very ambiguous and ambiguous in this case.

Once again, during this legislature, we must establish that the Socialist Party swings the plaque in this majority and that the will of Minister Onkelinx is law within purple. The liberals are always on their knees for the omnipotence of the Socialist Party. During the last meeting of the Justice Committee, where the results of the resolution were discussed, the Minister actually laughed at you and actually said that she does not take into account what you say and ask, that she, of course, will not take the initiative as you ask, and that she completely dismisses this resolution in that regard. The Minister laughed at you.

Dear colleagues, this is a missed opportunity. It is a blow in the face of many tens of thousands of honourable, brave citizens who fall into great legal uncertainty more than ever. We regret this and we will strongly reject this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.

We are not challenging the need for weapons legislation, everyone has agreed on it for a long time. But the law must be good. However, the law of 6 June 2006 does not. Why Why ? Because of the paying renewal of permits that will make people not declare their weapons, because of the inability to hold weapons, even without ammunition and without the possibility of reversible neutralization, which will also make people not declare them and because of the obligation to get rid of their weapons or to have them permanently disabled when one no longer has the "legitimate" motive to hold them.

The law will lack its purpose. What were the purposes of the law? Reduce the number of weapons in circulation, identify the owners of these weapons and finally establish traceability.

After the June 6 deadline, only 5% of the weapons will have been declared. There have already been a few tens of thousands of weapons, there will still be so many before June 6, but the hundreds of thousands of weapons that are in circulation in Belgium will not be declared! I can tell you: it will be like this!

This will be a total flop. Mrs. Minister – if you are still Minister of Justice and for my part I will not be here anymore – you or your successor will have no alternative but to extend the deadline again or to make, once and for all, a good law. A good law that will also have to provide an amnesty for those who have put themselves out of the law by not declaring the weapons by June 6, 2007.

What is needed to make a good law? It is simply necessary to allow honest citizens who possess and hold weapons to keep them, even without what the law calls the "legitimate" motive, but under certain conditions.

First, keep the weapons in a safe. Secondly, hold them without ammunition if there is no legitimate reason to hold them or to have them neutralized temporarily and non-irreversibly, even if such reversibility can be carried out only by an approved body.

I proposed a technique in commission; I was replied that it is not certain that it works. However, it has done its proof; it is used in Germany. Most of my colleagues in the committee did not even listen to me!

Dear colleagues, I do not believe that this resolution will be useful. I will not vote for you, Mr. Monfils.

I may be the only one who will not vote, but I want to express my protest against the law. As I said, I will no longer be there at the entrance to propose a good law but I will do a vacation or retirement duty – if you prefer to be called so – that will allow my liberal colleagues to submit at the entrance a bill that will be realistic, applicable and effective.

I thank you, Mr Denis.

I was short, didn’t I?

It is very good!

I no longer dare to comment on the time of speech.

I will put the resolution on the government’s bank.