Proposition 52K0474

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 8 juin 2006 réglant des activités économiques et individuelles avec des armes.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Liesbeth Van der Auwera, Servais Verherstraeten
Open Vld Sabien Lahaye-Battheu, Carina Van Cauter

Submission date

Nov. 29, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

arms trade

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD MR FN VB

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Mia De Schamphelaere (CD&V) 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 ¶

July 10, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mrs. Galant is suffering. It returns to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, Mr. Minister, since the entry into force of the law of 8 June 2006 regulating economic and individual activities with weapons, how many times have we not been interrogated as to the relevance of the choices it contains: excessive strictness of the law, difficulties in enforcement, disposal and destruction of weapons of high value – financial, artistic, historical or sentimental – or simply held in full legality for many years by honest persons who have never caused the slightest problem, excessive administrative formalities, excessive amount of fees, uncertainties on the extent of renewal of issued permits for detention, extreme distrust of weapons holders in the real intentions of public authorities.

Has the righteousness of the law enabled the achievement of its goal, namely to remove the weapons from clandestinity? I must admit that not. It was therefore necessary to amend this law in several points. The first was to extend the list of legitimate reasons to include those who wanted to keep their weapons without shooting. I think of people who have acquired a weapon by way of succession or even the hunters or sports shooters who wish to cease their respective activities.

It was also appropriate to reflect on the situation of people who held a weapon for many years before the passing of this law, however, of course, that weapon was not prohibited. It was also about simplifying the procedure for renewal of gun holding permits or revision of the fee to be paid every five years.

Since the beginning of the legislature, the MR has opened a debate by submitting several bills. On the basis of a proposed MR law, the transitional periods contained in the Arms Act were extended until 31 October 2008. This additional time had to be used to amend this law in substance. In this context, and always under the impetus of the MR elected members, the Chamber Justice Committee audited many weapons industry experts in order to gather the opinion of practitioners and field actors on the indispensable improvements to be made to the weapons law.

In December 2007, the Constitutional Court issued a ⁇ important and decisive decision regarding the development of the case.

The desire to find a solution for passive holders and the motivation for this decision led the majority groups to file the amendment introducing a new article 11/1 into the new gun law.

Since this is a fundamental amendment, I would like to clarify again its scope. Jaqueline Galant has already done this during the work of the Justice Committee. But it is important that each of us, as well as the departments of the Minister of Justice and Governors, have the necessary explanations for a consistent and uniform application of this provision. This information will be included in the report of our work and the relevant departments may refer to it.

In its Decision of 19 December 2007, the Constitutional Court reproaches Article 11, § 3, paragraph 9, “not mentioning as legitimate grounds the preservation in a heritage of a weapon that was legally held”. For this reason, the Court annuls Article 11, paragraph 3, paragraph 9, "insofar as it does not mention as a legitimate reason the preservation of a weapon in a heritage when the application for a permit of detention relates to a weapon subject to a permit, with the exclusion of ammunition for which a permit of detention has been issued or for which a permit of detention was not required".

Several conclusions must be drawn from this judgment. It is indispensable to incorporate, in the gun law, a new type of detention: the possession of a gun subject to authorization without ammunition. This detention without ammunition can be granted only if it is about keeping a weapon in a legacy. This new legitimate motive cannot therefore be invoked by a person who wishes to purchase a weapon from an armor maker, without yet wanting to use it.

Furthermore, the Constitutional Court specifies that if one wishes to retain this weapon, it must have been legally held. The Court considers two situations: either a detention permit was issued or a permit was not required for the weapon in question.

Amendment No. 7 introducing a new article 11/1 into the law aims to allow this detention without ammunition and this, in accordance with the prescribed of the Constitutional Court.

This new article clarifies very clearly that the envisaged authorisation is valid only for the mere possession of the weapon with the exclusion, I repeat, of ammunition. Such permission may only be granted to persons wishing to keep certain weapons in their property. The proposed item will therefore not allow a person to buy a weapon from an armor dealer and obtain a permission to hold without ammunition. The assumptions referred to have been defined in the light of the motivation and disposition of the judgment of the Constitutional Court.

The weapons referred to in this Article 11/1 are the weapons legally held. The general principle of this article is to authorize the possession without ammunition only for weapons that were legally held and that the holder wishes to retain.

The second category concerned are the weapons that had been the subject of an authorisation. This element of the project article addresses the following situations. There are two. The person who acquired the weapon before the entry into force of the Act of 2006 and at that time obtained the authorisation or the person who receives, in the context of a succession, a weapon subject to authorisation, either under the old Act or the Act of 2006. A license was issued for this weapon to the deceased person.

There is the case of weapons for which a permit was not required before the entry into force of the 2006 Act. In this case, the person acquired a weapon before the entry into force of the 2006 law and that weapon was not subject to authorization.

There are, of course, the hunters and sports shooters who wish to stop practicing their hobby but who wish to retain their weapons. Prior to the entry into force of the 2006 law, hunting and sports weapons were not subject to authorization. Article 12 of the law specifies that Article 11 does not apply to sports hunters and shooters. Therefore, the possession of a hunting or sports shooting weapon is not subject to authorisation in the strict sense of the term, since it is held by a hunting or sports shooter. This is explained by the draft proposal. It is also for this reason that the date of acquisition of the weapon is not mentioned.

I would like to cite an example. by Mr. X acquires a hunting weapon. This should be done before or after the entry into force of the Act of 2006. The article adopted does not refer to the date of acquisition of the weapon.

Mr. X has a hunting license. Article 11 of the law does not apply. There is no permission in the strict sense. At the expiration of the validity of his hunting license, Mr. X no longer wants to practice his hobby but would like to keep his hunting weapon. He can therefore benefit from the possibility provided for by the new Article 11/1 and, therefore, he can hold his hunting weapon but without ammunition. The same applies in the context of a succession if the person receives a hunting or sports shooting weapon.

As you can see, holding without ammunition allows people who legally hold a weapon but who do not want to use it to keep it. From now on, they will no longer be deprived of their property by the State, which was legitimately felt as an injustice and an infringement on their right of ownership.

Of course, this amendment is fundamental, but the text adopted by the Justice Committee has made relevant changes at several levels. First, at the legal level, from now on, before it is possible to include a weapon in the category of weapons subject to authorization, the King must obtain the opinion of the Arms Advisory Council. The possibility given to the King to extend, in whole or in part, to weapons other than firearms, the legal provisions concerning permits and permits has been removed. In doing so, the State Council’s opinion on the draft law based on the 2006 law is finally respected. The conditions under which weapons can be borrowed are finally clarified. Furthermore, other concepts are clarified, adapted or modified.

At the level of administrative simplification, the authors of the bill and amendments brought a number of interesting innovations. First, sports hunters and shooters will now be exempt from theoretical and practical tests. Sports shooters will be exempt from the medical certificate. Collectors and persons participating in historical, folklore, cultural or scientific activities will also be exempt from this medical certificate.

Article 32 of the new law is revised and sets the principle that approvals and authorizations are granted for an indefinite period. It will be up to the Governor to check every five years whether the holders of these approvals and authorizations comply with the law and meet the conditions for issuing the documents.

The mechanism is now reversed. The holder of the authorisation will no longer have to request the renewal of his authorisation every five years. It is the provincial governor who will check whether the conditions for authorisation are still met. The holders will no longer have to produce a medical certificate again and pass the theoretical and practical tests.

For collectors, the threshold of ten weapons is reduced to five weapons. From now on, they will only have to acquire five weapons before obtaining their approval, which represents an administrative simplification and a considerable reduction in the costs to consent before obtaining the approval. Some prohibited non-fire weapons that are part of the collections may be kept, provided that the owner obtains a collector’s permission.

As regards the amount of the fees, adjustments were obtained, taking into account the current budget margins and the insufficient coverage of the expenditure made by the Department of the Interior to finance the services of the governors. From now on, the amount of the fee to be paid at the time of application and renewal is literally determined as follows: "For all permits to hold an authorised weapon on behalf of the same person, this is a flat amount of 85,00 euros". Concretely, this article means that, for each application for authorisation, a flat amount of 85,00 euros will have to be paid; that the application for authorisation concerns one or more weapons, the amount will be 85,00 euros. Therefore, there is a clear interest in declaring all the weapons. When the control is carried out every five years by the Governor, the amount of the fee will be 85,00 euros, whether the control carries on one or more weapons.

The text to which we have come contains a series of innovations. Some are major changes compared to the 2006 law. Others are less, but will make life easier for gunholders who, for the most part, never pose problems in terms of public security.

If you allow me the expression, the text of the bill proposal corrects the shot, where the previous text was wrong as a target. The 2006 law gave arms holders the impression that they wanted to tackle crime by reducing legitimate reasons for weapons holding by subjecting them to unbelievable administrative harassment, or even by depositing them of weapons they had held legally and honestly for many years.

Some have seen the draft law on the basis of the 2006 law as an opportunity to drastically reduce the possession of weapons by individuals. The pretext is known. Reducing the possession of weapons would lead to a parallel reduction in crime. Nothing is less true.

Everyone knows that the illegal market is far more threatening to public security than the declared sale of weapons to individuals or the legal possession of weapons by individuals. Indeed, it is the weapons from clandestine chains that are used in most attacks with firearms. At the hearing, the representative of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office said that firearms, excluding hunting and sports shooting weapons, whose possession for legitimate reasons is allowed, are present in 2% of homicides, while weapons from the international trade of war weapons account for 26% and white weapons such as knives, sleeves and cutters are present for 36%.

Therefore, it is essential and imperative to include in the priorities of the prosecution policy the dismantling of the chains that feed the parallel market for prohibited weapons. The House of Representatives was responsible for correcting the most obvious misconduct contained in the law we voted for in 2006. It is now up to the Government to include in the priorities of the prosecution policy the dismantling of the chains that feed the parallel market. It is also indispensable and urgent to reform the Central Register of Arms so that it is finally operational. This register should allow to know the number of weapons held in our country, to verify whether a person is in possession of a permit to hold or to allow the police forces and governors to take appropriate measures if it appears that a person who constitutes a risk to public security holds a weapon.

The text to which we have come re-balances the 2006 law, making it more acceptable for the sector. It is of nature to make possible the initial objective of this law, namely the declaration of a maximum number of weapons, to bring up to the surface as many weapons as possible and not to destroy a maximum of them. Other adjustments will ⁇ need to be made. Certainly there are still imperfections in this 2006 law; it will ⁇ be appropriate to return the work to the profession after a new assessment.

But, from now on, we can congratulate ourselves that we have led to a text that contains an alternative to the destruction of weapons legally held, sometimes for years. The provisions adopted by the Committee on Justice also aim to reduce legal uncertainty and simplify the administrative burdens to which gunholders were subjected.

Given the current budgetary possibilities, the amount of fees has been revised down, but, of course, not cancelled.

On this latter point, it will probably be necessary to conduct a thorough assessment and to accurately figure out the budgetary impact for the Department of the Interior.

Dear colleagues, the text on our banks seems to answer most of the concerns our group has expressed since the vote of the law in 2006. We will therefore issue a positive vote.

On 18 October 2007, almost nine months ago, we discussed and approved the extension of the amnesty period until 31 October 2008.

The Open Vld has then clarified that there is a double path: on the one hand an extension of the amnesty period and on the other hand a repair law, with the understanding that one could not be without the other. Why a repair law? In the meantime, it was apparent that the new weapons law of 2006 caused a lot of difficulties on the ground and because some unintended consequences were not sufficiently estimated in advance. Well, dear colleagues, we have held the word because today that repair law is in place and later the law will be approved in this plenary session.

For us, good weapons legislation is based on three key drivers. First, the removal of weapons from the illegality by encouraging people to indicate weapons. A second driving force is to raise awareness of the potential danger of weapons in terms of security. A third driving force is the demonstration of reasonability towards the gun lover and the professional who does their best to always be in order with everything.

From these three drivers, at the end of last year, as Open Vld, on the basis of the resolution of 8 March 2007, which was discussed and adopted during the previous legislature, together with our colleagues from the CD&V, we submitted a balanced, comprehensive and substantiated bill. This bill was adopted by the Justice Committee as the most comprehensive bill and retained as the basis for the discussion.

Over the past months, colleagues, the Constitutional Court’s judgment was followed and was intensely met and negotiated within the majority. This has led to a number of majority amendments that have been discussed and approved in the Justice Committee over the past few weeks. The result is not a smoother but a more balanced weapons legislation.

For the concrete amendments, I would like to give the word to my colleague, Ms. Van Cauter.

Ms. Van Cauter has the word.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, as my good colleague Sabien Lahaye-Battheu just said, we continue to support the original law of 8 June 2006, as well as the objectives we sought at the time, such as enabling the traceability of weapons, getting as many weapons out of the illegality as possible, Mr. Dedecker, and the fight against meaningless violence.

You must first ask the word.

Mrs Van Cauter, I wonder why your party approved this last time.

Colleague Dedecker, you will have to ask that to my predecessors.

I do it, with these.

I can add that some of the consequences of the previous legislation – you did not let me speak, but I went into it – were not intended. The applicability on the ground has made us, Members of Parliament, aware that a number of amendments were effectively needed.

Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court also issued a judgment in order to provide a solution for a number of gun owners. I am talking about hunters, sports shooters and heirs who find a weapon in their possessions or have stopped their activity and who should be left the possibility, when it comes to a licensed weapon, to keep the weapon in their possessions.

I return to the point where I had started.

Last time we felt that too. All the elements you would change now were then rejected. It would be nice for your colleagues to answer this.

Mr. Dedecker, you know things in advance. We wait for things and then we correct them.

[...] can be prevented, Mr De Croo.

Ms. Van Cauter has the word.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, with this legislation – it has been shown in the hearings that it was necessary – we must prevent the use of weapons in an unjudgmental way, by people who are not trained to do so, and that weapons are used impulsively.

This is why a number of amendments have been proposed in this bill. One cannot finish it in general terms by saying – some colleagues may soon still do this, in the press it has already been cited here and there – that it would be a general easing of the weapons law. I see colleague Van Hecke knocking. This is not correct.

The distinction between licensed weapons and prohibited weapons has not changed. On the contrary, the nightwatch is effectively prohibited. That may not be a weapon, but it is a useful tool for those who do not have good intentions. The list of criminal offences preventing someone from obtaining a gun permit is extensive. Today, police services and governors can seize not only licensed weapons, but also freely available weapons if public security is compromised. The prohibition on the sale of weapons via the internet is still being extended.

On the other hand, I started with it, we really wanted to remedy a number of unintended consequences, we wanted to meet the judgment of the Constitutional Court, we wanted to effectively serve the legal certainty and we wanted to ensure an administrative simplification. It came on explicit request from the governors and the police services.

Therefore, permits will now be granted for an indefinite period. This is, of course, not a freelance colleague Dedecker, because every five years it will have to be re-checked whether one effectively meets the conditions to have a license. As I said earlier, this unlimited authorisation serves legal certainty and implies an administrative simplification.

Finally, it also provides for the possibility of passive weapons possession for those weapons where a license was previously available or where a license was previously not required. Passive possession means that we cannot possess ammunition. I assume that some colleagues will later say that this rule will miss its purpose or may miss its purpose.

I have to reject this already in advance so as not to have to react later. We all know that in order to get ammunition one must be in possession of a license, so that only those with a license will be able to purchase ammunition.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, Mr. Minister, the law of 8 June 2006 regulating economic and individual activities with weapons represented a major advance in the perspective of better control of weapons circulating in our country. At that time, like everyone else, we supported this law. It is not in our intention to soften it, but rather to make it more practical.

The proposal that is being voted today and which follows numerous hearings cannot be considered as a general easing of legislation for the following reasons.

First reason: cases of inadmissibility of applications for authorisation of persons carrying out professional activities involving the possession of firearms have been extended. The list of offences in the Criminal Code for which a convicted person is unacceptable to submit an application for authorization is extended to all offences involving violence and confidence abuse. Applications for authorisation from persons who have committed a breach of the regulations regarding sports hunting and shooting are now inadmissible.

Second grounds: Applications for authorisation submitted by persons who do not meet the legal conditions relating to the requirement of the majority, the absence of a criminal conviction or a decision falling within the scope of the Act on the protection of the person from mental illness or the Social Protection Act, the requirement of a medical certificate confirming that the applicant is able to handle the weapon safely for himself or for others, the absence of opposition by the cohabitant and the requirement of a legitimate reason.

Third ground: It is expressly stated that the authorisation to hold a weapon is granted to the applicant only if, in particular, he justifies a legitimate reason, not only for the acquisition but also for the possession of the weapon and ammunition. Thus, he who no longer exercises the profession for which he could possess a firearm has no longer a legitimate reason to still keep that weapon.

Fourth reason: the law now encompasses the loan of weapons between persons legally authorized to hold a firearm. This situation was envisaged in the law of 2006, but was not sufficiently regulated.

Fifth reason: the regime of prohibitions on the sale of weapons to individuals by mail, via the Internet or remotely has been tightened.

Sixth reason: those who violate the Act of 1933 are subject to the same sanctions as those who violate the provisions of 2006 and its enforcement orders.

Seventh reason: in case of danger to public order or the physical integrity of persons, police officers will be able to seize not only the relevant weapon subject to authorisation, but also the open-selling firearms that the person possesses.

Eighth reason: the control of armoured artillery and weapons manufacturers now belonged to the federal police and not to the local police. This allows for the use of more specialized control techniques.

Ninth reason: the automation in issuing an authorisation to persons holding a weapon that has become subject to authorisation, since they are older and have never been convicted, has appeared too dangerous. Furthermore, there must be no public order grounds that would give rise to the withdrawal of the authorisation.

For the rest, the proposal makes the law less ambitious, but at the same time more realistic by giving priority to the registration of a larger number of weapons. The most important easing has, in reality, not been decided by the legislator, but by the Constitutional Court in its judgment of 19 December 2007. Indeed, the proposal must respond to this judgment. It thus allows persons wishing to retain in their property – which is the core point of this new legislation – a weapon that had been authorised or for which a permit was not required before the entry into force of the 2006 law to obtain a permit for holding without ammunition. This permit is valid only for the mere possession of the weapon with the exclusion of ammunition and is issued only on the basis of compliance with the legal conditions, with the exception of conditions related to the requirement of a medical certificate, the successful passing of a test and the justification of a legitimate reason.

Article 11/2 newly regulates the deadlines for submitting this particular application for a permit for detention, with the exception of ammunition. It is also clear that, in our mind, this permission to hold without ammunition in no way excludes any possible additional condition, such as neutralization – in accordance with the resolution adopted in the Federal Parliament on 12 April 2007. In this resolution, Parliament calls on the federal government to propose, after consultation with the Advisory Council on Weapons, feasible technical solutions to temporarily neutralize certain categories of weapons and to regulate their possession.

For authorisations and authorisations, the mandatory five-year renewal system has been replaced by authorisations and authorisations with indefinite validity. However, in the interests of public safety, a regular effective inspection is planned every five years, by the Governor. If the system is reversed, then the result is the same. The aim is to encourage statements and prevent the development of the black market.

Finally, the law tends to solve some practical difficulties in applying the 2006 Act. It is true that during the hearings, we have noted a number of them. However, we will remain attentive to ensure that the enforcement of the law does not lead to unwanted deviations.

The CDH will vote this law without hesitation.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard Mr. Dedecker say that he voted against the bill in the Senate. He must have been wrong. The bill was not adopted in the Senate.

I will refresh your memory. I was in the party against that law. I held a debate with someone from the VLD this morning and told him clearly and clearly that this was an unlaw. That was probably also one of the reasons why I became too much in the party.

You said you voted against in the Senate. That is a lie.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, today comes a mea culpa of this Parliament.

The weapons legislation was amended in 2006 following the very tragic events we all know in a way too hasty, too drastic and completely irrational.

The law-Onkelinx was sold as a necessary intervention to make the impulsive purchase of dangerous firearms impossible. Until then there was a general consensus.

However, the law went much further. It was the explicit intention of some to discourage and suspect the possession of arms by ordinary, brave civilians in a very strong degree, and to expropriate bonafide arms owners in a covert manner.

This happened through plague charges, humiliating five-year trials, and the mandatory permanent unpreparation of often very valuable weapons.

The law-Onkelinx led a very large group of citizens – hundreds of thousands of people – to unbelief, astonishment, consternation and then to direct anger. Anger was clearly expressed in the ballot. In Wallonia, she contributed to the very severe decline of the Socialist Party, and in Flanders, she also declared the heavy mokerslag that sp.a-Spirit had to endure. Spirit, the great, arrogant advocate of this expropriation law, even completely disappeared from this hemisphere.

The Onkelinx law was so draconian that it gives a chance to continue to function as a school example of ineffective and counterproductive symbol legislation, even of emo legislation, in which one, under pressure of the cameras, unconsciously and without giving any chance to critical comments, penetrates laws that do not find support in the people to whom they apply.

One of the main purposes of the law was the establishment of transparent weapons registers and the fight against illegal possession of weapons, the publication of weapons. Despite the clear punishment provisions, the gun owners massively and quite understandably refused to provide their cooperation, making the law completely overlook its purpose.

The most punishable of all was that this new legislation would provide a huge amount of extra work for the police, which had to re-examine all gun owners every five years, and consequently had to continue to spend a lot of time and energy in an irresponsible heavy surveillance of that category of civilians with which one generally has the least security problems.

In addition, this happens at a time when the police are more than ever engaged in the fight against turndoors criminals, city gangs and armed gangsters.

As a result, the law has a completely counterproductive character. She threatened to work the insecurity in a sharp way instead of reducing it.

We are pleased that the common sense has returned to a very significant extent. It has taken a long time, but today we can with satisfaction conclude that the law is being substantially amended in the direction indicated by us.

The most important achievement is that the permit no longer automatically expires after five years, but is granted for an indefinite duration. The humiliating, five-year, theoretical and practical exams are therefore happily discarded. This will provide tremendous workload savings for provincial administrations and police services.

Colleagues, however, much will depend on how the five-year control of gun owners, which is introduced today with the present law, will take place. In any case, we find it unreasonable and substantially increasing the threshold that the government, in compensation for the above-mentioned control, wishes to make all gun owners pay the remuneration of 85 euros per license every five years.

However, our amendment to pay the referred remuneration only when the authorisation was granted was unfortunately rejected by the other parties.

In any case, we hope that the control of compliance with the legal conditions will be carried out in a reasonable, proportionate manner, even as the very arbitrary provision in Article 11 is ⁇ ined. That provision restricts the possession of weapons for personal defense in a draconian manner.

A second, important change is that it is finally removed from the idea-fix that unused weapons should only be held in possession if they are made unprepared. We have argued from the beginning that the aforementioned measure is unrealistic and unfair. This would, in many cases, lead to the definitive inutility and, consequently, the total devaluation of those weapons, which are often very valuable, often tens and sometimes hundreds of years old, and are thus destroyed.

That is why we, as the only party from the beginning, proposed to introduce a licensing category for weapons possession without ammunition. We are very pleased that our proposal was finally taken over by the other parties.

Finally, we are pleased that the proposed legislative amendment also allows for a simplified transition, without new medical or theoretical tests, from the hunting leave and the sports shooter license to a classical weapons license.

These are very logical changes that will finally give the new weapons law a realistic character, giving it a much greater support from the bonafide weapons owners. The law is not perfect yet, but it is a major breakthrough in the right direction. Unfortunately, it took so long before the majority parties reached an agreement. As a result, artificial strikes must now take place in the coming days to prevent accidents from happening in the Senate.

Colleagues, it is important that the complex weapons law now becomes known to all stakeholders as soon as possible and can be properly applied. Therefore, we would like to advocate for a period of rest of several years to avoid further increasing confusion and legal uncertainty. In any case, this law, which clearly shows imperfections, will need to be re-evaluated at some point. However, I think – and then I look especially to the left – that the battle beel is now better buried for a while.

I hope that the traditional parties, especially those on the left and extreme left side of the political spectrum, have now learned their lesson and that they realize that symbolic legislation gives nothing, that it will soon be repealed again. I dare hope that they will finally stop hunting good civilians, that they will stop criminalizing bonafide gun owners.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I will be brief because I feel the impatience of my colleagues to move on to other joys.

I will not go unnecessarily back in time to explain the reasons that prompted Parliament to substantially adapt the weapons legislation of 1933, already amended in 1992, with the subsequent adoption of the June 2006 law, which is in question today and which was voted, at that time, unanimously by our Parliament minus two abstentions, majority and opposition confused. This indicated the conviction of colleagues – just two years ago – about the importance of this law. This feeling has not changed, of course. It was, at the time, beyond the dramatic event in Antwerp, to transpose the EU directives on traceability of weapons and public security. These goals of better controlling arms trade and improving public security are shared by all political parties and are among their current concerns.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what some argue, the foundations of the 2006 law – the colleagues who have just intervened have also noted it – remain important achievements. Today, the goal is to encourage people who hold weapons to declare them in order to ensure their traceability and finally know, in this country, who owns a weapon and where it is located. This is the least of the things!

We have therefore strengthened certain provisions by prohibiting, for example, the trade in weapons over the Internet and by extending the list of offences that result in a ban on the possession of weapons for their perpetrators.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that this matter is ⁇ delicate because the possession of weapons affects several essential rights (right of ownership, right to security) but also the feeling of security or insecurity of all our fellow citizens. We know, and we have heard, that many people keep their weapons in memory of missing relatives or simply like to collect special weapons.

While the former government, unanimously (MR, VLD, sp.a, PS), thought to do useful work, while our Parliament thought to act in the right direction, we collectively – it must be acknowledged – had an insufficiently nuanced approach. We have not sufficiently measured the affective dimensions and the sentimental value that some gunholders attach to their property.

We also did not measure the excessive cost required for new declarations of weapons possession, especially for holders holding multiple weapons.

It is for all of these reasons that, like other colleagues, we have submitted several bills, in order to remedy the imperfections generated by the new law of June 2006. I heard from my colleague, Mr. Bellot, referring to the proposals submitted by Mr. Each political group gave its opinion and took initiatives in this regard. by Mr. Gilkinet tells me that not everyone did. Mr. Gilkinet, Ecolo did not actually take the initiative and I have only heard you at one time during all the discussions in the committee.

by Mr. Bellot referred to it; in a constructive spirit, we postponed the debate, so that a serene discussion could be engaged. This was the case as we conducted a substantial debate, outside of any party and polemical consideration.

I hope that the debate will take place without party or political provocation. The discussions in the committee took place in a serene manner. Everyone defended their positions. All political groups were present. If Mr. Frederic does not yet have a good notion of what a "political group" is, I will take five minutes to explain it to him!

Mr. Lahssaini, the debate may want to raise the reflection. I know what a political group is and I have respect for most political groups in this assembly, at least for democratic political groups. When I spoke of political initiative, you ⁇ could not see in your back Mr. Gilkinet, say to me, “No, not us!” It is my right to say that too. Please agree! Have group meetings North-South, East-West, where you want, but make sure you speak with one voice!

Mr Lahssaini, don’t come to tell me we worked in the precipitation! I have read it.

Maybe Mrs. During the previous legislature, we probably all worked too fast. We have the humility to acknowledge it. We must all recognize this because you voted like me. Most of my colleagues remember it.

We have spent time listening and dialogue with the people on the field and we are convinced that the changes made today respond to the criticism made. Furthermore, it has been repeatedly stressed, the Constitutional Court has strengthened us in our reflection, since its decision of December obliges us to correct certain provisions of the 2006 law. Not any disposition, dear colleagues, but those that posed to us a real problem of consciousness! The ruling of the Constitutional Court, of exceptional legal quality, thus gives us the indispensable tags in order to find a solution for passive holders, by allowing them to hold a weapon without ammunition, as long as it is part of their heritage and obviously with the permission of the governor.

This is a significant step forward in ending legal uncertainty and responding to the fears expressed by many of our fellow citizens. This means that the number of weapons in circulation can be determined. I would add that persons who would not comply with the conditions of the law would obviously be exposed to administrative measures and judicial prosecution.

We have done a substantial work to further clarify certain provisions of the law. I have no idea of reviewing all the technical changes. Other colleagues have done this brilliantly before me, but I would like to highlight some important points.

During the hearings, we realized the importance of ensuring the implementation of the legislation we were voting for. Thus, the new tasks assigned then to governors without any preparation accentuated the difficulties of law enforcement. That is why it seems to me wise to have decided that authorisations would be granted for an indefinite period and that it would now be the responsibility of the governors to carry out controls in their own manner. In addition, these measures have been taken to make the authorisation procedure faster.

We will also need to ensure that the transmission of information between armors, police and the Central Register of Weapons is efficient, in order to simplify the administrative burden of armors.

I repeat, our work is in the right line of the expectations of the Constitutional Court, neither more nor less. National coherence should be ensured in the policy of collection developed by the governors. Most of the provisions contained in the law which is submitted to us constitute, without a doubt, an improvement.

I would like to regret that it was not possible, for budgetary reasons, to reduce the amount of fees collected in the application for authorisation. For example, for a passive holder of a weapon, the fee is increased. I think this is harmful. We will also continue to advocate for compensation for those who have complied with the law, those who, before June 30, 2007, have deposited their weapons and have seen this weapon destroyed. They were deprived of their property, their property, and no compensation is provided. We will remain attentive to this aspect of things.

In a spirit of dialogue with the field actors, we also believe that further improvements will need to be considered as soon as the opportunity comes.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the Minister of Justice and his collaborators as well as colleagues who helped to advance this delicate case in a positive perspective.

The Socialist Group will unreservedly support this text and amendments.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I will try to be as concise, or even more concise, as Mr. Frédéric.

I would like to make two comments. I do not think that much parliamentary work has been done on the amendment of the Arms Law. What has happened is that one has faithfully followed the Constitutional Court on a point. This raises the question of whether the Constitutional Court has not come too far in the place of Parliament.

Usually the word is asked. Control your spontaneity.

I will try to continue my speech.

If you read the judgment of the Constitutional Court, you will notice that an appreciation is given. Regarding the drafting of the law, it is considered that one should not take away the weapons from persons who want to hold their weapons, but do not want to use them. The original purpose of the law was to remove more weapons from society. That was the foundation of the text that was approved almost unanimously last time.

Nobody but the Constitutional Court has noted that it is a form of deprivation of wealth, especially for those who would like to have a weapon without using it, and that at that point the reasoning is no longer true that a weapon that one does not use is not dangerous.

The essence of the goal of the Arms Act was to remove the weapons from the houses, as they can be dangerous in crisis moments. In fact, the facts show that they are used in crisis situations. That was what they wanted to prevent.

By the reasoning of the Constitutional Court, in the first reading, this is completely overthrown. So it is not the Parliament that states that one can decide to remove weapons from society.

No, it turns out to be the Constitutional Court that says to us, elected by the people, that we cannot do that. There is something wrong with this reasoning. In the long term, I would like to point out this trend. The decision of the Constitutional Court is quite extensive, very substantial and, in my opinion, little legal. Parliament could have taken a different stance in this regard. One could have taken a better motivation for the original goal. I repeat, the original purpose of the Arms Act was to remove weapons from society from the international assumption that weapons in society are dangerous, I repeat it, in crisis situations. This option has been completely eliminated today.

By allowing permission to allow people to have a gun without bullets, it allows the weapons to remain in society. This is a fundamentally different choice. This can be a choice of democracy. It is the Constitutional Court’s choice to be followed blindly. This might be a choice of this Chamber, and to the extent that this is effectively a choice of this Chamber, we can in any case not follow this, and we consider this as a complete subjection to the original law.

Hopefully you will not find in practice that we are faced again with cases of use of weapons in crisis situations, where weapons lead to murder, where weapons lead to shooting by people who will have a license for a gun without bullets. Be assured, the bullets still spread much more easily than the weapons in our society. We have installed an official backdoor here for an originally good law.

I think that here today, with the approval of this proposal, we effectively buried the Arms Act.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, after the speech of Mr. Landuyt, I also threw the mine I had prepared out of my bench. I will respond directly to what he said.

I think that the colleagues of Open Vld, MR, PS have done out of the clothes that the change is about. So I can keep it pretty short.

What needs me from the beginning of my heart is that I can actually hold the same discourse that I held in 2006. I have seen a number of colleagues standing here, and there has been a discussion between people from List Dedecker and Open Vld. We have always sued from our group – even in 2006, Mr. Landuyt, already before the intervention of the Arbitration Court – where the problems were when it came to the law of 2006.

I think I need to refresh...

Mrs. Van der Auwera, Mr. Van de Velde wishes, I think, to note that he was not here a few years ago.

Indeed, it makes me a great pleasure that we give such an impression that we have been present all over the world. I find it warm from you, and I thank you for that. You feel like we have been present in this Room all that time. That is the feeling that you display, and that adorns you at this late hour. I appreciate that. I thank you for that.

I think some things need to be refreshed.

Colleague Landuyt, I think the following was something typical of purple. I will refresh for a moment what the emphasis at that time was in the new weapons law of 2006.

The emphasis was, first, on making the weapons market transparent, second, on registering, controlling and dispatching weapons, and third, on centralizing with the Minister of Justice everything that has to do with weapons policy.

But nowhere is clearly stated that weapons must be destroyed. One of the statements was: weapons must come above water so that the control mechanisms provided can work and have consequences.

This was preceded by the 2006 law. The aim was to bring over water weapons, but the law has completely missed its purpose. Weapons possession was not massively registered. On the contrary, the number of illegal weapons increased. In practice, the law turned out to be ineffective. The provincial arms services were not prepared for their tasks, they lacked the resources and knowledge to apply the law. Problems were resolved under the coordination of the Federal Arms Service. There were a lot of trouble points.

Mr. Landuyt, you say there has been no parliamentary work. Immediately after the adoption of that law in 2006, where our group had abstained, a working group within Parliament has nevertheless been set up to evaluate that law. Your group was part of it; all groups were represented. In the end, a resolution was adopted unanimously.

The resolution that was then adopted included a number of trouble points, which I would like to refresh for a moment. At that time, everyone agreed that the licensing procedure needed to be simplified, that the limited validity of the licenses was challenged, that solutions needed to be sought for the passive gun owners and that passive gun owners are also gun owners who do not hunt or shoot. This resolution was then approved.

In the meantime, we have addressed the gaps in this way.

Indeed, a relief, you can say, if permits are issued for an unlimited duration, but a five-year audit is introduced. I ask you what would be most efficient.

Mr. Speaker, when Mrs. Van der Auwera is ready, I would like to make a comment.

well well .

He will give them a “kwak” afterwards.

Mr. Landuyt, I think you should not interrupt me to tell me that you will give me a fox later.

Mr Landuyt, as regards authorisations with an unlimited duration, you have, in my opinion, also forgotten that the unlimited duration that is now reintroduced already existed at that time.

In 2006, licenses with a limited duration were charged, but periodic checks were possible, in fact ad hoc checks.

Now we move to unlimited duration permits, which are periodically checked. This increases legal certainty for the gun owner.

In addition, this also means less administrative burden for the issuance of documents and more time available for the effective implementation of checks. These checks are now carried out per gun owner and no longer per weapon. In this way, less controls will be required.

In summary, I can say that after the Arms Act of 2006 in the working group it was quickly determined that the law was not workingable. We unanimously adopted a resolution. The legislation in force today is in line with that resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind colleague Van der Auwera of the fact that in 2006 in two marathon meetings of the Justice Committee we bowed on this law.

I want to tell you, colleague, that the spirit of the law, as it was then passed, was aimed at giving priority, not to the gun owners, but to the people. Here are the statistics we used at the time. In Switzerland there are 6 deaths per 100,000 people per year, in France almost 5, in Finland 4.5 and in Belgium 3.7 deaths. I can continue like that. Belgium is among the 27 member states of the European Union the country with the third most casualties caused by weapons.

Mrs. Van der Auwera, I don’t know if you were present in that committee, but in 2006 the philosophy of the law – from the first minute to the last – was to reduce the number of human casualties caused by weapons. That is why we want to reduce the hundreds of thousands of weapons present in Belgium. What colleague Landuyt said was the philosophy of the law.

If you didn’t understand that in 2006, I don’t know where you were. Now, with these amendments, one no longer wants to put the people at the center, but one wants to be for the sake of the gun owners. We were against it in 2006 and we are still against it today.

I regret that those who in 2006 also put the people at the center instead of the gun owners, now have found a majority in this Chamber to change the philosophy of that legislation.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you are very pathetic and very naive at the same time. This is a very dangerous combination. Your goal is noble, we endorse it. Do you think there is one person here in Parliament who does not endorse that our society should be protected and who is for the ordinary wild wearing of weapons? At the same time, however, one must be realistic. There are hunters, there are sports shooters. There are weapons in circulation. If you think that you are going to get with such statements that weapons come over water, that people who have a weapon in their possession can be controlled, then you are mistaken.

You have, however, had to establish here together with us in recent years, that the longer the more weapons have fallen into the illegality. Is that what we want? Our goal is to bring weapons into legality and to carry out periodic checks. Then one can take action and at the same time raise awareness. Putting your head to the ground and shouting that you are against weapons is so bad that no weapons are indicated and registered and no controls are possible, which is only dangerous.

Mr. Van der Maelen, I was there in the previous legislature from the first to the last minute, and so was it now. You must know that from CD&V - N-VA it was our deepest desire to disable passive weapons possession, by removing the strike pin or through the use of chemical agents to make a weapon unprepared. That was, of course, the ideal, then we were not now with weapons possession without ammunition, which colleague Landuyt narrows, saying that one cannot shoot without bullets.

However, the hearings showed that the technique at the present time is not of the kind that for all calibers one standard technique that allows weapons to be deactivated is possible. In addition, the cost plate is high for certain techniques. After following all the hearings, having heard all the persons active on the ground and having visited the test bench, we have come to the conclusion that, in the current state of technology, passive possession of weapons without ammunition can be chosen without setting conditions for disabling that weapon.

After all, what will one get if one imposes the deactivation with the corresponding cost plate for the gun owner? Those people will not report the weapon again. We come into our households with weapons that are illegal. I would like to point out that this is not our goal. We want to know where weapons are, we want a correct, coherent licensing policy under the supervision of the Minister of Justice, with checks and monitoring of what the technology brings in the future. At some point in the future, a definitive deactivation may be decided.

First, you choose for the interests of the gun owners. You choose that Belgium remains the country where hundreds of thousands of weapons are left in families.

Second, I have seen, Mrs. Van der Auwera, who you have proposed, with whom you have come to the hearings. These were people who belonged to the lobby of the gun owners. That was clear enough.

I would like to point out for a moment who is at the Flemish level Minister of Sport and Minister of Culture and who is our Governor in Limburg, who has made important statements in favor of sports shooters, hunters and people who do so from a folklore background. You would be better in your party office to align the opinions a little more and come to a consistent vision, because you blow warm and cold at the same time.

I have two comments. First, in relation to the colleague of the sp.a, the hearings were ⁇ not unilateral. They were very balanced. There have also been people who have been introduced to you, including the great advocate Jef Vermassen, who, as you know, is very one-sided in this story. All of them have been discussed. There were many opponents, but also people who were in favor of a law change. It was very balanced, fortunately. I think it is the intention of hearings that all aspects are addressed.

I have only said that the people we have heard and who have been promoted by the group of Mrs. Van der Auwera came from the corner of the lobby of the weapons owners.

This is not about lobbying. This is about hundreds of thousands of people. The speakers were nominated not only by CD&V, but by all political groups, except ⁇ your group, because there was indeed a problem with the applicability of the legislation. I wanted to make that comment.

Secondly, colleague Van der Auwera spoke of a unanimous resolution. I know that we did not agree with them, because the conclusions were unfortunately too good. At that time, under the previous government, they did not draw the far-reaching conclusions that, fortunately, are now drawn. One ⁇ did not want to listen to those conclusions, because the brave proposals we made at the time were all blocked and countered by Minister Onkelinx of the PS. Only after the departure of Onkelinx was a reversal possible. If you say that that much too good resolution was unanimously adopted, then I must contradict you. We ⁇ did not approve them at the time.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I see that there is immediately a lot of commotion when the word arms lobby falls. Immediately some people seem to feel addressed.

It is indeed true that this legislative amendment, the easing proposed today, has come under pressure from the arms lobby. They apparently did their work very well. They waited a moment. The Van Themsche trial is behind and then it could be moved back to the agenda. It is already somewhat further in the memory and so the clock could be turned back somewhat.

Indeed, an evaluation has been made. I was not there at the time, but our colleague from Ecolo participated in that working group. A number of conclusions have been made. I also read them. If we put those conclusions alongside the changes that are being implemented today, we will see a huge difference.

What has been done? These conclusions, which were often technical provisions or contained substantive indications, have not been implemented. Much more has been done. This report has been used and even abused to go much further and turn the law back in time. That is the reality.

As a result, Belgium goes against an international trend to make private weapons ownership increasingly strict and subject to stricter conditions. With this legislative amendment, this majority, in it also supported in the committee by the Flemish Interest and List Dedecker – this party, however, had no voting right – wants to prioritize the individual right to possession of weapons on the collective right to a safe living environment. I think that is the essence of this legislation.

Belgium has a problem, as colleague Van der Maelen has shown. This is a statistic from the WHO, the World Health Organization, which provides an overview of figures from the industrialized world. We are in the fifth place in terms of the number of firearm casualties per 100,000 inhabitants. At the top is, and this will not surprise, the United States, the country with the most liberal gun law. The second place is Switzerland. Also that is a country where a lot of weapons are in circulation for other, historical reasons. This means that there is a link between the number of weapons in circulation and the number of deaths caused by firearms.

If we look at those figures, it is remarkable that Belgium scores even worse than Italy, which is tormented by mafia groups. The figures for Belgium are even worse than those in Italy.

Mr Van Hecke, the data you have are aggregated.

When we conducted the hearings, the federal prosecutor’s attorney came up with figures. I have quoted them just recently: 2% of homicides are committed with the weapons covered by today’s law, 26% are war weapons in transit into our country via parallel trafficking whose law obviously condemns detention since these weapons are prohibited.

In our opinion, we must primarily devote the means to fight against the trafficking of these war weapons. Today, the police spend a lot of time on all the formalities that need to be completed. It is one to two men per police area. Make the total on the country! If we devoted the police units to the search for these weapons of war rather than the search for the 2% that the law concerns, I think we would reach a very different result!

At the time, during committee debates, I had cited to the minister the fact that between the cabinet and the courthouse in Brussels, it was possible to obtain war weapons for 150 euros with chargers. I would like to know the number of surveys and descents that have been made on the spot since then!

(The applause )

I would also like to know if mr. Van Hecke speaks in the name of Ecolo-Groen! Because I have a letter, signed by Ms. Durant during the 2007 election campaign, believing that the law had gone far too far compared to honest citizens.

I also know that Mrs. Gerkens went to a gunmaker in Liège and I leave her the first thing to say what she said on the spot!

This is why I participated in the working group that drafted the resolution at the end of the previous legislature. This proposal consisted in saying that the law we had adopted contained elements that were unclear and that posed problems.

Today, the problem is that the proposed law goes further and is different from what we asked in the resolution.

Take a look at the comments I made during the discussion of the previous law! You will find that I said that the adoption of this law was too quick, because it was elaborated in relation to the events of the time and the murderous raid of the young Van Themssche. It would have been necessary to take a step back, which was not done, hence the resolution to change the law.

I know weapons makers in Liège who make weapons of real jewelry. They are golden, sculpted, etc. Their value can reach about 6 million. Such weapons will not be used for the commission of acts. It can be understood that their owners want to keep them. That is why I insisted so much on developing measures that allow to neutralize a weapon. Having a weapon without ammunition is not to neutralize a weapon. Because of the ammunition, I can always say I don’t have them and get them elsewhere!

I participated in the drafting of the resolution. Activities, in particular artistic order, gravitate around these objects and should be taken into account. But the current bill proposal is different and goes beyond the amendment elements we had adopted. This is where the problem arises, of course!

We discussed the figures in the committee. Numbers were given. I also asked whether there are figures on how many victims there are in criminal violence or in family circumstances. These figures could not be given. This was of course very crucial, even in this discussion.

The figures I referred to are international figures and its comparisons at the international level. That also counts. This is the comparison with Italy. What is the reason? The reason is not that there are so many criminals in Belgium. The reason is simply that accidents happen, that in family, relationship problems, weapons are taken. This is a reality. It is much easier to use these weapons when they are available. One thing is certain: the more weapons are in circulation, the greater the probability of accidents, the greater the probability of an impulsive act.

We often see accidents happening in newspapers every day. For example, we had a fact a year ago in Zelzate, in a very quiet neighborhood, where a man I think is almost eighty years old, his neighbor fell down because he made too much noise. Because he had a gun in the house.

And what we really want to say, and that is the message we need to give: Private weapons ownership should be reduced as much as possible. This is the best guarantee of a safe society.

It is not for nothing that in two years, about 200,000 weapons have been collected. That is, 200,000 weapons that were owned by individuals who do not have a legitimate reason to possess a weapon. This makes society much safer. It’s not about him, that accusation we have also received, that we say that every gun owner is a criminal. This is not true and I would like to repeat this here. They are just the circumstances. It is often the most normal, the most brave people who have a weapon, who under certain circumstances will use that weapon anyway. These are not people who are criminals.

But what do we get in the discussion? In the discussion in the committee, you get comparisons that if you kill someone with a car, you should also ban the cars. Such arguments are then cited by the people who advocate for a liberal gun law. Of course, you cannot get into such a discussion. There is a heavenly difference between a gun and a car: a gun is made to shoot, to injure, to kill, and a car is not.

The evolution towards relaxation is a very unfortunate choice. It has already been indicated which changes have been made. Most previous speakers point out that these are actually all improvements and simplifications.

I would like to cut out five of them to show that they are absolutely not improvements, but actually serious easing of the weapons law.

First, weapons permits are no longer limited in time. In the past, a maximum period of five years was imposed, and now it is valid unlimited. It is said that the governor will do an audit every five years, but if it does not happen, or it happens only every six or seven years, or it does not happen, for example, because he does not have much interest in it, or because his services are insufficiently equipped to do this – today they can not work – what will then happen? After five years, they still own the weapon. The licence remains valid after six years, after seven years, after eight years.

The best and most efficient way to exercise control and to track weapons is a periodic check, whether it takes place every 3 or 4 or 5 years or after another period. Periodic inspection is the best way to do that.

By deciding not to do the check periodically, I mean that the majority makes a decision that is contrary to the European directive. I mentioned this in the committee. The European Directive, which was recently amended in December 2007, stipulates that there must be a maximum period of detention that must be specified in national law. This is not shown in the Dutch-language version, but it is shown in the French-language and English-language versions. There is a difference in the versions of the Directive.

The French version speaks of a “maximum period de détention” which must be fixed by the national legislature. The English version speaks in the same terminology about a maximum term. What does the Dutch version say? He talks about the “maximum limits to weapons possession” but does not talk about the period.

Well, I have the impression that the authors of the bills and the amendments – among others Mrs. Galant who apparently held the pen – that they – which may decorate them – have used the Dutch language version and not the French language version. If they had used the French-language version, they would have seen that this was actually not possible.

Further, I want to talk about possession without ammunition for anyone who ever had a weapon that was licensed. The categories of people who are now allowed to hold a gun have already been listed. The categories have been extended: all persons who possessed a weapon for which no license was required before 2006, all persons who possess a weapon for which a license has ever been issued, all persons who inherit a weapon, hunters and sports shooters, even if their activities have ceased. They will all be able to hold a weapon without ammunition without ever having a legitimate reason. Not only them, but also all their heirs. Those weapons will therefore remain in the families forever and forever. They will always remain in society. Certainly without ammunition. And that is the next element.

There is a discussion about possession without ammunition. This is a very dangerous evolution. It can be said that one must have a license to buy that ammunition. But it is ⁇ easy to get ammunition in a different way. One can get ammunition from colleagues shooters, because that ammunition is not traceable. Weapons are, but no ammunition. You can join a shooting club and bring ammunition there. You can buy them on the black market, and so on. It is for people who possess a weapon that still works not difficult to get to ammunition. This can lead to a dangerous situation.

This solution is not a good solution. There was an alternative, namely the technical means to make a weapon temporarily unusable.

There are various reasons why this choice has not been made. This is technically impossible for all weapons. That is correct. It was explained to us that it is not feasible for all calibers. It is possible for a large number of calibers. Why does it not begin to impose that measure on those categories for which such technical means exist? This can be perfect. For the other, for which it is not yet possible, one can then choose another solution.

In this way, science, technology, and also the weapons industry will be obliged to seek alternatives to those weapons that today cannot be made unusable in this way.

It is therefore referred to the fact that all this would cost too much money. I would like to see for a moment how much the sports shooter or hunter costs each year of bullets, licenses and so on. The whole discussion about costs is very relative.

Fourth, there is the relief for weapons collectors. This has also been cited. In the past, to be a weapon collector, one needed a collection of ten weapons. This criterion will now be lowered. From five weapons, one is qualified as a collector. This is opening the gate for categories of owners who reach five weapons. Many sports shooters and many hunters will probably possess five weapons and more. They can now use this backdoor to get into a much more favorable situation.

Fifth, there is the cost of licenses. A change is made to 85 euros, a flat amount, regardless of the number of weapons. We received a note from the Minister of the Interior. The committee requested an opinion on this. This is very educational. The figures show that the cost of the control, of the registration system, of the licensing system and the like, is much higher than what enters into the fees to be paid for it. With this change, which requires payment of only one flat-rate amount, that cost will rise even higher. If we want to make this a budget-neutral measure, prices, instead of reducing, would actually have to double.

There will be a problem. This is clearly in the domestic budget. There will be another very interesting discussion at one of the next budget discussions between the Minister of Home Affairs and the Minister of Justice, about who should bear that surplus cost. Will it be borne by the budget of the Judiciary or the budget of the Interior Affairs? Ultimately, however, the result will be the same. Ultimately, it will be the taxpayer who will pay for this system, who will pay for the possession of other people’s weapons. In fact, the costs are transferred to society. That is unacceptable.

Colleagues, it is clear that this proposal completely removes the Arms Act. The result will be that more and more weapons will remain in private possession, that almost no more weapons will be delivered, that society will not become safer on them, on the contrary. Parliament now bears a great responsibility.

If the law is passed, the champagne crows will probably sound loud tonight or tonight in the arms lobby salons and among those who made the legislation change possible. The cat will be for later, for those who will be victims of the easing of this law. It is a black day for our group and for those who are eager for a safer society with much fewer weapons. It may take time before a tragic event occurs, before everyone will wake up again. For example, if someone with a weapon without ammunition has still hit ammunition and someone has knocked down, the debates will rebound. Then no one should say, “We have not known it.”

Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Speaker said. Van Hecke, we are debating a very important law, which causes discussions and divisions that are found in certain cases.

To begin with, I would like to remind you that even if we are not in favour of this proposed amendment, we have nothing against hunters, athletes and armourists. They are all subject to controls and criteria that protect society from firearm deviations.

A weapon is not a toy or any consumer product; it is not treated as a car, as any object. Weapons are a major cause of accidents.

What was the purpose of the 2006 law? by Mr. Van der Maelen had highlighted his primary interest: the protection of the citizen. This law was intended to protect citizens and society from the deviations and dangers of the use of firearms. Since its application, pressure groups and people have been mobilized for professional or affective reasons, and this is their right. It is our right to convey these concerns without endangering society and the interests of the citizen that prevailed in 2006. Today, the introduced amendments reverse this logic and ensure that the interests of the holders are defended.

The amendments submitted involve at least three risks of perverting the concerns of the 2006 law. The first amendment permits gunholders to leave their weapons to their heirs. The second amendment allows to request permission for detention only once for an indefinite period. The third amendment concerns the possession of weapons without ammunition. When we combine the three, we realize that the law we voted in 2006 is no longer meaningful: there is no longer control over weapons; there is no longer a need to seek permission; there is no longer traceability of weapons and people who hold them.

As an elected, I say to myself that if pressure groups want to change this law, I must be interested in their claims. So I would like to start defending their interests: why not defend them? However, since Belgium is ranked fifth in the world and third in Europe by the number of homicides, I have to observe a few reservations. By studying the places and environments where accidents occur, it is observed that 80% of murders with firearms take place in the environment of gunholders; this is what makes me even more backward.

Morally, as an elected, I would also like to defend the interests of gunholders. I will defend them. I will defend them by protecting them: their environment poses a danger to themselves and to their surroundings. I therefore begin to defend them, to defend their interests by protecting them from the dangers that threaten them. One of these dangers is the possession of weapons. Morally, I cannot vote for these amendments.

Nor politically either. Abstraction from my pacifist and non-violent character, I cannot defend the interests of corporations. My logic and my political education want me to defend universal principles; these principles aim primarily at the interest of society as a whole.

Therefore, combining the fact that weapons holders pose a danger to themselves and their surroundings, that they pose a major danger to society by allowing them to hold weapons, to transmit them, and all this with less control, I shout at danger! And asking governors to be proactive and to carry out controls, with the means at their disposal, this implies almost no control.

However, I acknowledge that since the entry into force of the law, 200,000 weapons have been declared and deposited. This is a positive balance sheet: in a year, with the resources available to the weapons harvest services, I think the result is very important.

But I repeat that today, we cannot allow these amendments to pass without screaming at danger, without screaming that we will not only endanger the safety of our children, the surroundings of gunholders, but we will thus strengthen the black market.

Indeed, finding weapons, ammunition or cartridges in the illicit circuit will not only become easier, but will also be an almost legalized activity, the royal way to obtain ammunition. That is why our group cannot support these amendments and will vote against them affirmatively.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, before I begin my presentation, I would like to make a few communications.

First, I would like to thank all the second seats from this hemisphere, MR, VLD, PS, on behalf of the 150,000 subdued to this day who have wrongly brought in their weapons and have seen destroyed. The witch hunt was truly applauded, as well as the unjustified enceting you have caused, which you have with all pleasure yourself inculcated and approved in the previous legislature. Today, as built students, you will be happy to come back to it.

A second message is that I also want to thank Mrs. Van der Auwera. When I read the press, I noticed that it is through the help of Mrs. Van der Auwera that the second-seats who sit here in front of us have recaptured themselves and have been able to steep that law back in a defective way.

Before I go further, I would also like to address the word to the left side, to the gentlemen Landuyt and Van Hecke. Gentlemen, I do not agree at all with the negative human image that you present here today. The negativity and the naivety with which you judge that law today harms all imagination. Taking in hand, profiling and trying to institutionalize with laws and regulations is going too far. In today’s society, we need to ensure more responsibility, for a stronger self-image.

(Protest of the Lords Landuyt and Van Hecke)

You may come to speak later. Let me speak first.

The negative human image should...

The [...]

You can always intervene, of course.

Thank you for this permission! You have to wait a moment to get a floor higher.

Thank you for giving me the word.

I hear you say two things, Mr. Van de Velde. You accuse us of a negative human image. I did not say that. I have noted that there are a lot of accidents. I have said very explicitly that people who have a gun are not criminals. I don’t have a negative human image, but there are accidents. Those who do not know this are also naive.

Secondly, you say that the rules and the ticking go too far. I would like to ask you what your alternative is. Do you advocate for an American system where everyone can simply buy weapons and where there are no rules for gun ownership? What is your position? No weapons law? Freedom and happiness? Can anyone buy a gun? Are you going to tell me?

In any case, I disagree with your first statement. I don’t think we should end up in a society where you can’t smoke anymore, where you can’t drive a car anymore, and where you can’t eat sugar anymore, because that’s all dangerous.

I do not want a society in which all kinds of burdensome measures are converted into laws and regulations. Responsibility of people. Make them aware of the dangers and make sure that they do so themselves in a false way, but try not to impose it over and over again with laws and regulations.

Mr Lahssaini, if you stand here as the great defender of universal values, I would point out that individual freedom is still a universal value. If you try to ignore it, you’re going one step too far.

Who remembers, during my first speech in this Chamber, I took both the rental law and the weapons law on the ground because of the lack of technical and ideological engagement and legislative quality of these laws. Today, therefore, our group is pleased that this law will justly end the witch hunt and the heretization of bonafide weapons owners, such as hunters, sports shooters and collectors. We therefore fully support the proposed amendments, both the strengthening and the easing. I will not re-enumerate them all, because you have already done so extensively.

I would like to address myself to Minister Vandeurzen. During the hearings, a number of very clear elements were highlighted. The implementation on the ground – which has been briefly discussed – clearly leaves something to be desired. The administration of the provinces is a drama.

Not only does it take up too much time, but it is also administratively organized in a miserable way.

Second, I think the police call for a local specialist to deal with the weapons is right. It is part of our vision, Mr. Van Hecke, to work with a local specialist who knows where the weapons are located and can exercise control in a clever way. In addition, he may ensure that the destruction of the ammunition and the weapons is organized in a good manner.

The quality of the central weapons register is also deplorable and needs to be reviewed. Finally, I agree that we must focus primarily on the international arms trade and the big criminals without acidifying the lives of the small arms owners.

I think we need to put an end to the government by event, which has actually happened. We need to go for a society in which responsibility is chosen and no longer for bullying. After all, the latter does not work and it also frustrates. In this regard, this law gives a very clear signal. It was responded not only by the arms lobby but also by ordinary people with common sense. They do not understand that in such a way we want to go so far to restrict people’s possession of anything or doing and letting anything. I think this should remain a clear signal.