Controversial amendment increases police powers. They can enter apartments and confiscate legal weapons

The government passed an amendment to the Weapons Act on Wednesday, which is drawing criticism from several quarters. If the amendment were to be approved by the parliament, it would introduce an obligation for merchants to report suspicious purchases and would allow the police to confiscate weapons in a number of controversial cases, or to conduct house searches. This is not liked by gun associations, but also, for example, by companies that argue about lost profits in the event of disproportionate state intervention.

The obligation to report suspicious transactions is also introduced by the new law on weapons, which was signed by President Petr Pavel in March, but it will not come into force until 2026. The Ministry of the Interior is therefore proposing to amend the currently valid law, including other parts that immediately became the target of criticism.

“This change abandons the rules that have been around since 1990, that is, that the right to a gun is a claim after the conditions have been met. With this provision, that rule ends and we return to the right to bear arms for consideration. It won’t be defined positively, but negatively, and if they don’t want it, they simply don’t have to give it to you,” Jan Skalický, chairman of the Association of Arms Manufacturers and Dealers, told the editors.

A bullying state?

The amendment will also expand the police’s ability to secure weapons. It will now be able to secure them in cases where it obtains information about their holder that it may represent a “serious danger to internal order or security”.

However, even this is criticized by many. Reservations appeared already in the recent comment procedure, for example, entrepreneurs were upset that it was not specified exactly how long weapons or documents would be confiscated.

“The proposal is completely wrong, both legally and factually. Seizure of a weapon is understood as a short-term measure that follows the immediate seizure of a weapon (§ 56) due to an acute threat or due to a realistic threat of loss of conditions for the holder’s right to dispose of the weapon (reliability, integrity, medical fitness). The newly proposed wording of paragraph 2, § 57 then allows the police to secure weapons and authorization on the basis of alleged “information or opinion” from a “public authority” (OVM) without specifying deadlines and remedies, in real practice as far as the length of decision-making is concerned courts for several years,” she tackled the petitioner in the form of the Ministry of the Interior, the Confederation of Employers and Entrepreneurs’ Unions (KZPS).

“In addition to entrepreneurs in the field of weapons and ammunition, professional hunters (pheasant hunters, experts, game guards and game owners) also depend on the possession of a firearms license or firearms license for their existence, as well as employees of security agencies, persons who, as employees, carry out training with weapons or they act as range managers. If the mentioned persons lose their firearms license or license, even if only “temporarily for a few months or years”, it means the loss of their job with all the existential consequences,” adds the Liga Libe association.

The interior objected to this. “With regard to the basic principles of the functioning of a democratic legal state, the procedure of public authorities must not be arbitrary, hypocritical or bullying. In the same way, public authorities must always proceed within the limits of their competence. At the same time, it should be noted that the security is in the form of a standard administrative decision, and must therefore be adequately and reviewably justified. Possibilities of legal protection against a possible illegal decision remain preserved even if the original information or the opinion of a public authority had the form of classified information,” the department replied in the proceedings.

The Minister of the Interior, Vít Rakušan himself, is behind the legislation, according to his own words. According to him, it can sometimes be perceived as bullying, but it is primarily about preventing tragedies. “Let’s ask in this social atmosphere if it is good or not to have the institute of preventive weapon confiscation in the gun legislation. (…) From our political decision, we say that the institution of preventive weapon confiscation as an instrument that can prevent the risk of such accidents is something that is missing from our weapons legislation,” he said.

A widely criticized point is the possibility that the police could search the house, even in the case of a refusal to hand over the weapon. This can also be a problem with category D weapons, which can also be confiscated, but are not registered anywhere. “You have two options. Either you hand over your weapons to the police, or they will search your home under section 57. No court, no prosecutor. (…) There can never be a provision in the law about the confiscation of weapons that someone certainly does not know about,” Skalický is angry.

Suspicious purchases

Criticisms also came to the Institute for reporting unusual trade. “The holder of a firearms license who is an entrepreneur in the field of weapons and ammunition shall notify the police of the transfer of a weapon or ammunition or legal actions leading to such a transfer, which he reasonably considers to be suspicious,” the draft amendment to the law should state. If the licensee fails to make the notification, he commits an offense under the proposal.

In the explanatory report, the office clarifies that suspicious conduct cannot, in principle, be precisely defined. But it can be, for example, cases where a customer tries to buy a gun, the possession of which he is not authorized, if the seller believes that the purchase of the gun is part of the preparation for the commission of a crime or “abnormal confusion, apathy or significant signs of distress” in the buyer.

But according to critics, the legislation senselessly assumes that the seller should know to whom he can and cannot sell the goods without a methodology. “A salesperson is not a psychiatrist to investigate a customer and cannot know what a suspicious transaction is in order to report it,” Skalický glosses.

Internally, in the comment procedure, criticism was hindered. “The proposal is formulated in a general way, but it is not limitless. Under no circumstances will an entrepreneur have to report all transactions to the police, but only those – as the proposal explicitly states – which he reasonably considers to be suspicious,” he explains.

The new law on weapons and ammunition was signed by President Pavel at the end of March. In addition to the aforementioned provisions, for example, it shortens the period for medical examinations of gun owners from ten to five years, and also includes the possibility for the police to order this examination at any time. Attending doctors are to gain access to the central weapons register and verify whether their patient holds a firearms license. Due to the digitalization of the central weapons register and its connection with other police and medical records, the standard will only come into effect from the year after next.

According to the Ministry of the Interior, the second amendment is being submitted in response to the December shooting at the Faculty of Arts of Charles University, where its student killed 14 people and injured 25 people and subsequently shot himself. Opposition member of the ANO movement, Jiří Mašek, also criticized that the amendment was created too quickly. The Austrian rejected this, saying that the legislation had been created continuously for two years, and now the process has only accelerated.