Few within the hunting and sport shooting community have failed to miss that the stand in Brussels regarding EU’s Firearms Directive seems to be a lost cause, at least at a European level. Anna Maria Corazza-Bildt (MP) voted for the compromise in IMCO since she claimed that it would not prove a threat towards the interests of law abiding gun owners while Jasenko Selimovic (L), himself a hunter, voted against it. According to Corazza-Bildt a vote against the Directive would impair legislation against for instance sonic and deactivated firearms. However there already exists such a Directive regarding the latter that the EU has failed to implement. As such the new Firearms Directive serves no purpose. Rather it can rightfully be considered as Pandora’s box for additional limitations imposed upon Europe’s law abiding citizens when the Directive will be implemented on national levels and then updated every 5 years. To that one can also add the fact that the EU-commission has blatantly failed to abide to EU’s own laws and policies regarding problem assessment, analysis of consequences and the principal of subsidiarity. Hence it seems apparent that those who voted yes perhaps were more concerned of their long term political careers in Brussels rather than the specific question and standing up for the principals in these matters. That said Corazza-Bildt has been willing to listen, although it doesn’t appear that she grasped the realities of these issues when put into practical implementation.
Meanwhile in Sweden there seem to exist a constant call for stricter sentences when it comes to possession of illegal firearms as well as further limitations for law abiding citizens in the light of almost weekly shootings and murders. However one might wonder if this will make any difference? The Swedish legal system seems to have lost all connection with reality in which criminals are given what can only be described a discount the more crimes they commit. The Prosecutors are seldom willing to postpone a trial if a criminal commits more crimes and thus he will never face charges for these additional crimes. A possession of an illegal firearm is also seen with appallingly leniency. A criminal might feel threatened by other other criminals and hence he has a need for a illegal firearm is the reasoning. Thus a 17 year old in Malmö was recently sentenced to probation for the possession of 5 illegal handguns, which were very likely smuggled into the country as Makarov pistols are rarely used among Swedish competition shooters, as well as petty drug offence and DUI.
Meanwhile during a control of his gun safe a hunter in Heby was found to have ammunition left over from firearms he had previously sold. This resulted in fines of 5100 SEK, thats corresponds into 98 SEK per round, since he no longer had a permit for firearms chambered in these calibers.
It is further quite evident that the Police Authorities have a political agenda of their own. When a Police Officer in Örebro, Peter Springare, made headlines this weekend by questioning the public political narrative by revealing the ethnicity of the criminals in cases he was working on, the Chief of Police Dan Eliasson was quick to emphasize that Springare should make a difference between his personal opinions and of his professional ones. The latter is quite interesting to note since it is seemingly perfectly fine that Peter Thorsell, Chief of the Police Authorities Firearms Department, can express his personal opinions in mass media like he did in his article We do not need firearms with high firepower in Dagens Nyheter in which argued that every legal gun owner was potential liability.
His personal views predated the EU-commission´s draconian Firearms Directive of the same narrative, however this is no coincidence since Thorsell’s right hand Christer Henriksson had been technical adviser for the EU’s Task Force under Fabio Marini. Even more compromising Thorsell was adjunct to the negotiations in GENVAL on the request of his personal friend and former colleague from the days on the force in Dalarna County, Nils Hänninger, nowadays General Counsel at the Department of Justice. When information leaked that Hänninger and Thorsell had ignored the mandate given to them by the Swedish Parliament and opted for a harsher stance, the result was an intricate theater of smokescreens and outright lies with political protection from the highest level. This resulted in both the Minister of Interior as well as Minister of Justice being filed an official complaint against to the Constitutional Committee. Their hearing is set for April this year.
So it becomes quite evident that it is perfectly fine for state servants to have a political agenda of their own and to express their personal opinions as long as they serve the narrative of the government since there is a total lack of repercussions in cases like Thorsell’s. What purpose do stricter laws have when criminals are given discounts and what purpose does limitations for law abiding citizens serve when criminals are using illegal firearms smuggled into the country? To be frank, it is only a charade in order to appear to be in control and to implement a political agenda under false flag. Laws are for the law abiding in today’s Sweden.