Decision in Saxony-Anhalt: AfD membership can lead to withdrawal of firearms license

The Higher Administrative Court of the state of Saxony-Anhalt has made it clear that members of the AfD can lose their firearms permit in the context of their party membership. "In order to protect the public from the extreme dangers of firearms, the state does not have to wait until criminal acts or damage have occurred, but can minimize risks in advance," the court announced.

The firearms authorities now have a legally secure basis for revoking the firearms permit from AfD members, a court spokesman said to the German Press Agency. In the specific cases, the responsible police inspection had revoked the firearms permit from three people. According to the information provided, they were members or supporters of the AfD Saxony-Anhalt.

The three had proceeded against this. A firearms permit is the legally prescribed permit to handle firearms, possess them or carry them in Germany. The Weapons Act regulates the exact requirements. According to this, anyone who supports an association that pursues anti-constitutional efforts is considered unreliable in terms of firearms law.

This regulation can be applied to both simple party members of the AfD and active supporters, the court clarified. In three decisions, the Higher Administrative Court has now rejected the applicants' requests. They had demanded the admission of the appeal against judgments of the Magdeburg Administrative Court. This means that it is now legally binding that the plaintiffs, as members or supporters of the AfD state association, "do not possess the required reliability in firearms law for gun ownership," it was said.

The plaintiffs had relied on the "party privilege" in the Basic Law and emphasized that disadvantages in firearms law due to party membership should only occur if the Federal Constitutional Court had officially banned the party. They also disputed that the AfD Saxony-Anhalt was constitutionally hostile.

The Higher Administrative Court did not follow this assessment, however. "Neither authorities nor administrative courts pronounce a party ban in firearms law proceedings," it said. "Firearms law sets general requirements for the reliability of gun owners, which apply equally to all citizens." For the assessment of whether a party pursues anti-constitutional efforts, it depends on the overall picture of the party.

This is "significantly shaped by statements from leading representatives, officials and sub-divisions," it said. "If an association generally considers people of foreign origin or Muslim faith to be inferior, not integrable or as a threat to the preservation of a supposedly biological-organic national body and advocates for their general exclusion, this constitutes a violation of the universal claim to validity of human dignity," said the court.

Systematic vilification of state institutions and democratic processes, as well as a constant comparison with illegitimate regimes, also goes beyond permissible criticism and represents an attack on the democratic principle. The judges also show the way to an exception in their decisions. This is possible if "special circumstances of the individual case justify the trust that, despite membership or support of the party, no firearms-related danger exists for the person concerned".

The person concerned would have to, for example, demonstrably actively counteract inhumane statements or violations of the democratic principle or be about to leave the party. The decisions of the Higher Administrative Court are legally binding. Only the path of a constitutional complaint is still possible, a spokesman said.