Entscheidung in Sachsen-Anhalt: AfD-Mitgliedschaft kann zu Waffenentzug führen

The Higher Administrative Court of Saxony-Anhalt has made it clear that AfD members could lose their weapons permit as part of their party membership. The court stated, "To protect the public from the extreme dangers of weapons, the state does not have to wait for crimes or damages to occur but can minimize risks beforehand." The court gave the weapons authorities a legally sound basis to revoke weapons permits for AfD members.

In concrete cases, the responsible police inspection office revoked the weapons permit for three individuals, who were AfD members or supporters in Saxony-Anhalt. Despite their attempts, all three pursued their case. The court clarified that a weapons permit is the legally prescribed authorization to handle, possess, or carry weapons in Germany.

According to the Weapons Act, someone is considered unreliable when supporting a union that pursues constitutionally hostile goals. This rule could apply to both simple AfD party members and active supporters. In three decisions, the Higher Administrative Court now rejected the plaintiffs' claims to allow an appeal against the Magdeburg administrative court's rulings.

The plaintiffs had relied on the "party privilege" in the Basic Law and emphasized that weapons-related disadvantages due to party affiliation should only take effect after the Federal Constitutional Court officially banned the party. They also disputed that the AfD Saxony-Anhalt is constitutionally hostile. However, the Higher Administrative Court did not share this assessment.

"Neither authorities nor administrative courts speak out against a party ban in the weapons-related procedure," the court said. "The weapons law imposes general requirements on the reliability of weapon owners that apply equally to all citizens." To assess whether a party pursues constitutionally hostile goals, the court looked at the overall picture of the party, largely shaped by statements from leading representatives, officials, and sub-organizations.

"If a union regards people of foreign origin or Muslim faith as inferior, unintegrable, or a threat to the supposed biologically organic population and advocates their paucity, this constitutes a violation of the universal claim to human dignity," the court stated. The court also showed the way for an exception, which is possible if "special circumstances of the individual case justify confidence that the person concerned, despite party membership or support, does not pose a weapons-related risk."

The person would need to demonstrably oppose inflammatory statements or breaches of the democratic principle or immediately be about to leave the party. The Higher Administrative Court's decisions are enforceable, and only a constitutional complaint remains possible, said a court spokesperson.