Decision in Saxony-Anhalt: Court: AfD membership can lead to withdrawal of weapons

The Higher Administrative Court of Saxony-Anhalt has made it clear that members of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party may lose their weapon permit in the context of their party membership. The court stated, "To protect the public from the extreme dangers posed by weapons, the state does not need to wait for criminal acts or damages to occur, but can minimize risks proactively."

The court has now provided a legally sound basis for weapon authorities to revoke weapon permits for AfD members, said a court spokesperson. In specific cases, the responsible police inspection office had revoked weapon permits from three individuals, who were identified as AfD members or supporters in the region of Saxony-Anhalt.

These individuals had pursued their case, arguing that their membership in the AfD did not disqualify them from possessing a weapon. The court clarified that a weapon permit is the legally required authorization for handling, owning, or carrying weapons in Germany. According to the Weapons Act, a person is considered unreliable if they support a political association that seeks to undermine the constitution.

The court emphasized that this regulation could apply to both simple party members and active supporters of the AfD. The court rejected the plaintiffs' appeal against the decisions of the Magdeburg Administrative Court, stating that they had failed to demonstrate that they possessed the necessary weapon reliability due to their party membership.

The plaintiffs had relied on the "party privilege" enshrined in the Basic Law, asserting that weapon-related disadvantages arising from party membership should only apply if the Federal Constitutional Court officially bans the party. The court disagreed with this assessment, stating that neither authorities nor administrative courts consider a party ban in the weapon-related legal process.

The court emphasized that the weapon law imposes general requirements on the reliability of weapon owners, which apply equally to all citizens. In determining whether a party pursued constitutionally hostile goals, the court considered the overall image of the party, which is significantly shaped by statements from leading representatives, officials, and subgroups.

The court noted that denigrating foreigners or Muslims as inferior, non-integrable, or as a threat to the assumed biological and organic nature of the population and calling for their systematic exclusion constituted a violation of the universal claim to human dignity. The court also criticized systematic insults of state institutions and democratic processes, as well as a continuous comparison with undemocratic regimes, as surpassing legitimate criticism and representing an attack on the democratic principle.

The court provided a pathway for an exception, which would be possible if "special circumstances of the individual case justify confidence that the affected person, despite their party membership or support, does not pose a weapon-relevant danger." The affected individual would need to demonstrate, for example, that they actively oppose hateful statements or breaches of the democratic principle or are on the verge of leaving the party.

The Higher Administrative Court's decisions are now legally binding, with only the path of a constitutional complaint remaining possible, according to a court spokesperson.