Guns are taboo for proven extremists. But does that also apply to all AfD members in Thuringia? There, the state association is classified as right-wing extremist. A single case ended up in court.
A member of the Thuringian AfD, which is classified as a right-wing extremist, can temporarily get his weapons and the corresponding permits back. This was decided by the administrative court in Gera in an urgent procedure. A suspensive effect of his objection was ordered, the court announced on Monday. Several media had previously reported on the decision. The decision is not yet final.
The Thuringian AfD has been classified and monitored as right-wing extremist by the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution since March 2021. Thuringia’s Interior Minister Georg Maier (SPD) had already emphasized in the middle of last year that he wanted to prevent extremists from owning guns in Thuringia. The corresponding regulation was also applied to Thuringian AfD members because of the classification of the AfD state association.
The district office of the Saale-Orla district also withdrew the applicant’s gun license and, according to the court, justified this with his lack of gun-legal reliability. Among other things, it referred to the Thuringian constitutional protection report 2021, in which the classification of the AfD state association was justified in detail. The sports shooter defended himself against it by objection.
What does the court say?
The first chamber of the administrative court has now determined that the “requirements for a revocation of the weapon license have not yet been reliably proven by the weapons authority,” as the administrative court said in a statement.
“A mere suspicion based on facts is not enough. Neither the note from the Office for the Protection of the Constitution of May 23, 2022 nor the report for the Protection of the Constitution for 2021 follow with the necessary certainty that the entire state association of the AfD Thuringia is hostile to the constitution,” the statement said.
The focus of the note are statements by a state spokesman for the Thuringian AfD. “His statements are fundamentally important indicators of the overall orientation of the association. However, given the size of the state association of the AfD and the regularly complex structures of political parties, a corresponding conclusion cannot be made schematically,” the statement said. The two AfD state spokesmen, i.e. the AfD state party leaders in Thuringia, are Björn Höcke and Stefan Möller.
Thuringia’s Ministry of the Interior examines the reasons for the decision
In order to be able to determine whether there is a systematic violation of and disregard for certain constitutional principles, it is necessary to “consolidate through an in-depth and detailed analysis of the corresponding programmatic statements of the party and the statements of a sufficient number of officials, members or other persons who belong to the party would be attributed,” the statement said.
According to its own statements, the Thuringian Ministry of the Interior is examining “the reasons for the urgent decision that is not yet legally binding”. “Other administrative courts have taken a different legal view on the question of the unreliability of an AfD member within the meaning of the WaffG,” said a ministry spokesman on request. Accordingly, one examines whether an appeal should be lodged and what effects the decision could have on other cases.
In its justification, the court also cites the official review of the Sonneberg AfD District Administrator Robert Stuhlmann. The applicant “rightly” pointed out that the “examination result of the Thuringian state administration office (…) on the affirmed loyalty to the constitution of the newly elected district administrator of the district of Sonneberg (…) speaks against the assumption that there is only one in this state association , all other dominant basic political orientation,” says the court’s decision.
What does an urgent decision mean in this case?
According to a court spokesman, a decision was initially made in an urgent matter, so the decision is a preliminary decision. The authority could still improve the objection procedure and provide further reasons for its decision to withdraw the gun licenses, said the spokesman.
As can be seen from the decision, the sports shooter had already submitted his gun licenses and provided evidence that he had given his firearms and ammunition to authorized persons.
Source: Stern
I have been working in the news industry for over 6 years, first as a reporter and now as an editor. I have covered politics extensively, and my work has appeared in major newspapers and online news outlets around the world. In addition to my writing, I also contribute regularly to 24 Hours World.
