Switzerland rejects tighter gun controls

Sport shooting is very popular in Switzerland

13 February 2011 Last updated at 13:32
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12441834


Swiss voters have rejected proposed tighter controls on gun ownership, near-complete results show.

It means that the voters decided during the referendum to retain the current system, which allows army-issued weapons to be kept at home.

Supporters of the tighter curbs wanted to have weapons kept in armouries and demanded stricter checks on gun owners.

Opponents said the move would undermine trust in the army. The final result of the vote is expected soon.

Near-complete results show at least 14 out of 26 Swiss cantons rejected the proposal in Sunday's vote.
National institution

For the proposal to succeed, it required the support of the majority of Swiss citizens and the cantons.

Overall, about 57% of the Swiss voters rejected the plan, while 43% backed it.

Geneva and Basel both bucked the trend by approving it, according to the Swissinfo website.

The result is a blow to gun-control groups in Switzerland, the BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva reports.

There are an estimated two to three million guns circulating in Switzerland.

No-one knows the exact number because there is no national firearms register, our correspondent adds.

In addition to the semi-automatic assault rifle that all those serving in the army store at home, there are thousands of hunting rifles and pistols.

Serving and former soldiers have been allowed to keep their weapons at home since World War II.

The proposal to end that custom was backed by a coalition of doctors, women's groups and police associations.

Although Switzerland's overall crime rate is low by European standards, the country has the highest rate of gun suicide in Europe.

The proposal's backers had argued that keeping soldiers' firearms locked up in armouries would reduce the suicide rate.

A number of high-profile killings in recent years - such as the shooting of ski star Corinne Rey-Bellet by her estranged husband in 2006 - have also boosted support for greater gun control.

But the Swiss army is a national institution, and changing anything about it is controversial, says our correspondent.

Opponents of the proposals say taking soldiers' guns away would undermine the military and could open the door to abolishing Switzerland's citizen army all together.

"If the 'Yes' goes through, it really risks destroying the country," Xavier Schwitzguebel, an army reservist officer, was earlier quoted as saying by the AFP news agency.

"If we take away the weapon, which represents this trust, that means that we are breaking the sacred union between democracy and citizen."

The real assassination target in Tucson?

This info was taken from here. I always recommend everyone verify all things. Let this sort of be a disclaimer. Several times I have found info connected to Alex Jones to be wrong. Even in matters such as this. I believe he does this on purpose to incite revolution and extremist behavior for the goal of harming the reputations of truth-seekers. The Alex Jones Operation (Project Alex Jones) has many purposes. One purpose is to be a "straw man sock puppet" meant to discredit the whole grass roots, alternative media, constitutionalists, ect ect movements ... -T.R.

Meet Judge John Roll

"Widely respected." "A wise jurist." The US news media heaped on the praise, but was purposefully vague about who this extraordinary judge was and what he actually did. The early and oft-repeated media claim "the judge was just in the wrong place at the wrong time" doesn't ring true for several reasons, the most important being how the heck would they know and know so quickly? Equally as suspicious, why did they feel the need to repeat this statement over and over again from the very beginning of the reports? Who inserted this into the news stream? Judge Roll was an opponent of the Federal government overreaching its authority. Specifically: 1. He ruled against federal imposition on states rights in gun law matters, 2. He ruled against elements of the Patriot Act (the part where federal "law enforcement agents" can seize your bank account without cause), and 3. He ruled against the newly announced FEMA Governor system in which the federal government plans to take the power of elected state Governors and put in in the hands of federally-appointed "regional" governors in the case of an "emergency." It's a rare judge these days that stands up to this BS or shows any interest in the Constitution at all. And he ended up dead in the parking lot of a Safeway Supermarket at the hands of a "lone nut" who local law enforcement allowed to run wild publicly making violent threats against employers and school administrators.

Link to page with video