Read news from:
Austria
SHARE
COPY LINK
For members

SWITZERLAND EXPLAINED

Why you might hear gunfire in your Swiss neighbourhood

One thing you should get accustomed to while living in Switzerland is the sound of gunfire.

Published: 26 May 2023 13:21 CEST
Why you might hear gunfire in your Swiss neighbourhood
Firearms — and shooting practices — are part of Swiss culture. Photo by STEFAN WERMUTH / AFP

This may sound like a paradox in this neutral and peace-loving country, but it is nevertheless true.

Right now and throughout the summer, you may be hearing gun shots in your area, especially in you live in a small or rural community. And depending on where you are, the sound of gunfire may blend harmoniously with the ringing of cow bells — what could be more ‘Swiss’ than that?

You will notice, however, that nobody here is alarmed, and you shouldn’t be either: it is  just the Swiss doing what comes naturally to them: firing their weapons.

Why exactly is sharpshooting ‘natural’ for the Swiss?

All able-bodied Swiss men from the age of 18 until 30 are required to serve in the armed forces or in its alternative, the civilian service. 

The soldiers who have been issued an assault rifle must complete a shooting exercise  every year until they are discharged from military duty.

This usually takes place in spring and summer, which may explain why you are hearing the sounds of gunfire now, especially if you live within the hearing range of a military base.

Swiss soldier fires a machine gun during a shooting exercise. Photo by Fabrice COFFRINI / AFP

Then, there are also numerous civilians who practice target shooting as a hobby.

There are plenty of gun clubs throughout the country where people of all ages — including children as young as five — can hone their sharpshooting skills. These clubs are grouped under the umbrella organisation, the Swiss Target Shooting Federation. 
This may sound shocking to some, but in fact, firing guns in Switzerland — whether by soldiers or civilians — is all about safety.

The Swiss learn to shoot from an early age, and develop a deep sense of responsibility toward their firearms, which accounts for the relatively low (in comparison with other countries) rate of gun violence.

However, mishaps sometimes do happen:

READ ALSO: Swiss soldier fined after ‘forgetting’ about gun in car

Youngsters can show off their (safe and responsible) skills during shooting festivals, including  Knabenschiessen, the world’s largest youth rifle competition for 12 to 16-year-olds held in Zurich every September.

This video is a humorous though factual take on Switzerland’s gun culture.

Who is allowed to own a firearm in Switzerland, and under what conditions?

You can own a gun if you are a Swiss citizen and are at least 18 years old; are mentally stable; there is no reason for authorities to believe you may use the weapon to harm yourself or others; and have no criminal record indicating you pose a danger to public safety.

A permit is needed to own a weapon.

A written contract between the seller and buyer, as well as the weapon being sold / purchased must be established.

And If the weapon is a firearm, the seller must send a copy of the contract to the buyer’s cantonal firearms office within 30 days of concluding the contract. 

READ ALSO: How to explain Switzerland’s obsession with guns

Can foreigners own a gun and participate in target shooting practice?

If you have a C permit, your rights to own and use a firearm are the same as for the Swiss (see above).

Others are subject to stricter rules, according to the Federal Office of Police (Fedpol):

“Foreign nationals who do not possess a long-term residence permit require a weapons acquisition permit for all types of weapons and their essential components. They must also have an official certificate from their canton of residence or country of origin confirming that they are authorised to acquire the weapon or main components.”

Citizens of certain countries, however, are not allowed to acquire weapons or essential components.These countries are: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Serbia, Sri Lanka, and Turkey.

The reason for the exclusions is that “there have been ethnically or politically motivated confrontations in Switzerland between members of the warring factions from these countries (or there is a real risk of confrontation),” according to Fedpol.
 
 
 
 

Member comments

Log in here to leave a comment.
Become a Member to leave a comment.
For members

SWITZERLAND EXPLAINED

From condoms to vaccines: The most controversial rulings by Switzerland’s highest court

The Swiss Federal Court, the highest judicial authority in the country, has ruled on some highly contentious issues over the years.

Published: 20 September 2023 15:11 CEST
From condoms to vaccines: The most controversial rulings by Switzerland’s highest court

Before we get to actual cases, it is important to understand how Switzerland’s justice system is set up.

There are different court levels.

When people file their cases with the legal system, their first contact are district courts, which group together judiciary authorities by local areas.

Many Swiss towns are too small to have their own courts, so a district court is just that — a court that covers several neighbouring communities.

If, say, you become involved in a civil lawsuit, a divorce case, or any kind of litigation or dispute, the case will be first be heard at the district court.

Most often, its rulings are final.

However, if you are not happy with the verdict of your district court, you can appeal it within 30 days, at which point your case will go to the higher judicial level, that is, the cantonal court.

Each canton has its own high court — Switzerland’s second most important judicial entity hierarchically.

Besides criminal cases, cantonal high courts hear civil claims, and there are also courts on cantonal level for administrative cases.

The next is the Federal court, the highest judicial authority in Switzerland.

Headquartered in Lausanne, it is the final instance on all appeals against decisions of the highest cantonal courts, as well as the three other federal courts, which deal with criminal, administrative and patent cases, respectively.

This chart shows how the judicial system is organised in Switzerland. 

READ ALSO: What you should know about Switzerland’s courts

This means that by the time a case (that is to say, the appeal) comes before federal judges, it has already been ruled on by lower courts.

This is what happened in these three recent controversial cases as well.

The condom

You might think that taxpayer-funded federal court should not spend its valuable time (and public money) on a case involving a condom, but it has done so nevertheless.

As Swiss media reported, on September 14th, the highest court ruled on a case that has been heard in the lower courts in Zurich since 2017.

It involved a young man (19 at the time), who took off his condom during sex with an 18-year-old woman, without, however, informing her or asking for her consent to do so.

This practice is called ‘“stealthing’ in English.

The woman filed a complaint in a district court of Bülach (Zurich) and, after a series of rulings and appeals through higher courts (see above), ended up before the federal tribunal.

The case took so long because it had many twists and turns.

Stealthing is not punishable by Swiss law, which is why both the district and cantonal court acquitted the young man

The Federal Court  also acquitted him, but reassessed the case from the perspective of sexual harassment. That ruling had stuck, and the young man must now pay a 2,500-franc fine, in addition to 7,200 francs in court costs.

Forced vaccine

In the most recent case, which The Local reported last week, the Federal Court sided with the man who wanted his ex-wife to be forced to vaccinate their two children against measles.

The mother, an anti-vaxxer, had refused to do so, and the long-winded battle between the parents, which made its way through the lower courts, eventually landed in the federal tribunal.

As it had done in several previous similar cases when parents didn’t see eye to eye about vaccinating their children, the court followed the  public health guidelines, which are clearly in favour of childhood immunisations.

Therefore, judges sided with the father, giving the mother an order to immunise her children against measles.

Parents can be made to vaccinate their children court ruled. Photo by charlesdeluvio on Unsplash

Assisted suicide

In another recent case, from June, the court acquitted a Swiss doctor, Erika Preisig, who was charged with homicide for helping a mentally ill patient die in a Basel assisted suicide clinic. 

Previously, predominantly people suffering from physical ailments could benefit from voluntary suicide, which is legal but well-regulated in Switzerland.
 
However, Preisig was charged because she had violated the previous Federal Court ruling, from 2006, which required a psychiatric evaluation on the patient before helping them die.

In June, the court overturned its old decision, finding that although Preisig had not obtained a psychiatric report, she had studied the medical records, had intensive discussions with the patient, questioned relatives, and obtained a second opinion. The mentally ill person was understood to have made a well-considered decision and was capable of judgement. 

The Federal Court had therefore confirmed that Preisig could assume, even without a psychiatric expert opinion, that the patient had a permanent wish to die, as she suffered from an incurable, permanent, severe mental impairment.

READ ALSO: What to know about Switzerland’s latest court judgement on assisted suicide

Naturalisation

While obtaining Swiss citizenship is a long and complicated process, and rejections at communal level are often made arbitrarily, the Federal Court had sided with applicants on several occasions.
 
For instance, in 2018, the court ordered the commune of Trimmis in canton Graubünden to grant Swiss citizenship to an Iranian refugee who had lived in the community for 30 years. 

It reversed a ruling made previously by the lower court, which sided with local authorities who denied the man the right to become Swiss.

SHOW COMMENTS