German Court Dismisses Appeals by AfD Members Over Gun License Revocations

Two members of the Alternative for Germany party have failed in their legal bids to overturn the revocation of their weapons-related permits, following decisions by the Higher Administrative Court of Saxony-Anhalt. The court dismissed their complaints in expedited proceedings, meaning the forfeiture of a hunting license and the withdrawal of a gun ownership card remain in effect.

In the first case, an AfD member challenged a ruling by the Magdeburg Administrative Court after local authorities revoked their firearms license. The lower court had previously denied a request to suspend the administrative decision pending further review. A similar outcome faced a female hunter whose hunting license was invalidated and confiscated by authorities due to her political affiliation.

Under German weapons legislation, individuals are legally deemed untrustworthy to possess firearms if they support organizations that pursue unconstitutional objectives. In Saxony-Anhalt, the regional branch of the AfD has been officially classified by the state office for the protection of the constitution as a confirmed right-wing extremist entity.

The administrative court based its ruling regarding the hunter on the statutory presumption of unreliability tied to party membership, which under the Federal Hunting Act typically requires the denial of a hunting permit. The legal framework dictates that possessing such permits demands strict adherence to public security standards.

During the proceedings, the Higher Administrative Court emphasized that the judicial measures were not intended to punish or penalize specific political beliefs. Instead, the court stated that the primary objective is to safeguard the general public against the distinct and elevated hazards associated with private weapon ownership.

Judges pointed to previous rulings issued in August, reaffirming that AfD members can forfeit their legal authorizations to carry or own weapons specifically within the context of their association with the party. The judiciary maintained that the state is not legally obligated to wait until actual offenses or physical damages occur before intervening.

Instead, authorities possess the legal authority to minimize potential risks proactively. The court further noted that systematic denigrations of state institutions and democratic processes extend well beyond protected political criticism, representing a direct challenge to foundational democratic principles.