The German gun law is unconstitutional
This site is focused on the fundamental rights examination of the german gun law and is thus part of a current lawsuit against the state of North Rhine-Westphalia on the issue of a firearm license. The lawsuit claims that the need for security must be accepted as a need without further restrictions.
In a nutshell
- The gun law violates the object formula. This means that a human serves as a means (thing) to increase the safety of another human.
- The right to protection of one's own life is a central legal right, a human right. Legislators take the same justification for their security obligations towards their nationals and people in general. Human rights are inviolable. If milder means of self-defense are possible, they would also have to be used by the police.
- The purpose of the german gun law is feigned. Compared to other laws, it shows how easily the purpose could be formulated. The actual wording shows that effort has been made to disguise the purpose. The authors of the german gun law were therefore aware of the unconstitutionality.
- The german gun law infringes the parliamentary reservation and the principle of certainty. The administration can decide at its discretion who is at risk and what a need is.
- The german gun law violates the principle of direct third-party effect. This means that the individual must not be obliged to implement the safety of others. This fits and is similar to the object formula.
- The formal constitutionality is not given, since the elections to the Bundestag are not free and immediate. Half of the members of Bundestag are set up on party lists and presented (prefiltered) to the people by the parties before elections. That is a restriction (= unfree) of the elections. The members of Bundestag are thus loyal to the party and not subject to conscience as required in the german constitution.
The detailed constitutional rights examination can be found here
What happened until now
- 10.01.18. Applicant files an application for a firearm license and argues that the human right to security under Art. 1 (2) German Constitution in conjunction with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art. 5
- 12.05.18. The Police Headquarters Dortmund sends a hearing on the application and wants to know what the whole thing should be. The applicant complies under the german gun law no conditions at all, which is true.
- 12.09.18. Applicant answers the hearing and sends the same justification again.
- 01.28.19. The application for a gun license is rejected.
- 02.01.19. Applicant files an interim injunction.
- 02.21.19. Plaintiff substantiates the injunction according to §123 VwGO.
- 02.27.19. The injunction is rejected.
- 02.28.19 evening. Plaintiff throws the first version of the fundamental rights examination in the mailbox of the administrative court in Gelsenkirchen.
- Letter of 03.21.19. The Court of First Instance seeks a declaration terminating the proceedings, as the procedure for interim injunction has become final and the administrative court is said to have taken a decision on the examination of fundamental rights in the order of 02.27.19. That is chronologically impossible and thus lied.
- 04.07.19, applicant responds to the suggestion and doubts the independence of the judges because of the lie in the letter of 03.21.19 and other reasons ( Hitlers Reich administrative court). The fundamental rights examination in the second version will be sent along. The request for bias opens up a second, far greater dimension of the action, the lack of separation of powers in Germany.
Last update 05.01.2019
no comments available