Weapon confiscation in cases of domestic violence: consistently cover hunting weapons

The Legal Affairs Committee of the Council of States supports an obligation to temporarily confiscate firearms in the event of conflict-ridden separations and of criminal complaints or reports concerning domestic violence. The proposal refers to firearms in general. In the view of IG Wild beim Wild, implementation must therefore also consistently prevent access to hunting weapons, including borrowed weapons and participation in recreational hunting.

What the committee decided

On 20 October 2026, the Legal Affairs Committee of the Council of States (RK-S) gave effect to a parliamentary initiative by National Councillor Jessica Jaccoud (SP/VD), by 8 votes to 3 with 1 abstention. In future, firearms are to be temporarily confiscated in the event of conflict-ridden separations and of criminal complaints or reports concerning domestic violence. The committee describes firearms in domestic conflicts as a "considerable danger". With this decision, the Legal Affairs Committee of the National Council (RK-N) can draft a bill (Keystone-SDA).

What already applies today

The Weapons Act already provides for confiscation. Under Article 31, paragraph 1, letter b, the competent authority confiscates weapons from persons for whom a statutory ground for exclusion exists. This includes a well-founded risk of harm to oneself or to third parties. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed these conditions in judgment 2C_945/2017.

The initiative is intended to explicitly link the obligation of temporary removal to conflict-laden separations and to criminal complaints or reports of domestic violence. How these triggers are to be distinguished from the existing conditions for seizure, and what case-by-case assessment remains necessary, must be spelled out in the draft legislation. How the cantons enforce the new rule will also be decisive.

What the federal study shows

The initiative is based on a study commissioned by the Federal Office for Gender Equality (FOGE) and carried out at the University of St. Gallen. It covers the years 2015 to 2022. In that period, 41 completed homicides involving firearms were committed in a domestic setting, just over five per year. With one exception, the perpetrators were men, predominantly Swiss and mostly over 60. In 61 per cent of cases the perpetrator took his own life after the offence. Firearm killings outside the domestic sphere have fallen markedly over the past 30 years, while those within it have declined only slightly (Federal Council, HSG).

The study covers a range of constellations. These include acute crises in which a weapon is immediately to hand, but also killings in long-standing relationships where the partner was seriously ill, with compassion and being overwhelmed as motives. Classic warning signs had not been documented beforehand in every case. Withdrawing weapons after reports and in conflict-laden separations therefore addresses specific risk situations. However, not all the constellations described in the study can be captured through these triggers.

Where the origin of the weapon used was known, the HSG found that in 83 per cent of cases it was a military weapon. For around half of the cases, however, there is no information on whether the weapon was legally acquired, partly because the authorities often do not investigate its origin further after the perpetrator's suicide. Hunting weapons are not reported separately in the study, and the Police Crime Statistics distinguish only by the means used, "firearm". It is therefore impossible to infer how frequently hunting weapons are used in domestic firearm killings in Switzerland. The study itself recommends that weapon-related information be systematically recorded in proceedings and that seizure under Article 31 of the Weapons Act be consistently examined where warning signs exist.

Why enforcement must take the hunting weapon into account

In the 2025 hunting year, according to Federal Hunting Statistics 29,328 people practised recreational hunting in Switzerland. This figure says nothing about any particular risk of violence. It does show, however, that hunting weapons, alongside army and sport weapons, form a significant group of privately accessible firearms.

There is also a peculiarity of weapons law: single-shot and multi-barrelled hunting rifles, as well as certain repeating rifles, including hunting weapons approved under hunting legislation, generally do not require a weapons acquisition permit (fedpol, contract form). Their transfer takes place by written contract, and for firearms a copy must be sent to the cantonal weapons office within 30 days. The statutory obstacles to acquisition still apply, and foreign nationals without a settlement permit need a weapons acquisition permit for every weapon (fedpol, firearms).

For the enforcement of the new rule, concrete questions therefore arise: will the authorities learn, when a report is filed, which hunting weapons a person owns? How can it be prevented that, after the removal of their own weapons, the person concerned regains access to firearms via third parties? How will existing hunting entitlements be taken into account, and who informs the cantonal hunting authority? A weapons seizure that leaves these questions open only partly achieves its aim.

What Parliament has rejected so far

On 16 June 2026, the National Council rejected a motion by Priska Seiler Graf (SP/ZH) by 98 votes to 92 with 4 abstentions. It sought to have private army weapons confiscated if they had not been used for sport shooting for more than ten years. The Federal Council would have been willing to implement the motion. Opponents argued, among other things, that weapons can already be confiscated today in the event of a threat (Keystone-SDA). The Jaccoud initiative now starts not with the stock of weapons but with specific situations of danger.

What effective implementation requires

In the view of IG Wild beim Wild, the RK-N proposal needs at least five elements:

1. Cover all firearms in enforcement. The temporary removal must apply equally to army, sport, collector and hunting weapons, expressly including weapons acquired without a weapons acquisition permit. Ammunition and weapon accessories such as silencers should also be covered.
2. Suspend the hunting entitlement. While the protective measure is in force, existing hunting authorisations should be suspended and no new ones granted. Access to borrowed hunting weapons must also be effectively prevented. This requires a regulated exchange of information between the police and the cantonal hunting authority.
3. Exchange information. When a complaint is filed, the police and public prosecutor should be able to check whether the accused person holds a hunting licence or a certificate of hunting competence. How this can be regulated at cantonal level is shown in our template text for cantonal parliaments.
4. Collect data. In cases of homicide, threats and domestic violence involving firearms, the type of weapon, its origin, its legality and any hunting authorisation should be recorded, even if proceedings are discontinued after the perpetrator's death.
5. Return only after assessment. Confiscated weapons should not be returned automatically as soon as proceedings end. A risk assessment is required.

Context

The Jaccoud initiative is an important step because it ties confiscation to clear triggers. Its impact, however, depends on whether a dangerous person genuinely has no further access to firearms once their weapons have been removed. In the case of recreational hunting, this question arises not only with regard to a person's own gun cabinet, but also with regard to their hunting authorisation and access to weapons belonging to third parties. This is not about general suspicion of recreational hunters. It is about the fact that removing weapons must be watertight if it is to protect lives. How thin the available data on this currently is, we showed in “Perpetrator monitoring without a weapons check”.

Help: Anyone affected by violence, or concerned about another person, can reach victim support across Switzerland, free of charge and around the clock, on 142 from 1 May 2026. In acute danger, call the police emergency number 117.

Read more

• Dossier: Hunting and weapons
• Perpetrator monitoring without a weapons check: the blind spot in the fight against femicides
• After Aarau: the blind spot of the weapons debate is called recreational hunting
• Template text: Recreational hunting and crime, suitability checks and hunting licence
• Crime & Hunting section

Sources

• Nau.ch (Keystone-SDA), 20 October 2026: “Firearms should be easier to confiscate”
• SRF, 20 October 2026: “Firearms should be easier to confiscate”
• Federal Supreme Court: Judgment 2C_945/2017 of 17 May 2018
• Federal Council, 26 February 2025: “Firearms play a central role in homicides in the domestic sphere”
• University of St. Gallen, 27 February 2025: “HSG study on firearm homicides shows the origin of weapons is often unclear”
• fedpol: Written contract for the transfer of a weapon (form ZSW 04.2020) and Firearms
• swissinfo.ch (Keystone-SDA), 16 June 2026: “National Council does not want to confiscate unused private army weapons”
• Federal Office of Justice: victim support