Crime Alleged Zurich whistleblower does not get his weapons back
A man from the canton of Zurich will not get his weapons collection back until further notice. This was decided by the Administrative Court. The safe handling of firearms was seriously called into question in his case for psychological reasons.
09.07.2024, 13:18
SDA
The man had repeatedly contacted the Directorate of Justice by telephone and e-mail in a "decent but very firm" manner, stating that he had uncovered a fraud scheme at the airport.
The employee who had contact with him felt verbally threatened and asked the cantonal police whether this man was known and how she should behave. The cantonal police then contacted the relevant department of the University Psychiatric Hospital for an assessment.
They came to the conclusion that there were clear indications of a serious mental illness. Schizophrenia combined with a paranoid-delusional experience of persecution were possible.
Assault rifle, pistols, revolver
The police finally searched the man's home and discovered an entire collection of weapons: an assault rifle, a normal rifle, two pistols, a revolver and ammunition. The responsible governor's office had everything confiscated in March 2023.
However, it gave the man the opportunity to get his weapons back if he could present a medical certificate stating that he was "fit to carry weapons". However, the man appealed to the government council and demanded the immediate return of his weapons.
He criticized the fact that the government council itself was biased. The government itself sits on the airport's board of directors and is therefore involved in the fraud scheme that he had uncovered. He had no mental disorder. Rather, they wanted to silence him as a whistleblower.
However, the government council rejected his appeal. He then appealed to the Administrative Court, which came to the same conclusion as the Government Council. The order of the governor's office to confiscate the weapons and demand a medical certificate for their return was not objectionable.
There were concrete indications that his ability to handle firearms safely was seriously in doubt. The decision is not yet legally binding; the man can still appeal to the Federal Supreme Court.
