Previous Post
Next Post

An eagle-eyed bi-lingual reader spotted a story in reporting that the German government has confiscated legally held firearms from members of German biker gangs. Gangs? Google translate calls them “rockers.” Like this: “The members of the Bandidos MC Rocker groups, Gremium MC, Hells Angels MC and MC Outlaws will revoked the previously existing weapons permit due to the new legal situation, the Ministry continued to communicate. Altogether it involves about 600 persons who thus have to give weapons that they have previously possessed legally . . .

Also knife or pepper sprays must be delivered.

The prohibitions should also apply to dangerous objects – such as alarm guns, cutting and thrust weapons, batons and combat knives as well as pepper spray and stun guns. For this was a “concerted action between police and weapons authorities” have been agreed. The reaction is, however, expensive: Police report all known rockers local authorities weapons.

Earlier in the Der Spiegel article, it reveals (unsurprisingly) that the confiscation is entirely proactive. What’s German for “The Department of Pre-Crime”? Abteilung Pre-Kriminalität. Other German words spring to mind, but Godwin’s Law will not herein be invoked. Meanwhile . . .

We’re still waiting for an indication of how many bikers were shot and shot and killed by police at the Waco Texas Twin Peaks incident. I wonder if any of the 100 people arrested (with bail set at $1m each) will have their gun rights removed. [h/t FB]

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. It’s hard to believe that a nation with such a fine record of tolerance would do such a bad, bad thing.

  2. Hmmm, guilt by association, condemnation without conviction. I wonder what the German constitution has to say about this. Question: does this new “law” apply to all motorcycle clubs, or just ones specified by name? If the latter, time for some new panels…

    • You do realize that mere membership in ‘criminal gangs’ so designated here in the US is grounds for disqualification; this isn’t too far off from that (also grievous injustice)

      • A government’s a government. Playing favorites is little more than flaunting one’s level of state sponsored indoctrination.

      • For purchasing firearm? I don’t think so. AFAIK, disqualifying convictions are required. Except for NJ. and NYC. and D.C.

  3. Nazis, and I mean the German government, the Waco PD, the judge that issued $1m bail and suppressed the videos. Nazis all.

  4. Sorry but there is precious little backstory of whether these “gangs” are involved in illegal activities. Then again this is Germany who persecutes home schoolers…I don’t know enough to care…

  5. You had a story on this legislation in Germany like a year ago, so I’m not surprised they were serious about it. And yes, it’s “rockers,” as in “mods vs. rockers.” Mods have scooters, rockers have bikes. In America, Mods are known as hipsters, but never had the stones to rumble with biker/rocker Fonzarelli-types. I’m not sure why England was different in that regard.

    • Mods are not Hipsters. There is a world of difference. Hipsters are just trendy doofuses who are too worried about being PC to have any opinions of their own. The hipster thing will pass.

      Mods are generally patriotic and tough, yet clean cut and well dressed youth sub-culture that dates back fifty years now. When was the last time you saw a 20 year old put on a crisp suit and tie to go dancing to the sounds of Bluebeat, Ska, Rocksteady, and 1960’s era Reggae? As a subculture they take great pride in being authentic working class youths with a rich tradition and history that dates back to the 1960’s in the UK. They tended to gravitate towards the Vespas and other Euro scooters because it wasn’t practical or realistic for blue-collar young people to own cars where the sub-culture originated; now it is just tradition.

      No, I didn’t just watch Quadrophenia… I was heavily involved in this subculture in the 1980’s. Hard Mods Rule Ok?

    • …Then they came for the white-slaving scooter-hooligans,
      Then for the wife-beating Sharia-types…

      Hey, this is fun!

        • Ya really need to see a therapist about your unnatural preoccupation with other people’s sex lives.

          You’re starting to sound like one of those right wing bible thumbers always trying to nose it others private lives.

        • For your information, I sexually identify with ammuntion and am deeply offended by your derogatory remarks. Expect my 4 Tumblr followers and the SPLC to hear about such bigotry!

        • JWM,

          The dork who calls himself “God” has no facts to back up his position and no compelling arguments to persuade us to adopt his mindset. That only leaves him with two plays:
          (1) mockery — “God” is trying to make us feel like outcasts and thus he is hoping to manipulate and/or intimidate us into compliance with his mindset.
          (2) “proof” that we are unstable, crazy, and/or corrupt — “God” is goading us with derogatory names and thus he is hoping to manipulate us into publishing crazed and furious outbursts to establish that we are unstable, crazy, and/or corrupt … with the implication that we should therefore no longer be entitled to any rights.

          Of course no one appears to be falling for “God’s” plays. That has to infuriate him/her even further.

          I suppose “God” actually has a third play: he could threaten us with physical force to accept his mindset. No matter what angle “God” plays, he reveals his contempt for people who do not share his mindset. “God” also reveals his eagerness to try and intimidate and/or manipulate people into adopting his mindset. The irony: people like “God”, who have utter contempt for people who are “different”, who are eager to intimidate and/or manipulate those “different” people, are exactly why I am armed and will NEVER give up my firearms.

        • uncommon_sense, your “Third Play” for God to try won’t work out real well for him. I rather strongly object to threats of physical force, and have the means to defend myself and others if need be. I suspect this is true for most who post here.
          Which leaves him to anonymously fling poo from the safety of his mother’s basement, impressing no one.

  6. “Rockers” designate the top name of the MC and bottom city where they claim. With that said my next extremely bias comment. I would remove guns from the bandidos as well.

  7. There seems to be a lot of people commenting on this article including the author who dont have clue as to what is causing alarm in the first place. Does non govermental uniformed thugs ring a bell? It was the armed infighting between various political factions that ensured that the weimar republic would be short lived. So obviously the BDR has mechanisms to prevent history to reprat it self. It all boils down to the uniform of these thugs, wich is only worn to gain respect through intimidation and fear. Not any different from the SA of the 20’s and 30’s.

    • Governmental uniformed thugs are the problem. Non govermental ones are easy to deal with. As long as the governmental ones stay out of it, that is.

  8. In America everything is permitted that is not forbidden. In Germany everything is forbidden that is not permitted. In Russia everything is forbidden, including that which his permitted.

    • >> In Russia everything is forbidden, including that which his permitted.

      … but everyone does it anyway, because you can bribe your way out of anything.

  9. Confiscate seems key. I’m sure everyone feels better/safer. Now the true criminal minds can reload and get on with whatever they do.

  10. Keep in mind that the Bandidos, Outlaws, and HA are no-shit 1% clubs. They’re on a completely different wavelength than the Riders for jesus or the doctor and lawyer Harley types.

    • If they have records then they wouldn’t have legally owned firearms. If they don’t have records then they’re being unfairly targeted. If they’ve done something illegal and the government can’t prove it then that’s the government not doing their jobs properly, which is a common occurrence.

  11. Hi Mr Farago, you’re article is misleading. Nowhere in the article to the swr you linked above it is mentioned that the gun grap is actually happening. It is only one politician who will do that. One politician, no matter what position he is in, isn’t the whole government. Also it isn’t a law he will implement, it is a verdict from the Bundesverfassungsgericht ( our Supreme Court) which says that the bosses of groups like the Hells Angels or the Bandidos are unfit to own a gun. Also you should know that the Hells Angels and Bandidos are forbidden in some states here, because there was evidence that they are a criminal organization.
    Also this whole Nazithing is getting really old. The gun culture here is just totally different to the one in the US. Most of us don’t believe that guns are the only thing that grants us freedom. You can see that this is not the fact when you look bag in the 1920’s. Nearly every party then had its private militia and look how that turned out.

  12. Just a few words from someone living inside Germany, providing some background information:

    The “rockers” we are talking about here are NOT bikers, that commit crimes, rather they are criminals that happen to like motorcylcles. Hells Angels, Bandidos and their likes have been heavily engaged in human trafficing, forced prostitution, drug dealing and (not that I would care) killing each other.

    A few years back, a Hells Angel shot a SEK-member through his closed front door, hitting him in his armpit, killing him.
    He was not punished, since the court believed he was acting out of fear the Bandidos are coming for him.

    Those gangs are difficult ground for the police, since they usually don’t talk or cooperate in any way when caught.

    Disarming those thugs is NOT a bad thing. It’s a good thing. Sure they will get illegal weapons, but that means we can take a few of them to jail everytime we perform a raid. Getting illegal weapons is still more time and money consuming than legal buying and that is what we want.

    Hell Angels have already been made a forbidden organisation in a few german states and in many others they are forbidden from wearing their symbols.

    Those guys are the people YOU, my dear american friends, are practicing to use your weapons against.
    I can understand someone might want a challenge, but I prefer my thugs unarmed.

    Anyhow, be careful judging stuff from the other side of the pond, even in times of the internet.

    • It really is a different mindset from one side of the ocean to the other. We in America of course wish that our hoodlums were also unarmed, but there is reality knocking on the door.
      We reserve the right to be armed because we know that whether or not the criminals get their firearms legally or otherwise, the police cannot do anything without proper rules of evidence and normally are powerless until a crime is committed. In many cases, that means a law abiding citizen is maimed or killed before the police can act.
      Therefore we demand the right to defend ourselves with the most effective means at our disposal, while keeping our right to privacy and liberty. And because we do, it does open the door a bit more to the criminal element, but we prefer our freedom to a heavier handed government.

      • I would really wish our government and society over here would recognize the need for every good and able citizen to have the right to carry a weapon to defend him/herself.

        But even if that is that were the case, I don’t see why members of an obviously criminal organisation should have the right to arm themselves.

        I realise it is a fine line we would be walking, but it still is worth the effort in my opinion.

        After a friend of mine showed me a video of a raid in one of their illegal brothels, well let’s just say my definition of “citizen” and their rights grew a lot more narrow.

        • … I don’t see why members of an obviously criminal organisation should have the right to arm themselves.

          I understand your sentiment JustYourRandomEuropean. No one wants an armed criminal organization.

          What concerns us is our state and federal governments abusing that tactic. Absolutely nothing stops government from declaring any group to be a “criminal organization”. For example a past leader of our Department of Homeland Security (a federal agency who is supposed to protect the entire United States of America from terrorism) said that she considers all military veterans and all Christians to be potential terrorists. And her reason for making that statement? Some of the people in those groups have vehemently criticized government actions which violate our United States Constitution. Even more frightening, no one in our federal government or even our news media sanctioned her for her statement. Given those facts, it is easy to imagine our government declaring veterans or Christians — especially veterans or Christians involved in any political groups — to be “terrorist” or “criminal” organizations and then set out to disarm them.

          Furthermore, our system of law (based on English Common Law) has some very basic tenants that we have observed for over three hundred years — prior to being the United States of America. One of the most important and fundamental tenants of English Common Law is “presumption of innocence”: that a person is innocent until a jury of their peers finds them guilty in a court of law. Thus every person must have all of their rights until a jury convicts them. That means government has no legitimate authority to disarm a person simply because that person wears a leather coat with a gang symbol. In order for government to disarm a person who wears a leather coat with a gang symbol, government must charge that person with a crime, present evidence at a trial in court, and a jury must find that person guilty.

          Does “presumption of innocence” make government’s job much more difficult at times? Sure. And it also makes it much more difficult for government to misuse its power to attack political enemies.

          What does all this mean? In the final analysis, we believe that governments are a much greater danger to the good people of a nation than a criminal motorcycle gang. That is why we want to be armed … and why we want it to be next to impossible for government to disarm us. The good news: being armed in case our own government attacks us means that we are able to defend ourselves from criminal motorcycle gangs.

        • In America, it is illegal to refer to a video without providing a link to it so that your readers may enjoy the same information/evidence as you and your friend did.

          Please share with everyone – otherwise, we might just take it as hearsay.

        • >> But even if that is that were the case, I don’t see why members of an obviously criminal organisation should have the right to arm themselves.

          If it is an obviously criminal organization, then there should be plenty of evidence of their crimes. In which case, all its members that committed those crimes should be imprisoned, and the issue of gun ownership should not arise at all.

          If, on the other hand, they’re generally believed to be criminal, but there isn’t sufficient evidence of actual crimes to commit, well, tough luck. There’s this thing called “due process” – just like you can’t imprison a person for an alleged crime until you prove it in an impartial court of law, you can’t strip them of their rights, either.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here