A resident of a multi-family housing complex faced a €3,000 fine after a German court ruled he had led a brass knuckles weapon under the country’s Waffenrecht (Weapons Act), even though his car was parked in a locked underground garage accessible only to building residents. The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) has now upheld that decision, establishing a clear legal boundary between leading and possessing weapons in shared spaces.
The case began when regional authorities in Mönchengladbach determined that storing the brass knuckles in the glove compartment of a vehicle parked in a communal garage did not qualify as possession under § 1 Abs. 4 WaffG. That provision exempts weapons kept within a person’s own home, business premises, or private enclosed property (befriedetes Besitztum). However, the BGH rejected that interpretation, stating that a shared garage, even one restricted to residents, lacks the exclusivity required for the possession exemption. Because all residents could access the space without restriction, the defendant’s glove compartment fell under the broader leading category, which carries the same penalty as possession under § 52 Abs. 3 Nr. 1 WaffG.
The ruling turns on the question of control. The court emphasized that leading a weapon occurs when an individual exercises authority over it outside spaces they fully dominate. A privately owned garage or a fenced driveway, where access is limited to a single owner, would likely qualify as private enclosed property, shifting the act into possession. But in a multi-resident garage, even one secured by gates, the lack of sole control means the weapon remains in the leading category. Security measures like locked cars or resident-only access do not alter this classification, the BGH stated.
The distinction matters in practical terms. While both offenses carry penalties, the law treats leading a weapon more strictly in public contexts. For example, adults may legally own single-edged knives but cannot carry them outside their private spaces under § 42a WaffG. The court’s decision reinforces that even indirect control, such as a weapon stored in a car within a shared garage, can trigger prosecution if the space is not exclusively under the owner’s authority.
The BGH’s analysis distinguishes this case from criminal law contexts, such as robbery (§ 250 StGB), where a weapon’s immediate usability is the key factor. In weapons law, however, the potential for unauthorized access, regardless of whether the item is hidden or locked, is sufficient to classify the act as leading. This approach may prompt further legal challenges as individuals test the boundaries of what constitutes private enclosed property in shared living arrangements.
Leave a Reply