Filip Turek: On Security, the Police, and Whether the State Should Restrict Shooters

On the Krimi – Plzeň site we are launching a new column “Bonus content not only from our region,” in which we will bring you interviews, analyses, and perspectives on topics that move society. Security, migration, and trust in institutions are among the most discussed — and so, in one of the first interviews prepared, we turned to MEP Filip Turek.

In the interview he speaks not only about the migration pact and the role of the police, but also about whether the state is moving toward restricting legal gun holders, and how citizens should prepare for possible crises. How you view his opinions we leave to you — our goal is to offer different views and let readers form their own picture.

How do you perceive the current security situation in the Czech Republic?

Although some politicians try to instill fear in people, we still live in one of the safest countries in the world. That is a clearly proven fact that we should constantly remind ourselves of. However, in these elections we should vote in such a way that this continues to be the case.

Aren’t you worried about a similar scenario to what is happening in Western Europe, where random attacks on the population or mass destructive acts by migrants are escalating?

Unfortunately, one cannot fully prevent random attacks by shooters or attackers with weapons. We can impose restrictions on legal firearm owners, revise and modernize weapon databases, but as similar state activities west of us show, none of that deters deranged or hateful individuals from carrying out attacks.

What we can do is increase public awareness and preparedness, because when a crisis happens, people are on their own in the first minutes. They must know how to act before professional help arrives. This applies not only to attacks by random shooters or terrorists, but also to blackouts, which are discussed so much. Here we are not talking about whether such a situation can happen, but only when and to what extent.

What is your stance on the EU migration pact?

We are firmly against mandatory redistribution of migrants within the European Union. Migration cannot be managed by relocations/quotas — we must have the ability to decide whom we want to admit into our territory and whom not. If we accept such a person and provide them a new home, they must first and foremost behave decently in our country — it is about the behavior of individuals. So if someone resides here legally, can integrate, respects the law and is beneficial to our society, that’s fine.

But if someone commits criminal acts here, we must primarily protect the interests of Czech citizens. We need a safety valve — the ability to say no.

Of course, it is appropriate to help those who truly need help. People whom war has driven from their homes deserve our support. Yes to helping, but sensibly and with an emphasis on security.

Do you believe a reform of the police is needed?

The police must be strong, modern, and respected. And it must start with officers in active duty. Police salaries must correspond to the demands of their work. We want to tie them to the country’s average wage so that pay grows fairly. Field officers — those on the front line — deserve the best compensation. At the same time, we must give them the option to choose between pension benefits and higher salary.

I see reduction of bureaucracy as fundamental. Today, police spend too much time on paperwork instead of working in the field. We want to simplify criminal proceedings, modernize information systems, and train effectively — not burden them with pointless courses, but give them opportunity to grow. And regarding equipment — every police officer must receive gear according to their position, not according to meaningless tables.

What do you think about the changes being prepared for shooters in connection with the amendment to the weapons law?

I believe our weapons law is one of the best in Europe and perhaps even in the world. I only hope that the amendment brings further reduction of bureaucracy and simplification of the system for citizens to obtain and keep weapons.

Certainly it is appropriate to increase public knowledge about firearms; broader education is missing — for example, open days at shooting ranges, events that show that legal gun owners are responsible and care about safety. Let us take Switzerland as an example — there this has certainly brought higher public safety.

The problem is that many existing shooting ranges are being closed here and new ones are not being built. Most are former Svazarm shooting ranges, which have stood in their places for many decades. In our country, more and more housing developments are being constructed in municipalities or towns, often coming closer to these shooting ranges. Naturally, new owners of such properties immediately begin to complain about noise from these ranges.

The creation of new shooting ranges is accompanied by many bureaucratic problems, which deter potential investors.

I think it is appropriate to fight against a ban on lead, which is part of the Green agreements and is supposed to take effect in 2028. Any restriction is a huge security risk — all lead alternatives have much worse properties or are extremely expensive. It would negatively affect a huge number of people, from security forces, through sport shooters to hunters. Many of them would have to stop shooting, which could bring many far-reaching complications.

What do you see as the key to a safe future?

As key I see the abolition of the migration pact and the end of discussion about leaving NATO. Without allies, in case of a major disaster we would be totally screwed. And also it’s about responsibility, preparedness, and respect for those who protect us.

Source: Krimi-Plzeň