en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzerland

This sentence overstates the exemption.

Official fedpol guidance says Switzerland has a separate category of "weapons that have to be declared". For those firearms, the buyer needs a written contract and, if the weapon is a firearm, the seller must send a copy to the cantonal firearms office within 30 days. fedpol specifically lists only certain hunting long guns in this category, such as single-shot and multi-barrel hunting weapons and manual repeating firearms for hunting.

By contrast, fedpol's page on "Weapons for which a permit is required" lists pistols, revolvers, auto-loading rifles, lever action rifles, pump action rifles, and other firearms as permit-required. So it is incorrect to say broadly that "hunting rifles" do not require an acquisition permit: some hunting rifles do, depending on type. It is also incorrect to say these exempt firearms can be acquired with "just a record extract"; the official process is a written contract/notification, not merely presenting a criminal-record extract.

This mixes up two different Swiss permit regimes.

fedpol's official guidance says ordinary "weapons for which a permit is required" (including pistols, revolvers, and auto-loading rifles) require a weapons acquisition permit and that the applicant must submit an application to the cantonal authority. The fedpol page does not say the applicant must provide a special reason for ordinary permit-required firearms.

fedpol separately explains that banned weapons, ammunition and weapon components require a special cantonal permit, and that applications for an exemption permit must be submitted in writing and must contain the reasons why you require the weapon. So the article's statement is backwards: the explicit-reason requirement is tied to special/exemption permits for banned weapons, not to the ordinary acquisition permit for standard handguns and semi-automatic firearms that fall in the permit-required category.

The article adds a separation requirement that fedpol expressly says does not exist.

In its official weapons-law FAQ, fedpol states that when transporting a firearm, there must be no ammunition in the transported weapon and all magazines carried must be empty. But it then explicitly adds that the weapon and ammunition may be transported in the same bag and that spatial separation is not prescribed.

So the requirement is that the firearm be unloaded and magazines empty—not that the gun and ammunition be transported separately.

The claim says the most recent tightening proposal was the one rejected in February 2011, but Switzerland later voted on another tightening measure.

The Federal Council's official referendum page says that on 19 May 2019 Swiss voters voted on implementing the amended EU Weapons Directive. fedpol's weapons-law timeline likewise states that in May 2019 the Swiss people approved the amendments to weapons legislation, with the revised law entering into force on 15 August 2019.

Because a later firearms-tightening referendum occurred in 2019—and it was approved, not rejected—the statement that the most recent such proposal was the one rejected in February 2011 is incorrect.

This sentence misdescribes the post-permit proof requirement for sport shooters acquiring newly restricted semi-automatic firearms with large-capacity magazines.

fedpol's official FAQ explains that sport shooters can prove regular shooting either by club membership or by showing that they use the firearm regularly. But fedpol defines "regularly" as five shooting sessions within five years. It also says this proof must be provided five and ten years after the exceptional permit is issued.

So the article's wording — "used a firearm at least once a year within that five and ten years period" — is not the official standard. The official rule is five sessions in five years, not necessarily one session in each individual year.