EU proposals on semi auto ban

[gazzarM1]

For latest reaction after the initial proposal look at Suffolk rifles facebook page....apparently the proposal got short shift yesterday, probably a battle won but a lot more work to do...

[gbal]

That would be all my rifles gone - haven't had them a year yet !

 

Was compensation paid last time they did this (with hand guns)?

 

There was a financial compensation scheme for confiscated hand guns-no doubt opinions varied as to how fair it was.But it was not just arbitrary,and overall financially not punitive...(some will still think their pistol was actually worth what they had spent on it....)

 

There is no compulsion on Government to offer compensation-though being 'retrospective legislation' (was legal/now isn't)' there is a good case for it.

[Simon J]

As long as the Human Rights Act is still in force - too many (in my view) mis-guided souls seem to think it should be repealed - there is legislative support for compensation. After all, its aim is to protect minority groups from governments pursuing actions which they claim has majority support.

 

Shooters, as an oppressed class in the UK should be strong supporters of the Human Rights Act

[gbal]

Simon,I agree there is some protection within the UK Act ('Protection of property' probably),which makes compensation likely-though the Government retains synoptic power to 'take propery' in the 'national interest'.

Since the UK act derives from the EU Human Rights,both would have some force,especially if any restrictions were EU in origin.

 

I don't think though that much of a case could be brought to EU courts for UK shooters being "Oppressed".It hasn't been challenged,I don't think, but seems implausible....

 

If the 'minority groups' are targeted by a Government claiming majority population support,then the questio becomes:"Does the Govt have such support (for it's propsed legislation)?"

 

We don't currently know,for shooting in UK-but there are strong lobbies pro shooing in EU countries.

 

The interesting question,were it ever put to the population,is just how much skew in either direction,might result from different phrasings of any questions about the legitimacy of shooting. It might be rather massive.

And of course that is bias (or politics,if you don't really adhere to humanrightswithoutcapitals).

I have no wish to resurrect the recent ...err... discussion on the image of aspects of shooting projected by some,but it's illustrative of potential self destruct.

 

Some wet, non shooting day,try asking essentially the same question in a way that will be more likely to get a "no" majority and then a "yes" majority.....governments are not bound by 'majority' opinion,thank goodness,but we would do better to have it on shooting's side-very much better.

 

gbal

[gazzarM1]

All together far too early to be talking about compensation..this needs to be fought tooth and nail as told to them yesterday by several MEPs they need to deal with the problem not target legitimate shooters.Rather counting how much money you will/will not receive in compensation write to your MP, your MEP and whoever else in response to this issue which addresses NONE of the issues raised as a result of the Paris attacks.

Rather more a cynical attempt by certain people to push an anti gun agenda......

[bowji john]

Have done

 

Below are the two responses I've had ..........

 

Dear Mr Clark,

Thank you for writing to me about proposed EU changes to firearms classifications. The events in Paris last month were horrific and it

is important that in the wake of these monstrous actions we pursue the guilty and bring them to justice.

However, I believe it is important to resist the urge to overreact and punish the law abiding through knee-jerk political reactions. I do not

believe that had the European Commission proposed measures to tighten gun controls across the EU been in force that this would have had any

effect on what happened in Paris.

None of the weapons used there were legally held by licensed residents. They were illegally acquired and illegally used. There are

many law abiding citizens who use firearms either professionally or recreationally. There are others who collect decommissioned guns, or

replicas thereof, perfectly legitimately. I am a supporter of both groups.

The Commission's proposals will now have to go through the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament and will no doubt be subject to

change and amendment. I will certainly be considering any attempt to tighten gun controls very carefully before voting on them in the

European Parliament next year.

Yours sincerely,

Ashley Fox MEP

.................

Dear Mr Clark,

 

Thank you for your letter about the EU Firearms directive.

 

It raises important issues.

 

First, may I make a practical observation?

 

The reality is that weapons controls are as strict in the UK as anywhere in the world that we are aware of. From routinely armed police, through ordinary shops selling items which would not be on sale in the same way in the UK, to the numbers of guns, the UK operates tight controls by comparison with many other EU countries.

 

That provides the backdrop for our overall approach.

 

We do not want the UK to be collateral damage to European bureaucratic tightening.

 

Our approach, therefore, is to analyse and understand practical consequences and ensure that planned legislation does not inconvenience and remove the rights of ordinary people. At the same time, we will try to ensure that the proposals offer the highest possible level of genuine security protection.

 

In short, the topic is one where the devil lies in the detail.

 

We, in the EFDD and UKIP will therefore read the small print of what is proposed and ensure it will work in the real world.

 

You can potentially help us achieve this.

 

If you identify legal non-sense which will damage ordinary people unnecessarily whilst at the same time not improving security, please do let us know?

 

Our goal is to scrutinise what is proposed in a manner which both protects your freedoms and keeps you secure.

 

I hope that helps.

 

Yours sincerely,

William Dartmouth MEP

[ds1]

Agreed we do not compensation, we want our guns. Compensation is another lever to use to defeat the proposal though.

 

The proposal has now been ammended but it is still the same sh1t sandwich that it was yesterday.

 

Also agreed contact every MEP and MP you can.

[Artiglio]

Not wishing to detract from the seriousness of events behind this proposed legislation. A quick google search showed.

 

In 2006 in France there were 4709 road deaths of which just over quarter involved drivers over the drink drive limit

 

In a report dated January 2008, over 10,000 deaths per annum are attributed to accidents in which excess alcohol is a factor in Europe.

 

Old data I realise but one can't help wondering where perhaps priorities should lie in the name of protecting citizens as a first priority. We live in a strange world.

[Simon J]

Simon,I agree there is some protection within the UK Act ('Protection of property' probably),which makes compensation likely-though the Government retails synoptic power to 'take propery' in the 'national interest'.

Since the UK act derives from the EU Human Rights,both would have some force,especially if any restrictions were EU in origin.

 

I don't think though that much of a case could be brought to EU courts for UK shooters being "Oppressed".It hasn't been challenged,I don't think, but seems implausible....

 

If the 'minority groups' are targeted by a Government claiming majority population support,then the questio becomes:"Does the Gott have such support (for it's propsed legislation)?"

 

We don't currently know,for shooting in UK-but there are strong lobbies pro shooing in EU countries.

The interesting question,were it ever put to the population,is just how much skew in either direction,might result from different phrasings of any questions about the legitimacy of shooting. It might be rather massive.

And of course that is bias (or politics,if you don't really adhere to humanrightswithoutcapitals).

I have no wish to resurrect the recent ...err... discussion on the image of aspects of shooting projected by some,but it's illustrative of potential self destruct.

 

Some wet non shooting day,try asking essentially the same question in a way that will be more likely to get a "no" majority and then a "yes" majority.....governments are not bound by 'majority' opinion,thank goodness,but we would do better to have it on shooting's side-very much better.

 

gbal

Laurie

 

Sorry but this not being a lawyers site, I tried to avoid being technical and also let a slight bit of flippancy intrude, but the basic point remains. Taking away our guns would almost certainly require compensation, as we would be losing our property.

 

As to being an oppressed class, I think we probably are, but we don't need to prove that to succeed in a claim for compensation under the HR Act.

[Akeld]

Reply from my MEP Labour.

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact me concerning the proposal to strengthen the current EU Firearms Directive. The proposal was launched on November 18 and is in line with the declaration by Home Affairs Ministers on 29 August 2015, repeating the call for the revision of the Firearms Directive and for a common approach on the deactivation of firearms.

Labour MEPs have always supported tough firearms laws both at home and abroad and our support will continue as these proposals make their way through the legislative process which is hoped to be concluded swiftly.

On the 7th December the proposal was brought to the Parliament's lead committee on single market issues, the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO). The Parliament will now start to review and amend the proposal in January 2016, as soon as the MEP who will be responsible for the report from the Parliament's side, the Rapporteur, is announced.

The key changes to the existing rules in order to improve and toughen the current EU firearms law cover eight keys areas: stricter rules on on-line sales; a ban on certain automatic weapons; the inclusion in the scope of the directive of blank firing weapons which have the potential to be transformed into a firearm; greater restrictions on the use and circulation of deactivated firearms; creation of national registers of deactivated firearms; collectors and brokers will now be brought into the scope of the directive; better traceability of firearms which means an improved marking system and an enhanced information exchange on firearms between Member States.

Under the 2008 Firearms Directive firearms are not required to be on any register once deactivated. Evidence gathered by Commission studies showed this is a serious weakness in the EU legislation in terms of security. In fact, Slovakian media reported in February that the terrorists attacking Charlie Hebdo in January bought their Kalashnikovs legally in Slovakia, where they were sold as decommissioned weapons to be used as film props, but then found an expert in Belgium who was able to reactivate them.
The new proposal will introduce stringent minimum common guidelines regarding the deactivation of firearms and will in turn render reactivation much more difficult. As a consequence, for the most dangerous firearms (category A) stricter rules have been introduced - even if they are deactivated. This now means that deactivated firearms from Category A (fully automatic weapons and military weapons) will not be allowed to be owned or traded by private persons (except for museums). A new provision establishes the requirement for record keeping of deactivated firearms in national registries and any transfer (ie change of owner) of deactivated firearms will now also be registered.

For the sake of clarification, I would like to emphasise that hunters will not be affected by the proposed changes. It is true that collectors and brokers will now fall under the scope of the Directive. Collectors have been identified as a possible source of traffic of firearms by the evaluation carried out by the Commission. Therefore, in the new proposal the collectors will still have the possibility to acquire firearms but this will be subject to authorisation/declaration. Since brokers provide services similar to those of dealers, they will also be covered by this Directive.

On all of these areas of improvement Labour MEPs support reform in order to tackle criminality and terrorism across the EU more effectively. I received several e-mails stating that in any case terrorists do not acquire firearms from legal sources and the new proposal is not the right solution. However, perhaps less striking to the public eye, but not less significant - not least in quantitative terms - are the numbers of people in Europe killed by firearms in the context of gun-related crime or in domestic shootings. It is estimated that between 2000 and 2010, over 10,000 victims of murder or manslaughter were killed by firearms in the 28 EU Member States. Every year, over 4000 suicides by firearm are registered in the EU.
Terrorists aside these numbers are simply not acceptable and are a call for action, and we as Labour MEPs believe the Commission's proposal takes the right approach. The proposal only sets stringent minimum firearms laws for EU Member States and Member States may enforce stricter firearms laws in their home country should they choose to do so.

If you have any more questions or comments please do get back in touch,

Kind regards,

Simon Hall
Administrator & Case Worker

 

 

My reply,

Thank you for yourreply, may I ask how a hunter or target shooter who currently uses a .22LR semi-auto will be unaffected by this policy, you also provide some interesting statistics, may I ask how many people were killed in the EU as a result of drink driving or vehicle related death? And what is the EU suggesting to curb that number?

[justin credible]

Reply from my MEP Labour.

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact me concerning the proposal to strengthen the current EU Firearms Directive. The proposal was launched on November 18 and is in line with the declaration by Home Affairs Ministers on 29 August 2015, repeating the call for the revision of the Firearms Directive and for a common approach on the deactivation of firearms.

Labour MEPs have always supported tough firearms laws both at home and abroad and our support will continue as these proposals make their way through the legislative process which is hoped to be concluded swiftly.

On the 7th December the proposal was brought to the Parliament's lead committee on single market issues, the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO). The Parliament will now start to review and amend the proposal in January 2016, as soon as the MEP who will be responsible for the report from the Parliament's side, the Rapporteur, is announced.

The key changes to the existing rules in order to improve and toughen the current EU firearms law cover eight keys areas: stricter rules on on-line sales; a ban on certain automatic weapons; the inclusion in the scope of the directive of blank firing weapons which have the potential to be transformed into a firearm; greater restrictions on the use and circulation of deactivated firearms; creation of national registers of deactivated firearms; collectors and brokers will now be brought into the scope of the directive; better traceability of firearms which means an improved marking system and an enhanced information exchange on firearms between Member States.

Under the 2008 Firearms Directive firearms are not required to be on any register once deactivated. Evidence gathered by Commission studies showed this is a serious weakness in the EU legislation in terms of security. In fact, Slovakian media reported in February that the terrorists attacking Charlie Hebdo in January bought their Kalashnikovs legally in Slovakia, where they were sold as decommissioned weapons to be used as film props, but then found an expert in Belgium who was able to reactivate them.

The new proposal will introduce stringent minimum common guidelines regarding the deactivation of firearms and will in turn render reactivation much more difficult. As a consequence, for the most dangerous firearms (category A) stricter rules have been introduced - even if they are deactivated. This now means that deactivated firearms from Category A (fully automatic weapons and military weapons) will not be allowed to be owned or traded by private persons (except for museums). A new provision establishes the requirement for record keeping of deactivated firearms in national registries and any transfer (ie change of owner) of deactivated firearms will now also be registered.

For the sake of clarification, I would like to emphasise that hunters will not be affected by the proposed changes. It is true that collectors and brokers will now fall under the scope of the Directive. Collectors have been identified as a possible source of traffic of firearms by the evaluation carried out by the Commission. Therefore, in the new proposal the collectors will still have the possibility to acquire firearms but this will be subject to authorisation/declaration. Since brokers provide services similar to those of dealers, they will also be covered by this Directive.

On all of these areas of improvement Labour MEPs support reform in order to tackle criminality and terrorism across the EU more effectively. I received several e-mails stating that in any case terrorists do not acquire firearms from legal sources and the new proposal is not the right solution. However, perhaps less striking to the public eye, but not less significant - not least in quantitative terms - are the numbers of people in Europe killed by firearms in the context of gun-related crime or in domestic shootings. It is estimated that between 2000 and 2010, over 10,000 victims of murder or manslaughter were killed by firearms in the 28 EU Member States. Every year, over 4000 suicides by firearm are registered in the EU.

Terrorists aside these numbers are simply not acceptable and are a call for action, and we as Labour MEPs believe the Commission's proposal takes the right approach. The proposal only sets stringent minimum firearms laws for EU Member States and Member States may enforce stricter firearms laws in their home country should they choose to do so.

If you have any more questions or comments please do get back in touch,

Kind regards,

Simon Hall

Administrator & Case Worker

 

 

My reply,

Thank you for yourreply, may I ask how a hunter or target shooter who currently uses a .22LR semi-auto will be unaffected by this policy, you also provide some interesting statistics, may I ask how many people were killed in the EU as a result of drink driving or vehicle related death? And what is the EU suggesting to curb that number?

 

Yet another very good reason why NOT to vote Labour!!

[Avian]

This now means that deactivated firearms from Category A (fully automatic weapons and military weapons) will not be allowed to be owned or traded by private persons (except for museums).

 

What do they mean by Military weapons? Would that include rifles such as AI AXMC?

[simonl]

This now means that deactivated firearms from Category A (fully automatic weapons and military weapons) will not be allowed to be owned or traded by private persons (except for museums).

 

What do they mean by Military weapons? Would that include rifles such as AI AXMC?

AK

AI

AR

?

?

[Akeld]

AK

AI

AR

?

?

They'll start with "A", then work their way through the alphabet

[brown dog]

Does anyone have sight of the amended proposal?

[ds1]

link to pdf download of proposal as it now stands

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1449398299113&uri=CONSIL%3AST_14422_2015_INIT

 

Firearms United is the place to keep updated

[SWShooter]

link to pdf download of proposal as it now stands

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1449398299113&uri=CONSIL%3AST_14422_2015_INIT

 

Firearms United is the place to keep updated

 

Well I skimmed through that and could not see one proposal that would stop terrorists bringing in full auto weapons from outside the EU , if they can bring thousands of people through illegally and hundreds of tons of drugs a few hundred assault rifles will be just as easy .

[ds1]

The proposal achieve nothing. If they wanted to stop illegal weapons the black market trade from the Balkans is the place to start.

[MrCetrizine]

Does anyone have a definition for category B7 or a list of firearms it contains?

[JSC]

Does anyone have a definition for category B7 or a list of firearms it contains?

 

"Semi-automatic firearms for civilian use which resemble weapons with automatic mechanisms"

[gbal]

SWS,I rather agree-though a really thorough deactivation might help-and cramp this belgian fixer.But I suspect very few of the weapons are actually deacts reactivated. It would though be a very small issue Remember this is proposed action by beaurocrats-mostly not very expert on firearms,but feeling something must be done-by them. They are not going to chase Balkan bandits-they might help the police etc to do so,but that "can't be seen to be something done"-especially if no Balkan bandits get caught.

We should know by now the 'something has to be seen to be done',even if it really has little even 'face validity' to the problem-armed terrorists."Knee jerk' goes even furtheralong the ill conceived route.

The best way to minimise these relatively futile moves,is to give legislators/beaurocrats good information-the sort BASC can provide,usually free of patently self interested resistance,and claims that just don't stack up-or false 'analogies',or there are other things to do instead-mistake.

There are plenty of things that need improving-but shooting loses out by saying so-it just puts shooting on the list-for example,plenty has been done about alcohol/driving-more is needed,zero tolerance perhaps-but there are penalties etc already,and in the rhetoric game,jihadi terrorists do not use alcohol...many EU citizens drink (moderately) etc etc-Raising an issue that you can be easily shot down on (I'm not saying always fairly) is counterproductive.

Effective lobbyists (BASC) just don't make that mistake.Almost as self defeating is any claim that a very minority competition could not take place-easy response is,well just change the rules a bit in the interests of wider safety....and you've lost the big point,and the game if you persist.There is no place at all for pejoratives like "stupid"....compare "What would be more effective in contering terror would be....' .If you like,accentuate the positives that will be clearly seen to be problem relevant,rather than sink into a rude self defensive but ineffectual position. Use sensible correspondence with elected representatives,with calm points of genuine substance,that do not ignore the 'safe citizen' issues.That's what they need.

 

OK -my point is what constitutes good tactics,and what might be very risky point to raise.While merit and so on play a part,remember they are not the only factors...and I'm not talking vague conspiracy to dearm

European civilians,much more that beaurocrats cannot be expected to be au fait with every nuance of our pastime/sport whatever. W can't expect to win if we correctly emphasise shootings safety and non illegal and non terrorist involvement,if we also reveal all the kind of self inflicted verbal foot injuries just touched on above.

Just sayin.....

 

gbal

[ds1]

Nice vague terms like "resembles ", so a Gsg 5 would come under that definition - how stupid.

If they go for look as well as function then straight pull Ar15 etc are also likely UK targets as they can be adapted back.

 

The MEPs will now commission their own report to examine the proposal so there is still hope.

[ds1]

George,

There are some differences worth considering. The UK does not use firearms for self defence, this is not so in some Eu states, including CZ and Finland with strong firearms tradions and histories who's government's have strongly rejected ammendments to the original directive (a mandate for deactivation standards already existing since 2008).

 

The CZ government lower house of European affairs committee has already rejected any ammendments to the existing directive and as it had all party support (even the communist) then I would expect the whole parliament to vote the same....we will see.

[SWShooter]

Lets hope we come out of the EU pretty soon.

[gazzarM1]

Tomorrow would be nice