EU proposals on semi auto ban

[gbal]

Srtictly regarding shooting,what is it that we have in UK firearms legislation that they don't have in the EU?..or that they do have in EU,but we don't want in the UK.

UK does have some banned weapons. And no guarantee (nowhere has that!) that limitations can'tbe increased.

There may well be a case for European solidarity,unless you believe UK politicians have legislated fairly in the recent past-we can't have any cf semi automatics.It's probably a whole deal more complex,and I don't understand EU rules/vetoes/etc; I am much clearer about the restrictions actually imposed by the UK legislature,and not that impressed with motive,process or outcome.

I'd appreciate some clarification from those who have goood reason to believe we,as shooters,will be better out of the EU,with or without any Cameron renegotiated deal about the UK/EU.

 

gbal

[ds1]

The difference is probably in being turned over by those you can elect or by a bunch of Eu legislators where there doesn't feel like any democratic process involved.

 

Also, point of interest the Eu Charter article 17 states that there must be fair compensation for legal property that a state steals.

[John MH]

Interesting letter that can be used as evidence that the proposed EU Firearms Legislation changes are flawed.

 

FARE Consultants Letter

[JSC]

Interesting letter that can be used as evidence that the proposed EU Firearms Legislation changes are flawed.

 

FARE Consultants Letter

Nice find. Attaching that to any letters written to MEPs etc. and asking them to comment on it could help our cause.

[gbal]

John,thank you for bringing this FARE letter to our attention.

 

It may provide some reassurance that there is substantial input into the European process.

It's not all an easy read,but it makes excellent points of substance,and process,without disregarding the salient issue of firearms and terrorism.

 

Let us hope that the consultative processes between the Council of Ministers (representatives of Governments) and the European Parliament (directly elected MEPs)-which have to agree (the codecision principle) before proposals become Euro Law-are so well informed,and balanced.There will be other inputs too.

 

We should not ,however, be over confident.Listening to reports of Trump in USA,and advocacy of a ban on Islamic immigrants into USA-as he was deeply concerned about homeland security,and support for him by his seemingly one UK supporter (a adaily male columnist,who thinks he shows leadership,but admits that his ideas are simply undeliverable,but...well,it shows leadership).

This seems symptomatic of a current malais- there is an issue (terrorism/homelandsecurity) and 'people are concerned about it (rightly and understandambl so);someone voices that concern (rightly);then whatever they say is somehow seen as addressing effectively that concern (no,it follows not).

For Trump two problems;1)how do you identify an islamic potential imigrant (it's not on passport,asking won't do etc etc-even wihout considering individual justices) and 2) potntial/actual terrorists are already US citizens. (San bernadino).

Trump is bogus in any effective sense (it just don't work/deliver,whatever else may be said)....AND that seems to be just about the position of much of the proposed European firearms legislation.

 

The UK has seen a fair bit of this "guns were misused,so lets control guns',but of course,the controls were not on the 'guns that were misused'-as FARE puts it 'even if Ferraris get done for speeding,banning red cars is not the appropriate response'.

 

David,having spent a few hours getting up to speed-if not Ferrari warp-on how Europe legislates,I suspect it is at least as good as ,say the UK parliament.

 

In particular,the European Parliament of MEPs are directly elected,by populations roughly pro rata on size,

and the Council of mimisters represent member state Governments,one from each.

EP and Council have to agree proposed legislation (he codecision principle)...that seems a stronger system than eg UK- Parliament decides,and there is in effect no real other body (sorry Lords).

There is no doubt input in the proposal drafting from the Euro commision,though that is meant to be a politically independent executive;again with one member per state-and with a large 'beaurocracy'/civil service.

There also seems some budgetary and 'democratic' safeguards.

 

Rather reassuring,and certainly not the 'imposed beaurocrats wishes' sometimes bandied about (even if beaurocrats are sometimes right.) No,Euro law needs the mutual agreement of the Comission (State ministers) AND elected MEPs.

The wider range of input,and -perhaps- the considerable positive support for shooting in the EU-suggests to me that decisions will be no less unfair,and a lot less 'knee jerk' than our home experience.

 

I didn't see anything even close to eg the FARE document in the UK,and FARE is just one Euro input.

In the UK the representatives of 50 million were wrong the last two times.

 

gbal

[tisme]

E mail back from Nigel Farage who think the law will go through!

 

Thank you for your email to Mr Farage, apologies for the delay in responding to you, we have had a considerable number of emails on this subject.

 

 

 

At Mr Farage's request I have discussed this issue in detail with colleagues, and listened in person to the views of Registered Firearms Dealers. The EU Commission's draft law has not yet been discussed in the relevant European Parliamentary Committee, so we are not in a position to comment on the detail. However three points are very clear.

 

 

 

First, the weapons used in the Paris atrocity, and more generally the weapons used in most terrorist attacks, are illegally-held weapons. Changing the law on legal gun ownership is therefore unlikely to have any significant impact on the availability of illegal weapons to terrorists. Indeed the EU is clearly the problem, not the solution.

 

 

 

There is extensive evidence that for example Croatia, which recently joined the EU, is a hotbed of smuggling – not only of arms, but also of drugs, people and human organs. It has also been said (and it is no exaggeration) that free movement of goods and people in the EU (and especially the Schengen area) has led to free movement of Kalashnikovs.

 

 

 

Secondly, so far as we understand it the UK already has some of the tightest regulations on firearms in the world. We do not believe that further legislation at the EU level will make any additional contribution to public safety. In any case we in UKIP are opposed in principle to any extension of competences at the EU level.

 

 

 

Thirdly, I understand that the proposed means of deactivating weapons will prevent inspection of the moving parts, actually making it more difficult to identify a weapon with a false certificate of deactivation.

 

 

 

I can therefore confirm that UKIP will be opposing the new EU Firearms proposal. Sadly, however, we fear it will be approved anyway. There is nothing MEPs like more than a nice piece of gesture politics in response to public concern – whether or not their gesture has any practical effect.

 

 

 

Kind regards

 

 

 

Benjamin

 

 

 

The Office of Nigel Farage, Brussels

[LONG RANGE CAPT]

So I take it from all this I need to sell my AR style .22 semi auto and go and buy a Volquartsen with a pink laminated wood stock .

[MrCetrizine]

I'm not selling my S&W M&P 15-22. If this does pass which is by no means certain then it will probably not affect .22LR and if it does then the government can buy my rifle for what it cost me.

[LukeSoutherner]

Not received any responses to the 6 letters which I sent to my MEPS for Yorkshire and Humberside. Unimpressed.

 

However, received this from my club membership secretary this morning which gives a flavour of what individual countries have thought about the proposals (EU Interinstitutional file: 2015/0269 (COD)). Not a light read, but I just scanned the various countries opening views. The German point of view was a good, non-emotive attitude regarding the proposed ban on semi-automatic firearms resembling automatics (my bold):

 

"This provision is not comprehensible in its present shape. It is not based on the fact that, for construction reasons, the weapon is more dangerous. Instead, the provision is purely based on physical appearance and therefore does not lead to greater security. The reasoning of the draft does not clarify why this is the case. Furthermore, this arrangement is too imprecise to be a suitable ground for a ban: When would a semi-automatic firearm sufficiently resemble an automatic firearm? An arrangement that can be implemented in practice is of special significance because the Member States would have to terminate the possession of such weapons since, according to the draft, it is no longer possible to grant exceptional authorizations. Instead of the mere looks of a weapon, technical criteria should be decisive."

 

The Finnish point of view is interesting as well as it speaks about a ban on semi-automatic weapons looking like automatic weapons directly affecting their self-defence. Their reserve miliarty force is armed with weapons that fulfil the above criteria, and so they would have a reserve military force which was unable to armed with their current weapons!

 

Anyway, thought I'd share it as knowledge is power, as they say.

[Re-Pete]

It's very easy to lose sight of the big picture when discussing membership of the EU. If we leave the EU, then we may be unable to buy stuff at favourable prices and be liable for duty etc.

An example: 1000 123grain Scenars cost £320-340 if ordered from a dealer here. The same quantity (from Germany) is advertised for 271.45 Euro's plus 18.15 euros shipping.

At the present rate, that's £214.23..........................

We also stand to lose a lot of our research capability (and the associated scientists and technologists) that's funded by EU grants. We apparently receive 25% of the total EU budget for this.

 

They are discussing proposals, it's not cut and dried, and there are many EU members with strongly vested interests in keeping the sporting firearms industry alive and well.

 

So please, try to see a bit farther than the end of your rifle when considering these issues.

 

Pete

[gazzarM1]

Looking further... a lot further than the end of my rifle.I personally have a big problem with faceless,non elected bureaucrats invading every apect of my life an constantly eroding my personal freedoms on many levels aside from shooting. I would rather we were able to self determine our own countries laws and would willingly vote for a British exit tomorrow....we were a great country before the EU and will be great again without it

[gbal]

Inan earlier post I bothered to find out a bit about how the EU works- as I understood it,there are two 'voting' houses-one the represenratives from each country in the EU,in some proportion to size,and an electe3d house-the MEPs elected by voters in the country they reprresent -prettty much like our Commons.

These two 'houses' ask for proposals to be drafted-by the beaurocrats-who seem not too ublike our UK civil servants. And the two 'houses' have to agree for any proposals to become EU law. his does not seem fundamentaly different from UK,except of course there are no 'Lords'. Perhpas I have missed some prejudice somewhere,but seems no less democratic (MEPs vote laws,and are elected) than UK.

 

Be that as it is, I am surprised some seem to think that UK law has not 'reduced freedoms' with respect to firearm ownership in the UK. Surely we already have a cf semi auto ban,for example,whose legality in UK has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU. Au contraire,if you will allow,the UK was restrictive o this,in a way that many UK shooters continually complain was unfair.

 

Whatever role the UK may have in Europe,or not ,is no doubt at all quite complex,and goes well beyond fireamrms legislation issues,but the notion that in the UK shooters have not been arguably unfairly treated,and that the EU law is any less 'democratic' than UK law has been,is not a matter of far sighted ,or near sighted,but of more serious optical distortions.

 

There is probably a more effective pro-shooting lobby in Europe than in UK,where internal shooting squabbles are the norm. Shooting is in many senses 'bigger' in some EU countries. That does not of course guarantee that it will not be restricted-but restriction is 'fait accompli' in the UK,so let's attempt some balance-the EU may lose what we have already lost in the UK,but it may not.The UK is not going to reverse it's laws and allow back semi auto cf rifles anytime soon.

 

If you must have a view,at least have a reasonably informed one-though,as I said,the EU issue is rather bigger than just shooting,important and legitimate though that is on this forum. Don't lose sight of what was done to shooting by the UK government;probably not in one of it's "great Britain" best moments,but done nonetheless.You can't blame Brussels beaurocrats in the EU for that-the UK did it all by itself.

 

Let's hope that better reason will prevail in the EU.

 

gbal

[Wsm]

Someone talking sense

 

https://www.facebook.com/FirearmsUnitedCroatia/videos/1525666504394134/