Petition against EU Proposal to restrict specific firearms

I. Farticus

Well-Known Member
https://www.change.org/p/council-of...age&utm_term=des-lg-share_for_starters-no_msg

Looks like semi-auto shotguns and rimfires will be off limits. There's also talk of adding "tactical-looking" (my quotes, not theirs) rifles to the list...
***************************************************​

A revision of the Firearms Directive, to tighten controls on the acquisition and possession of firearms
The Commission has today tabled proposals to amend the EU Firearms Directive, which defines the rules under which private persons can acquire and possess weapons, as well as the transfer of firearms to another EU country. The main elements of the proposed revision are:
Stricter rules to ban certain semi-automatic firearms, which will not, under any circumstance, be allowed to be held by private persons, even if they have been permanently deactivated;
Tighter rules on the online acquisition of firearms, to avoid the acquisition of firearms, key parts or ammunition through the Internet;
EU common rules on marking of firearms to improve the traceability of weapons;
Better exchange of information between Member States, for example on any refusal of authorisation to own a firearm decided by another national authority, and obligation to interconnect national registers of weapons;
Common criteria concerning alarm weapons (e.g. distress flares and starter pistols)in order to prevent their transformation into fully functioning firearms;
Stricter conditions for the circulation of deactivated firearms;
Stricter conditions for collectors to limit the risk of sale to criminals.
The proposed amendments which the Commission has tabled today now need to be approved by the European Parliament and Council.
An Implementing Regulation on common minimum standards for deactivation of firearms
The Implementing Regulation sets out common and strict criteria on the way Member States must deactivate weapons so that they are rendered inoperable. The possession of the most dangerous firearms – even if they are deactivated – will no longer be allowed.
The Implementing Regulation is based on the criteria for deactivation developed by the Permanent International Commission for the Proof of Small Arms (the CIP). Following a positive vote on the draft Regulation by Member States in a comitology committee earlier this morning, the College of Commissioners formally adopted the text. The Regulation will be published immediately in the Official Journal and will enter into force after 3 months.
Today's package of measures to strengthen the control of firearms within the EU is based on a detailed evaluation of the implementation of the Firearms Directive carried out by the Commission last year in the context of its Regulatory Fitness programme (REFIT), which aims to ensure that existing EU regulation is fit for purpose. To ensure the best practical results on the deactivation of firearms, the Commission will regularly review and update the technical specifications laid down in this Regulation.
 
I have signed the petition but I fear that the minds of the unelected 'leaders' of Europe have already been made up and they are going through with the ban.

You can read the whole thing here https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/breaking-eu-publishes-semi-auto-ban-proposal/

The fact that they want to ban guns based on their looks and not on their function tells you that you are not dealing with a logical argument. I suspect the only chance we have is join the NO campaign and get us out of the insanity that is the European Union.
 
Signed the petition. What is it that makes people think tighter control on the legal ownership of firearms will restrict their illegal use?
It's like introducing a longer driving test in response to 15 year old joyriders. Not just ineffective, but totally irrelevant!
 
Well, WHAT TO SAY !! (politely anyway) the sooner we get out of the EU the better. Uninformed paper pushers in suits
 
We need to keep an eye on this and I fully agree that stricter controls of legally held weapons will have no effect whatsoever on illegal use. BUT lets not put words into the anti's mouths - this does not say semi auto shotguns and rim fires will go, it states "Stricter rules to ban certain semi-automatic firearms". Now I agree that COULD mean all semi auto shot guns and/or rim fires but it could also mean larger calibre semi auto rifles, which are still legal in some member states.

Tightening up regulation to ensure the wrong people don't get the wrong weapons actually strengthens the case that the right people with the right weapons are properly regulated and not a threat to Joe Public.
 
Tightening up regulation to ensure the wrong people don't get the wrong weapons actually strengthens the case that the right people with the right weapons are properly regulated and not a threat to Joe Public.

ABSOLUTELY!

Only my sort of people should be allowed to own guns. And only the type of guns that I use...oh..and Father Christmas is real too..

Some of us however are old enough to remember 1967, 1988 and 1996. And we've also long been divested of our fantasies...including the one about Father Christmas.

But never mind. If you really, really, really, do believe, aren't naughty but nice (including with the type of guns you own) it will really, really, really all come true.

Must go now...need to go outside before it's too dark to see the fairies at the bottom of my garden...

Now can someone remind us all again how that air gun legislation is getting on up there in the Scottish Borders?
 
Last edited:
I suspect the only chance we have is join the NO campaign and get us out of the insanity that is the European Union.

Err...No! It was EU Law, that had developed in the early 1990s, that obliged the UK Gov't to have to pay compensation at the 1996 handgun ban that it evaded paying at the 1988 centrefire self loading and pump action rifle ban.
 
Err...No! It was EU Law, that had developed in the early 1990s, that obliged the UK Gov't to have to pay compensation at the 1996 handgun ban that it evaded paying at the 1988 centrefire self loading and pump action rifle ban.

Ergo compensation for losing your weapons is more important than losing the right to own them? NO to the EU and to back door legislation imho.
 
I can't quite see how placing further restrictions on the law abiding shooting public has any relevance whatsoever to terrorist gangs armed with illegally obtained modern military weapons, explosives and the activities of suicide bombers....but I'm not a politician.


atb Tim
 
Ergo compensation for losing your weapons is more important than losing the right to own them? NO to the EU and to back door legislation imho.

I'm with Enfield. History tells us the UK government (of ANY colour) is not shy when it comes to sacrificing shooter's rights on the altar of popularity.

If they're going to take more of my guns I'd rather have the money than just the warm fuzzy feeling that my loss makes the politicians look good and the people feel a little better.

Wolfie
 
I think this is also a follow-up to an older plan by the UN to try and tackle the black market in small arms because essentially, in terms of sheer numbers, AK47s are used to kill more people than any other sort of weaponry. They really don't give a monkey's about sporting firearms, although it's true that since in the end it's down to national governments to implement EU directives, they could interpret that way if they wanted to. The UK government has never waited for the EU to crack down on gun ownership. Our comparatively draconian legislation is entirely home grown.

If you read this short article, you can see that the author is very clear that the problem is the black market, not legally held firearms.

Paris attacks: Is Belgium Europe's favourite gun shop? - BBC News
 
And whilst it's true that any politician whose lips are moving is clearly lying, if you can bothered to read the detail of the Directive you can gain a better understanding of where they are coming from: http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/13965/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native

There are clear examples of where current legislation is failing when it comes to preventing terrorists and criminals getting access to firearms. Whilst these may have little to do with legally-held firearms, we can't just stick our head in the sand and pretend these failings don't exist.

Of course if we had a single, well-funded, hunting organisation representing us across Europe we'd be in a far stronger position, but achieving that would require people to dig into their pockets on the basis of something other than just buying cheap insurance, so don't hold your breath.
 
Of course if we had a single, well-funded, hunting organisation representing us across Europe we'd be in a far stronger position, but achieving that would require people to dig into their pockets on the basis of something other than just buying cheap insurance, so don't hold your breath.

Well there is FACE: FACE: The European Federation of Associations for Hunting Conservation | FACE is the Voice of European Hunters. Work with us to ensure hunting remains good for hunters, society and nature.
 
The problem with FACE is that they are little more than a confederation of local country membership organisations: members | FACE: The European Federation of Associations for Hunting Conservation rather than a direct membership organisation.

What we need is a single, well-funded, Europe-wide, direct membership, lobbying organisation for responsible firearms owners of all persuasions - whether that's hunting, clay shooting, target shooting, etc. Sort of like a EU version of the NRA. That's the only way our voice will ever be heard, as otherwise we appear as nothing more than disaffected splinter groups with our own vested interests, which may be the reality but is nonetheless disappointing.
 
how about if they agree to letting us have everything back s/a rifles , pistols , the lot, the next time there is an atrocity because that would prove there legislation is failing ?
 
Of course if we had a single, well-funded, hunting organisation representing us across Europe we'd be in a far stronger position, but achieving that would require people to dig into their pockets on the basis of something other than just buying cheap insurance, so don't hold your breath.

I agree, one thing that BASC has been consistently good at is agreeing to major concessions with whatever government is further restricting our liberty in exchange for some trivia in return. It was no surprise to see their former head in his role as chairman of the LAG pro-actively advocating the end of lead ammunition.

atb Tim
 
And whilst it's true that any politician whose lips are moving is clearly lying, if you can bothered to read the detail of the Directive you can gain a better understanding of where they are coming from: http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/13965/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native

There are clear examples of where current legislation is failing when it comes to preventing terrorists and criminals getting access to firearms. Whilst these may have little to do with legally-held firearms, we can't just stick our head in the sand and pretend these failings don't exist.

Of course if we had a single, well-funded, hunting organisation representing us across Europe we'd be in a far stronger position, but achieving that would require people to dig into their pockets on the basis of something other than just buying cheap insurance, so don't hold your breath.

well said that man
 
I'm utterly stunned about the political hypocrisy that exists to come up with these idea. Terrorists of any name are free and well enough connected to illegally procure assault weapons and explosives within the French borders killing hundreds for example, .... and somebody thinks then a pressing priority should be to restrict and legally held firearms that the sporting communities have a good and just reason to possess. Utter idiot left wing liberal townies ...
 
Back
Top