MORE crap on the way.

yubabill1

Cass wrote: »

Bit of a write up.

I see the EU are trying to get away from the terrorist argument now - would it have anything to do with yesterday's report from the EU border agency, Frontex, who claim terrorists are smuggling their weapons from the Balkans?

Mentions 800,000 weapons illegally held by civilians in Bosnia Herzegovnia alone.

BTW interior minister = minister for justice.

http://http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0X213Y

pm.

The scary thing is that the EU are supplying a lot of the weapons the terrorists are using... And they have the cheek to target us

Source the Journal.ie

A few days before the Brussels attacks, 120 people were killed in a market in Yemen, bombed by Saudi Arabia and its allies, which have been targeting the country for a year now to fight the Houthi rebel movement.

The official death toll has passed 6,000 – more than half of which are civilians. The United Nations warned that Saudi Arabia and its allies could be guilty of war crimes for bombing hospitals, schools and markets and even weddings, as documented by Amnesty International.

But western countries have continued to support Saudi Arabia with weapons during the conflict. In 2015 alone, Britain, the US, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain reported licenses and sales of more than $25 billion (€23 Billion) to Saudi Arabia, including bombs, missiles, rockets, drones and torpedoes. There have not been too many news reports about this because the Saudis are major allies of the west.

yubabill1

pm. wrote: »

The scary thing is that the EU are supplying a lot of the weapons the terrorists are using... And they have the cheek to target us

Source the Journal.ie

A few days before the Brussels attacks, 120 people were killed in a market in Yemen, bombed by Saudi Arabia and its allies, which have been targeting the country for a year now to fight the Houthi rebel movement.

The official death toll has passed 6,000 – more than half of which are civilians. The United Nations warned that Saudi Arabia and its allies could be guilty of war crimes for bombing hospitals, schools and markets and even weddings, as documented by Amnesty International.

But western countries have continued to support Saudi Arabia with weapons during the conflict. In 2015 alone, Britain, the US, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain reported licenses and sales of more than $25 billion (€23 Billion) to Saudi Arabia, including bombs, missiles, rockets, drones and torpedoes. There have not been too many news reports about this because the Saudis are major allies of the west.

However laudable this post, it will cut no mustard with hard-nosed Eurocrats. They will probably ignore their own Frontex report, which is directly pertinent to the topic, until it's rammed down their throats. Which I sincerely hope it will be.

BattleCorp

I received an email from Marian Harkin MEP. She is hosting a public meeting later this month regarding the EU proposals. Hopefully it will be well attended.

A Chara,

Over the past number of months, I have received numerous emails relating to the recent proposal from the European Commission to revise the Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons. As many of you will know, this proposal is now before the European Parliament's committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. At the end of last month, the rapporteur on this file, Ms Vicky Ford, produced her draft report (see attached) which is now open for amendments until April 27th at 12:00. It is in this context that I am writing to invite you to attend a briefing session that I will host on April 23rd from 14:00-17:00 in the Lecarrow Suite in the Hudson Bay Hotel, Athlone, Co Westmeath.

The format of the meeting will consist of a discussion of the Commission's proposals and then possible amendments to the report which could be tabled. I have invited Mr Des Croften from the National Association of Regional Game Council to speak at the event in order to discuss the practical implications of the legislation on gun users in Ireland.

I have also been in email contact with FACE (the European Federation of Association for Hunting & Conservation) who have given me their position paper on the revision of the directive and their proposed amendments.

Finally, I am attaching the proposal by the Commission, the original directive and a briefing note on it from my office.

I hope that this will be an interesting and engaging discussion and I sincerely hope to see you at the event on April 23rd. If you have any queries relating to the event please send me an email and I will respond.

Anyone attending the event please confirm attendance with my office at: marian.harkin@europarl.europa.eu or by calling +32 22838791

Kind regards,
Marian Harkin MEP
European Parliament

She also sent me four attachments that will take a lifetime to read. And even longer to understand.

Hopefully Mr. Crofton will be a bit more clued this time than in some of his previous responses to these proposals.

OzCam

I just hope Mr Crofton won't monopolise the whole afternoon and that other voices get a chance to be heard.

If you only have time to read one document, read Vicky Ford's.

BattleCorp

OzCam wrote: »

I just hope Mr Crofton won't monopolise the whole afternoon and that other voices get a chance to be heard.

If you only have time to read one document, read Vicky Ford's.

Hopefully Mr Crofton will have more sensible things to say on the subject than what he was reported to have said at the FCP meeting.

Proposal for a Directive of the European parliament and the council amending council Directive 91/447/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons.
Des Crofton stated this would not affect Ireland too much at all, apart from maybe for the mental health check part.

Grizzly 45

Ill be there .And if you want to read a better document I suggest you have a look at firearms united ireand on facebook. Reply to the working document.It has alteady been fwded to mariam harkin on froday.

Cass

BattleCorp wrote: »

Hopefully Mr. Crofton will be a bit more clued this time than in some of his previous responses to these proposals.

You mean this travesty?

God help us we could end up with no semi autos, pistols either gone or restricted to single shot, a moat with sharks and lasers on their heads for security, etc. :rolleyes: All proposed by "our representatives".

yubabill1

OzCam wrote: »

I just hope Mr Crofton won't monopolise the whole afternoon and that other voices get a chance to be heard.

I didn't sign up to go to hear Des for an hour.

Why don't we limit his speaking time - he's Past it: Prime Time completely out-manoeuvred him and the SC sold semi auto shooters short.

This is our meeting, Des and other reps should be listening to us, not the other way round.

Yes, the reps will have relevant info to pass and I would certainly like to know what they are doing about this proposed directive, but there is an urgent need for discussion, too - Des is not too good at listening to the floor in my limited experience.

What say we ask Marian to set a meeting agenda?

yubabill1

http://www.thejournal.ie/paris-supermarket-attack-arrest-2713716-Apr2016/
Smuggled Arms from Eastern Europe used in Paris supermarket atrocity.

Grizzly 45

So you think you dont own a semi CF rifle this doesnt affect you??
So you think a your Ruger 10/22 LR isnt affected?
So you think your semi auto 12 GA isnt affected? Or your pump or your Over under side by side shotgun?
Or your muzzle loader if you are one of the lucky ones in NI? Or your African big game rifle if you are one of the luckier ones?Or you are a firearms dealer? Or reload your own ammo?Irrespective of home or as an F class shooter?

GENVAL an unelected EU club of technocrats have put forward their proposals,and they are 100% WORSE than the original draft.They have ignored COMPLETELY Vicky Fords proposed amendments and are as usual demanding proceeding with utter haste to get thieir jack boot legislation stamped on the EU.They are proposing caliber bans beyondall firearms exceeding 12,7mm/0.5" in caliber. Thats your 12 gauge gone then!!
They are hoppping mad at Vicky Ford and that the fact she is pointing out that this legislation is utter BS.More sinister is the distinct possibility of MEPS being approached and literally being bullied,blackmailed or coreced by their own national govts or by the Eurocracy to vote in favour of this fascist legislation.
They are even beginning to drop this utter sham that this is about preventing terrorism and showing their true colours that this is nothing more than gun confiscation on a continental basis.

READ THIS ARTICLE!!! And after that think long and hard,is Des Crofton right in saying it wont affect us much here??? Make it your busisness to be up in Athlone on April 23rd to express your fears and opposition to Marian Harkin MEP on this.You have a chance to voice your opposition to this EU diktat and to stop it along with every gun owner EU wide.IF this goes thru,in this form you can kiss just about EVERYTHING good bye!!:(:(:(

/www.all4shooters.com/en/mobile/Shooting/law/EU-Gun-Ban-European-Commission-Council-GENVAL-Firearms-United/

Nekarsulm

Re. ATHLONE MEETING.




"To answer your questions, there won't be an agenda published. The meeting will be opened by Marian. She will outline the current political situation with regard the file in the Parliament and what she can do in terms of amendments etc. Then Des Crofton from NARGC will speak about the practical implication on Irish gun owners. After this, Marian will open for questions/input from the floor so at this point you can raise your concerns about the file or propose possible amendments which you feel would strengthen it.

If you have further queries please let me know.

Kind regards,
Peter McGuigan
Parliamentary Assistant to Marian Harkin MEP
European Parliament

Tel: +32.2.2838797
Fax: +32.2.2849797"

OzCam

(Comission ignoring the Rapporteur's paper)

Which is exactly why you need the greatest number of votes in the Parliament to reject the Comission proposal.

You get votes in the Parliament by making friends and persuading them to agree with you. Including the people whose entire knowledge of firearms comes from Hollywood. But you can't extend the hand of friendship and reason while at the same time shouting about wrapping your cold dead hand around your musket.

With all respect to Firearms United, sometimes their language is counterproductive. These kind of arguments are won with facts, not emotion.

You have to fight scare tactics with facts - otherwise the prohibitionists will always come up with even more lurid lies. The particular subject doesn't really matter - Alcohol, firearms, LGBT rights, whatever. The playbook is always the same (going back to the 1800s at least) and the tactics to defeat them are the same. People are open to reason, you just have to get them to listen.

PS: I expected the Commission to either reject or ignore Vicky Ford's report. That's a standard manoever. The next step is to get Parliament to reject the proposal. For that you need votes. And friends.

Grizzly 45

You forget that Firearms United is dealing on an EU front not just "No RTKBA self defence please we 're Irish or English".Its perfectly normal in the EU to discuss these topics in shooting mags or to aquire a firearm live or blank firing for self defence.So the factual aspect is there .It might sound shocking to us here but it is so in the rest of the EU.As for making friends in the parliment.Its the EU comission an unelected body with too much power not the EU parliment that is the problem.So I will give them credit for being able to accept a differing viewpoint on self defence being a ligit reason to own a gun in Europe.

OzCam

Hmmm. I guess there's a learning curve for Irish and UK MEPs as well as the rest of us It does take a bit of getting used to though.

And 100% agree about the Commission. I don't know of any other way to thwart them than the Parliament* sending them home to think again, preferably by a large margin.


* I wish I could spell that bloody word without at least 3 attempts at it every time.

Limerick Sovereigns

Maybe we should all e-mail Irish MEPs and ask them how they intend to vote on the Commission's current proposal?

I understand that they will try to sit on the fence and avoid committing one way or the other but we just keep asking until they give a straight yes or no.

hexosan

Limerick Sovereigns wrote: »

Maybe we should all e-mail Irish MEPs and ask them how they intend to vote on the Commission's current proposal?

I understand that they will try to sit on the fence and avoid committing one way or the other but we just keep asking until they give a straight yes or no.

You'll be a long time waiting for an Irish politician to give a straight answer.

Grizzly 45

Limerick Sovereigns wrote: »

Maybe we should all e-mail Irish MEPs and ask them how they intend to vote on the Commission's current proposal?

I understand that they will try to sit on the fence and avoid committing one way or the other but we just keep asking until they give a straight yes or no.

Go have a look at what kind of MEPs we have in Europe and what political groupings they belong to.That will give you an answer pretty quick.
Majority are greenies and reds.A sure poision for anything to do with firearms.

The only two that have responded positively with any sort of intrest are Marian Harkin and Brian[?] Crowley from Munster. Nothing from the rest of them including FG Mc Guiness.Ming Flanagan has mumbled a few times when questioned on FB of sending out a reply,which no one has seen sofar.
Reason I think none of the others are arsed is simply very few of us shooters have been arsed to contact them and the 3% rule is firmly enplaced again.

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Go have a look at what kind of MEPs we have in Europe and what political groupings they belong to.That will give you an answer pretty quick.
Majority are greenies and reds.A sure poision for anything to do with firearms.

The only two that have responded positively with any sort of intrest are Marian Harkin and Brian[?] Crowley from Munster. Nothing from the rest of them including FG Mc Guiness.Ming Flanagan has mumbled a few times when questioned on FB of sending out a reply,which no one has seen sofar.
Reason I think none of the others are arsed is simply very few of us shooters have been arsed to contact them and the 3% rule is firmly enplaced again.

Matt Carthy gave a semi-committal response to someone on here, I think.

Surprised Mairead McGuinness has stayed silent, what with being on a farming TV show in a former life.

It is true about the Euro Parliament members, Griz- Trots and Greens, mostly Trots.

They all believe the place should be governed by consensus.

500 million people governed by consensus.....there is more than a touch of Communism about that.

And what about confiscation of private property? Surely it's illegal at the very least to confiscate firearms without compensating the owners, as proposed in this directive?
Well, maybe we should ask the people who had money on deposit in banks in Cyprus a year or two ago? Didn't they confiscate people's savings to rescue the banks? Communism, much?

We're not sending Trots to the parliament, but it is controlled by Trots.

Grizzly 45

yubabill1 wrote: »

M

And what about confiscation of private property? Surely it's illegal at the very least to confiscate firearms without compensating the owners, as proposed in this directive?
Well, maybe we should ask the people who had money on deposit in banks in Cyprus a year or two ago? Didn't they confiscate people's savings to rescue the banks? Communism, much?

We're not sending Trots to the parliament, but it is controlled by Trots.

Article eight of the EU constitution states that if citizens are deprived of their personal property they must be compensated at market value as the time of the enactment. This is mostly because of a little Austrian chap in Germany in the 1930s having a bake on with a certain religious group and forcing them to sell property for pennies on the Reichmark.
As well as Article 4[?] That states that citizens are allowed to peaceably enjoy their property without undue govt interference.

Cyprus OTOH was more known for alot of dodgy bank dealings and a tax haven and as usual it hit the little guy and not the big guys who had long advance warning that it was going tits up and moved their assets out of Cyprus.Somewhat like here at the demise of the Celtic pussy cat.[Moral,keep the bare minimum in a bank if your economy starts to look very wobbly Thats so long as th EU[ssr] allows us to have cash.Yes!Thats their next bright idea,do away with cash altogether,"to fight terrorism and criminals":mad: ]

However in this case,we are not talking of bank accounts on an island.We are talking of a tangible asset owned by now millions of people in the entire Union.
If going by the latest proposals from GENVAL they want handguns too and everything and including a 12 gauge shotguns the bill will approach literally three times the money owned by the PIIGS to the EU. I think that might be a pertinent point for alot of politicans, especially here??Lets pay more money for no good reason to the EU because somone thinks legally held guns are a threat??
We should also point out the utter BALLS UP made in the UK of payments for handguns by Labour.In the end it cost FIVE times more than estimated in a country not particuallry big in comparison in firearms ownership like France or Germany.Be intresting to see the butchers bill EU wide with those incompetant clowns in brussells handling it.

yubabill1

The directive proposers state that there is no cost to the EU budget involved in implementing this directive.

Grizzly 45

Yeah,where did we hear THAT one before??? Oh Yeah!! here with the AGS last year....That bird didnt fly here either!! I'm no EU constitutional lawyer,but there are an army load on the Continent who would proably express the same sentiment.Pony up or your entire EU constitution is nothing more than a sham and not worth its fancy paper its written on.

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Yeah,where did we hear THAT one before??? Oh Yeah!! here with the AGS last year....That bird didnt fly here either!! I'm no EU constitutional lawyer,but there are an army load on the Continent who would proably express the same sentiment.Pony up or your entire EU constitution is nothing more than a sham and not worth its fancy paper its written on.

Just one of several fatal flaws in these proposals that MEP's have to vote on.

It's also critical that this directive has now become about shooters and hunters, not terrorists - as evidenced by the recent statement by a Commission spokesperson (un-named) who turned the debate towards non-terrorist atrocities:
http://www.politico.eu/article/europe-gun-lobby-mobilizing-against-new-firearms-guns-weapons-rules/

Cass

yubabill1 wrote: »

......... It's also critical that this directive has now become about shooters and hunters, not terrorists - ...........

Was only thinking this the other evening while watching more debates in the EU. Everyone is focusing on the guns, the type, style, mag limit, etc.

I was thinking why are we defending the guns we use when i've been vetted and cleared by An Gardaí. So in effect you can give me a Mini Gun and know i'm safe with it because i've shown i can be. I've over 25 years of safe and legal shooting, My friends and family have the same and more. All my guns are registered, and traceable. So how dare anyone tell me that i'm a bigger risk because of the gun i use.

This is the same crap An Gardaí have been trotting out here for years. "Oh you're shotgun has a pistol grip, that is so much more dangerous than a standard grip, so the gun is restricted". This still makes no sense and has dramatically effected the type of guns we buy. These directives will not only destroy shooting sports and leave terrorists to run free as they are now, but it'll create monopolies within the EU on the guns that are left and they deem "safe".

As for the topic of banning without compensation. Its illegal, and cannot be done. The EU don't know how many of the various guns they want banned are out there, so they have no idea about the cost. Wait thill someone makes up an estimate. They'll sh*t themselves.

yubabill1

Good point about the vetting, Cass.

Confiscation of private property being illegal ( whatever about Cyprus bank deposits) The directive proposers say there is zero implications for the EU budget coming out of this, this is stated in the box " EU Budget Implications" MEP's need to know this before they vote.

They should also know about UK compensation paid for handguns and semi auto rifles and they should know the demography of shooters, which should show that shooters can mostly afford to litigate.

Cass

I'll have to do a search, but this topic came up months ago, at the beginning of this debacle. One MEP said there was no fear of having to pay people for the confiscation of their guns. However, and much like the Minister here, she (both MEP, and TD) did not seem to fully understand the law and the difference between licensing and ownership. IOW you can take away my ability to license the item, but not the ownership of it.

All this is somewhat moot though. With countries like Ireland, England, etc. that require strict enough registration of all firearms it's easy to come up with a figure. In the Eastern countries and countries where firearm registration is not mandatory or not on specific items that are classed as firearms in other countries (Air rifle come to mind) they have no idea and in one of the sittings one MEP made this abundantly clear.

I'd push the topic of the people (us) being targeted and the cost.

yubabill1

[QUOTE=Cass;99412469IOW you can take away my ability to license the item, but not the ownership of it.

All this is somewhat moot though. With countries like Ireland, England, etc. that require strict enough registration of all firearms it's easy to come up with a figure. In the Eastern countries and countries where firearm registration is not mandatory or not on specific items that are classed as firearms in other countries (Air rifle come to mind) they have no idea and in one of the sittings one MEP made this abundantly clear.

I'd push the topic of the people (us) being targeted and the cost.[/QUOTE]

Moot is the word alright; would make for some technical points of law in a court.

Essentially, afaik they grandfathered centre fire handguns here because they would have removed the owner's right to enjoy their property if they made them illegal and thus not licensable.

So you have the cost of EU wide litigation, the cost of compensation at market rates and the cost of logistics to consider. Whether it affects the EU budget depends on the liability position of individual countries.

And they must consider whether this directive is about terrorism or about shooters. As FACE originally stated, the parent directive is about licensed shooting and is not the correct instrument to address security.

Grizzly 45

It might be moot with the current amount,but dont forget then all the stuff confiscated in the TCO in 1972!That then will also have to be addressed,and seeing that the govts with their non stop can kicking on this issue will be obliged to trace every last man jack of the owners of them or their next of kin to offer compensation on grand dads long forgotton air rifle.The tracing fees will be more than the gun is worth,but that needs to be factored in.Oh BTW the payments are from NATIONAL budgets if they are to be made.So the problem lands right back in Frannie's or who evers lap in the DOJ.We sorted it out,more or less,The EU pukes it straight back into whomevers office door.

BTW Cass the lad you are looking for is the Frog Minister of Internal Affaris Bernard Cazeneuve.

All in all lads.We NEED to be making these points to Marian Harkin and to our TDs and MEPS between now and the end of this proably sometime in June,maybe.
Points are
NO impact study conducted ,so they have NO clue on how many and how much it will cost.
NO correlation between legally held firearms of ANY type being used in gun crime EU wide.

NOTone semi auto of the "military type " being used in a shoot out/massacre ever. If the "Brevick point" comes up ,the Ruger mini 14 would be exempt from their proposals as it isnt a military firearm.

GENVAL's proposals are so draconian they would be even banning single shot 12 gauge shotguns!Due to the fact that thier calibre restriction of 0.50 inches is actually SMALLER than a 12 gauge.0.73 inches[That should kick the IFA in the pants abit if they are paying attention,as whats the most common shotgun in Ireland held by IFA members???]

Also it should be pointe out [politely] that we as European gunowners ,being vetted,poked,prodded, medically examined and generally discommoded at every possible turn .Are getting pretty sick and tired of being used as the convient door mat and scape goat ,and easy go to answer for politicans wanting to look like they are "doing somthing and getting tough" on crime and terrorism nation and EU wide,by stamping on us with their dirty big jack boots and banning legally held liscensed firearms,and it is getting to a point that we are not going to stand for it much longer.:mad:

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

It might be moot with the current amount,but dont forget then all the stuff confiscated in the TCO in 1972!

Yeah, never going to happen because the stuff "confiscated" in 1972 was never de jure confiscated. It always remained the property of the original owners.
The refusal to issue licences was subsequently declared illegal by the courts; the original owners could, you'd suppose, always sue the relevant Ministers in civil proceedings for compensation for those 30 years of being denied the ability to possess their property illegally - and that would be an interesting day in court I suspect - but if you took a case saying your firearm was confiscated in 1972, it would be dismissed out of hand. For example, you had the right to sell your firearm while the Gardai had it in their custody and then ship it out of the country for completion of the sale; you can't do that with confiscated property because it's not yours anymore.


Besides, the "sue Dessie O'Malley for acting illegally and denying people their chosen sports for 30 years" approach would be somewhat more... viscerally satisfying. As it'd be a case against an individual. And it'd be an interesting precedent - can you even sue a Government Minister in a case like this I wonder. If he'd acted legally, that'd be right out, but in this case the supreme court's already said it wasn't legal (because it was de facto drafting law without the consent of the Oireachtas, and you can put several words to that act). Could be... interesting.

Grizzly 45

WHY did I guess you would come up with that corrective point??;)

More intresting would be ,could you take it under EU law as by rights you were denied peaceable use of your property for 35 years and thru semantics and indefinate can kicking of the problem,you were [1]denied usage of your propety [2] unable to apply for compensation for the non usage of it because it wasnt confiscated?And when and for how long if you are denied usage of your property does it become, under EU law ,forbidden usage to you as an individual or confiscated by default if thats the right wording?
That could be very intresting alright,if you had the bobs to persue it.