MORE crap on the way.

Sparks

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

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

Because it leads to the more interesting lawsuit

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

Well, probably not since the EU's not that old...
...but you wouldn't need EU law, Irish law would suffice.
It'd get interesting is the thing. And the problem. "Interesting" court cases are long and often end up in the supreme court and you can't make it a class action suit because they're not allowed in Irish court rules, so someone with a good case would have to have the funding to take it.

And if they got funded by some collective effort, you'd have to have a good reason to take the case (and by good I mean "We're trying to achieve X, Y and Z and we define success as A, B or C, and our budget details are..." and so on).

It's not the weakest or more awkward case I've ever heard about even in our little list of cases, but somehow I don't see anyone having the money and the motivation to take it

Cass

Have a read.

yubabill1

Cass wrote: »

Have a read.

Some nice arguments there. Especially the use of illicit firearms in homicides.

The article may underestimate the number of shooters in the EU: They say there are 12.5 million legal shooters in the EU, but the phone poll of 26- thousand odd participants (the one carried out when they didn't like the study with 85thousand respondents) says 5% of EU citizens currently own a firearm. That's 25million, give or take and they mention that a further 5% owned a firearm previously, but no longer possess one.

OzCam

For the meeting with Marian Harkin, somebody who's better at maths than me might take that 12.5 million and multiply it by some notional number (let's be conservative, maybe the price of a mid-market shotgun*) add in some salt for the legal costs, add in some pepper for the admin/transport/storage/destruction/recycling costs and then you end up with a guess as to how much a wide confiscation might cost.

Then when somebody says it'll cost €0, you then can argue that "no, we reckon it'll cost €n billion, at least". That'll get the MEPs' attention.


*yes, I know some people have tens of thousands of coins tied up in wood and iron, but the figure has to be at least plausible

Cass

yubabill1 wrote: »

The article may underestimate the number of shooters in the EU:

Its entirely possible. Given the variety of countries, what is and is not a firearm in them, etc. the numbers will never be truly 100% accurate.

OzCam wrote: »

Then when somebody says it'll cost €0, you then can argue that "no, we reckon it'll cost €n billion, at least". That'll get the MEPs' attention.


*yes, I know some people have tens of thousands of coins tied up in wood and iron, but the figure has to be at least plausible

This is also a problem, and one that was pointed out. There is no way to get the true number of firearms. There is also no way to determine an "average" cost/price as the variance in some firearms ranges from €300 to €5,000 and even more. Legal costs will be minimal to non existent. If banned, they're gone. You hand them in. The only admin will be staff to record this in Europe, but for countries like Ireland, England, etc it'll fall to the police services.

A quick run down.

12.5 million people with an average cost per firearm of €750 would total approx. €9.375 BILLION.
25 million people with the same average price/cost would be €18.75 BILLION

That is assuming the average cost is €750. It may be significantly less, but even if they go as low as €300 per firearm you're still looking at €3.75 BILLION to €7.5 BILLION.

Of course the problems arise when it comes to the guns themselves. My cheapest gun is €400, and the dearest one is €2,000 (firearm only). I wouldn't accept an average price for them as the gain on the cheap one would not compensate me for the loss on the expensive one. My mate has 13. They range from €800 to €4,000. Imagine the loss if he were to get €300, €500 or even €750 per firearm.

Look at it this way. If they somehow found a way to only give us (all shooters) €100 for each gun, the bare minimum total cost to the EU (or all countries) is going to be €1,250,000,000 or €2,500,000,000 if the numbers are that high.

For Ireland alone it'd be €14,000,000 on the ultra low end of the scale (never going to happen) or €105,000,000 on the higher end. Lets see them try and get that past the general public.

OzCam

Those numbers might be educated guesses, but they're a damn sight more accurate than €zero. That's a useful point to make to MEPs.

I don't see how legal costs will be zero anyway. They might be in theory when the licenses are revoked, but the day after that there will be multiples of court cases for compensation all across the EU. Wasn't there some case a while ago at the ECJ or ECHR that set a precedent that market value has to be paid? If you have 13 guns ranging up to €4,000, you're hardly likely to accept €100 for them?

What I mean is that the abolitionists can claim costs will be zero, like they claim lots of other things, but there's a huge argument to be made against that. The counter to the Commission claim of €zero is "Please explain to me how exactly it's not going to be €19b?".



PS: There was a really good article in The Economist of all places, about the flow of AKs from Eastern Europe. Some useful background info in it. If anyone wants it, PM me for the link.

Cass

OzCam wrote: »

Those numbers might be educated guesses, but they're a damn sight more accurate than €zero. That's a useful point to make to MEPs.

I've tried to break the numbers down even more. Allowing for 70% of people to own one firearm (farmer with shotgun), and then breaking the remaining figure into categories of low, medium, high, and extra high in terms of firearm ownership/cost per firearm i got a figure of €103,375,000. Now that number is a pure guess, but as i said earlier there is simply no way to determine actual cost. Only the Gardai can do that as they have figures for amount of firearms, type, etc. Then they would need a third party to issue an open market value on each gun.

The first problem here is PULSE. Given the level of inaccuracies on PULSE the number cannot be trusted however we'll ignore that little gem for the time being.

Ireland has, on a high, 140,000 people with firearms. If it's 12.5 million people across Europe then Ireland represents 1.12% of the total for firearm ownership. If the number is closer to 25 million then Ireland represents 0.56% of total firearm ownership in the EU. So working on those numbers, and using the same averages across the entire population we get a compensation figure of €10.3 BILLION on the low end and €20.6 BILLION on the higher end.

I don't see how legal costs will be zero anyway. They might be in theory when the licenses are revoked, but the day after that there will be multiples of court cases for compensation all across the EU.

The thing is there will be no court cases for two reasons:

1. If its law then you cannot appeal against a law that states you have no right to them or more accurately no legal right to own/possess one. IOW there will be no law that has been broken.
2. The revocation of licenses/sales of these firearms must coincide with a compensation scheme. So the court cases will be moot.

Wasn't there some case a while ago at the ECJ or ECHR that set a precedent that market value has to be paid? If you have 13 guns ranging up to €4,000, you're hardly likely to accept €100 for them?

Not too sure on the case, but the premise is correct. And no he wouldn't. Not with in excess of €28,000 spent on them so far.

What I mean is that the abolitionists can claim costs will be zero, like they claim lots of other things, but there's a huge argument to be made against that. The counter to the Commission claim of €zero is "Please explain to me how exactly it's not going to be €19b?".

No mater what lies the MEPs want to tell themselves its illegal to ban the use of our property (firearms) without compensation. Similar to your car. If you lost your driving license for any reason it does not mean you no longer own your car, it means you cannot drive it.

As mentioned earlier its for this very reason the C/F pistols were not banned outright back in 2008. While only a small number of people were involved to issue such a ban would have cost the state approx €2.5 Million Euro.It's also why when the last Minister was weighing up banning semi auto rifles, etc. she initially thought she could just ban them, then when it was pointed out that any ban on licensing would require compensation she came out with the temporary cap (also illegal and no basis in law so the "cap" currently on semi autos has no legal standing).

goz83

Sure, the licenses themselves are €80 a pop and if you can't keep the guns, the licenses themselves are scrap paper, so that would probably add to the compo figure.

What about accessories? Scopes, rings, cases etc? All things purchased for the sport and useless without a gun.

Cass

goz83 wrote: »

Sure, the licenses themselves are €80 a pop and if you can't keep the guns, the licenses themselves are scrap paper, so that would probably add to the compo figure.

Nope.

License fees are a non refundable aspect. If you surrender, have it revoked, etc. then it's gone.

However it would be a good point that with 200,000+ firearms licenses at €80 a pop, any ban would cost the exchequer €5.5 million per year.

What about accessories? Scopes, rings, cases etc? All things purchased for the sport and useless with a gun.

Still your property and unlike the guns they do not need a license to own/possess so you can still keep them. Suppressors would/may be included especially in countries like Ireland where they are regulated and licensed.

Grizzly 45

So going by how well the UK handled a few hundred thousand firearms in compensation payments.It only took five times the amount and five times the time estimated to sort it out....How long and how costly will it be for a organisation thats top heavy with beuraccy,paperwork and incompetance to sort and cost this out.Multiply your billions by a factor of X and an estimated time frame of 5to 6 years.When you consider thats how long the EU took to impliment legislation on deacts.IOW take PIIGS decifict figures for this to be sorted out.

goz83

Cass wrote: »

Nope.

License fees are a non refundable aspect. If you surrender, have it revoked, etc. then it's gone.

However it would be a good point that with 200,000+ firearms licenses at €80 a pop, any ban would cost the exchequer €5.5 million per year.

Still your property and unlike the guns they do not need a license to own/possess so you can still keep them. Suppressors would/may be included especially in countries like Ireland where they are regulated and licensed.

The license fee loss is definitely a good point. I hadn't considered it that way, but it would be unjust to have paid an €80 fee to license a firearm and to have only a short period, or not the full period in which to enjoy the use of it.

We are also required to have gun safes. If I have a gun and they then ban that type of gun, the safe is just taking up space, as it's a bit excessive for my one piece of jewellery.

I can understand having no compensation for scopes and small accessories, as they can easily be sold online. But, imo, it would be unjust to only compensate for the banned items, when we are legally required to license and securely store them.

I hope it doesn't come to that though. I'm just sounding off.

yubabill1

goz83 wrote: »

The license fee loss is definitely a good point. I hadn't considered it that way, but it would be unjust to have paid an €80 fee to license a firearm and to have only a short period, or not the full period in which to enjoy the use of it.

We are also required to have gun safes. If I have a gun and they then ban that type of gun, the safe is just taking up space, as it's a bit excessive for my one piece of jewellery.

I can understand having no compensation for scopes and small accessories, as they can easily be sold online. But, imo, it would be unjust to only compensate for the banned items, when we are legally required to license and securely store them.

I hope it doesn't come to that though. I'm just sounding off.

Good point about the gun safe. Where it's a requirement for getting a licence, then it's a candidate for compensation. Not to mention the phone watch equipment, subscription and any other mandatory stuff to get a restricted licence.

Grizzly 45

I just thought that is a very valid point for Germany too.Over there its based on how many guns you have that gives you a category of safe you need to get. None of this alarm busisness.Its based on how long the safe can withstannd a professional onslaught.We literally have two gun vaults over that cost about 4 grand each plus the powder magazine .And we are only have a "small collection" of firearms[About 30 all in] between us.Some folks have built literal walk in gun vaults where the doors cost over 8 grand alone without fitting.
Wonder how many of them there are that will be needed after this too??

Grizzly 45

The Antis have their say TODAY.:(

https://www.all4shooters.com/en/Shooting/law/EU-gun-ban-updates-SED-LIBE-IMCO-FESAC/
I see they are proposing to also to an "Irish solution" on us too. Allow everyone who has their stuff to keep whatever,but to deny trade,sale or swop and grandfather SA's too.Thus potentially avoiding the compensation fiasco. But proably causing another problem with the free movement of goods within the EU??
Intresting to see that the international collectors have launched a court case in the EU about this allegation that they are supplying illegal arms. And this has the EU well worried as this could undermine the whole thing for them?

Grizzly 45

Could be alot worse...The usual rubbish from Social democrats and Greens..["ban everything"] This isnt 100% perfect,but its better than the GENVAL proposals.Still nowhere near out of the woods yet,but this does seem to be the path in the right direction.Apart from dumbass ideas like Face to face hand overs in your local cop shop. THAT would be intresting in our rural Garda stations that are open foir a couple of hours a week,if at all.

Magazine bans...Honestly...Do these people who quote "look at America and its stupid gun laws" ever look closely on how well some of their idiotic proposals have worked out there??New York state,California and Mas have all introduced thes emagazine laws. 99% of people who still have neutered semi autos have ignored it And criminals have ignored it 100%.Sp if we know this may happen in the EU.I guess stocking up on mags mighrt be a plan..:P

Medical checks....OFFS! How does that going to work??Unless the applicant is sitting there drooling on their untied shoes and peeing their pants going "Nurrr...I like guns me....Nurr"..How is yor Doc or whomever going to say you are nuts or sane within 10 mins??

Gun control: MEPs debate changes to firearms proposal to make it fit for purpose
Press release - Justice and home affairs / Free movement of goods − 20-04-2016 - 14:52
Amendments tabled by Parliament's lead MEP to a Commission proposal to revise the EU firearms directive were discussed in the Internal Market Committee on Wednesday. Concern to close loopholes in European gun laws and strike a balance between the right to own certain types of firearms and appropriate risk controls shaped the changes tabled by committee chair and rapporteur on this file, Vicky Ford (ECR, UK).
Most MEPs welcomed Mrs Ford's amendments, considering her draft report an excellent basis for the committee’s work on revising the EU firearms directive. Stronger deactivation standards, classifying weapons, defining essential components, marking and traceability of firearms, medical tests, time limits for licences, safe storage, online sales and information sharing were among the issues addressed during the debate.
In her 86 amendments, Mrs Ford seeks, inter alia, to:
• introduce clearer rules on blankfiring weapons so that any firearm which has been converted to firing blanks should continue to be covered by European laws
• clarify that a firearm should only be considered deactivated if the process is truly irreversible and the weapon can never be used again, as well as many other amendments on deactivation to address significant problems with the implementing regulation on deactivation, which came into force on 8 April. "These have implications for public security and is also causing great confusion for many law abiding citizens who want to comply with the law but find it impossible to do so", says Ms Ford
• reword the Commission's proposal to ban semi-automatic firearms that resemble automatic firearms since this has been tried by many member states and has been found to be legally impractical
• define authorisations for firearms used for historical purposes more strictly. These should be granted only if security measures are in place and on a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of each member state, and to maintain a provision for special cases in which member states may authorise certain persons to hold otherwise prohibited firearms
• introduce secure storage requirements, which could include on-site checks
• establish an effective "monitoring system" for the acquisition and possession of firearms, including "medical checks, which may be on a continuous or periodic basis”, but suggesting that member states should be responsible for deciding how this could be best achieved in their own countries
• improve information sharing among EU member states, including when an authorisation has been refused
• ensure that online sales of firearms, parts and ammunition is only permitted provided that the actual handover takes place "face-to-face", for instance, at a dealer’s premises, a local police station or another body authorised under national law.
Other MEPs have until 28 April to table their own amendments to the legislative proposal. A vote in the committee is due to take place at the end of June.

long range shooter

This should explain it pretty much.

BattleCorp

Are many people going to the meeting in Athlone tomorrow?

It is being held from 14:00-17:00 in the Lecarrow Suite in the Hudson Bay Hotel, Athlone, Co Westmeath.

yubabill1

BattleCorp wrote: »

Are many people going to the meeting in Athlone tomorrow?

It is being held from 14:00-17:00 in the Lecarrow Suite in the Hudson Bay Hotel, Athlone, Co Westmeath.

I'm slated to be there.

SVI40

I'll be heading down.

goz83

I think the most important question has yet to be asked and everyone is afraid to ask it.











Who's bringing the popcorn?

Grizzly 45

See y'all there.:)

Cass

Not long in the door after spending the day in Dublin (hospital). Missed the MNSCI shoot and this meeting. What was said/done?

yubabill1

Cass wrote: »

Not long in the door after spending the day in Dublin (hospital). Missed the MNSCI shoot and this meeting. What was said/done?

Quite positive.
Marian said the biggest party, EPP, is against this directive and it will depend on the position of the Socialists, who are tending towards opposition, or at least Vicky Ford's position, which is to oppose banning semi autos.

Marian went through a series of amendments proposed by FACE, which are complementary to Ford's position and which her group wil be proposing.

Essentially, the Euro Parliament and Council have the greatest influence, with the Commission (unelected) also having input. Apparently, both EP and EC are not impressed with this proposal.

I'll leave it to someone else to fill in the rest, as just back from a two hour drive.

Thanks to Marian for hosting the meet.

Cass

Thanks for that.

I'm annoyed i missed this, but after waiting so long for this appointment i couldn't afford to miss it. However hopefully someone can give a brief run down of the minutes or main points. What did our friend have to say?

IrishTarget

YB

was there many people at it?

Grizzly 45

He was a good lad.No monolouges or anything utterly neagative on the topics.
Think Marian and the EU have a problem getting around the idea of " Dehorned " select fire firearms being converted to semi auto only. They seem to think it is an easily reverseible process that anyone can undertake.Maybe we didnt explain it properly,but as himself rightly pointed out it is a minute problem in Ireland.True but I'm thinking to the future and possibly one day people might be denied a cheap option for shooting a semi rifle ,like a Belgian SLR FAL because it was formerly a select fire,with mayba alot of history behind itbut you can own the civillian version no problem at 2/3rds more the cost and no history at all.

Marians descriptions of how laws are made here and in the EU reminds me of Mark Twains words on the simmilar upleasent process of making sausages and laws and how disgusting both are to the layman. The danger for us is the so called "gold plating " that can occur if this is passed in the EU and some little Sir Humphry or Jobs worthy here decides to add hs little bit of poision.As this is secondary law rather than primary law [which politicans hate as they must debate it,and be involved ango to their electorate] Secondary law which comes thick& heavy from the EU on a weekly basis on every topic, and is hardly,if ever read by our lot because there is so much of it and unless it is broken down into bullet points by someone knowledgeable on the topic ,is just a box ticking effort into legislation in Ireland.:mad:All some poisionous person has to do is slip in their little bit and if not paid attention to is signed in with EU law and their excuse "Its EU law ,nothing we can do about it sorry."

We got an intresting possible reason as to why the fact finding wasnt carried out this time.The last one withCilla Malestrom in 2014 was discoverd to have[1] Leading questions [2] Printed in only one EU langauge.English [3] Answered by 65% of people OUTSIDE the EU! [4] Was declared biased by Malestrom as not enough anti gun people answered it to her satisfaction which led to lots of muck been thrown between Her,FACE and the EU comission.Which the EU comission doesnt like.

All in everything that were proposed amendments by FACE and Vickey Ford MEP were accepted by those present.[Which means everything was rejected of the EU proposals:p] So it is safe to say Ireland is saying NO to these proposals.At least Marian is on our behalf. She was surprised that no other MEPs from Ireland bar maybe Brian Crawley from Cork has been in contact with us as she explained this is their freakin JOB to be in contact with their people on issues like this.Intresting too is that she recived emails on this from all over the EU from concerned shooters.A point to remember,when you send your emails.It can go to them all,not just the Irish MEPs.As a politican I'm impressed with Marian as she took an intrest in everyones points of view,listned and spent a few minutes getting to know folk there before the meeting.Somthing our Dail denizens could learn from ... Feel alot happier with her in our corner.:)

Other points raised were the "Weapons Vs Firearms" terminology in the EU documents and how it can go from firearms to weapons when dealing with hunters and sports people in general.Granted,it doesnt translate well in certain langauges as "weapon" is a neutral generic termin French and German but it is a point taken aboard.
Potential compensation costs...potentially another PIIGS budget was suggested by yours truely and the fact that under the EU constitution,compensation would be mandatory at market value before the legislation is enacted.The topic moved along onto somthing different pretty quickly there.:P
In short,we are at the end of the beginning and need to keep hammering MEPs,and TDs too on this matter.What has amazed them in Brussells was the unified response of shooters EU wide and the political support to this being left alone and what was supposed to be a quiet surgical operation with no fuss has become a EU wide unnecessary problem that is starting to really pee EU citizens off big time. Keep them under pressure.:)

One thing that disappointed me.25 people made the effort to be there. Honestly! Come on!! We could fill a hotel conference room over the NASRPC affair,and somthing that can still affect us here badly,gets 25 people!!!

BattleCorp

I was disappointed with the turnout too. And the fact that nobody from the committee of my NGB turned up to it.

I found Marion very straight and her explanation of how things work was very good.

CJhaughey

Fair play to you for going, I had family obligations or I would have headed up.
It sounds as though the more this is publically debated and made into a bigger issue the less the folks that tried to usher it in quietly like it.

BattleCorp

CJhaughey wrote: »

Fair play to you for going, I had family obligations or I would have headed up.
It sounds as though the more this is publically debated and made into a bigger issue the less the folks that tried to usher it in quietly like it.

The time for public debate is over. It's down to the MEP's now. All we can do is voice our unhappiness to our MEP's, most of whom don't give a sh1te.

Grizzly 45

The public debate is maybe over,but that doesnt mean that we dont stop bothering MEPs on this issue.:) Dont forget,we can hit other countries MEPs on this as well.And we can point out quite rightly that in Ireland we have the strongest gun control in the EU for over 35 years,due to the NI situation but you could be twice as likely be shot in Ireland than the UK or Wales,who are no slackers in gun control either. So if there is any country where anyone can see the issue of gun control not working[except for the bad guys] its here.