MORE crap on the way.

Grizzly 45

The Czech Republic isn't taking this EU directive lying down..Oh for politicians of this calibre over here.:rolleyes:

https://firearms-united.com/czech-challenged-faulty-firearms-directive-court/

gunny123

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

The Czech Republic isn't taking this EU directive lying down..Oh for politicians of this calibre over here.:rolleyes:

https://firearms-united.com/czech-challenged-faulty-firearms-directive-court/

There is a bit of a showdown happening between some of the eastern european countries and the EU at the moment, especially Poland, but also, as you say the Czech's, and the Austrians.

Oddly its not getting much coverage in the Irish mejia.

yubabill1

The Czech challenge to the directive looks reasonable.

It will certainly be a test of EU judicial independence, as many politicians have clearly demonstrated in this whole thing that they are firmly under the influence of law enforcement.

From FU article; The first ground for repeal is really nice - what's the bets they'll worm out of that one somehow?

The Czech Republic quotes a total of four grounds for repeal of the Directive: [2]


The Union legislature has exceeded its powers by adopting the directive. Although the Directive has been adopted to remove obstacles to the internal market, its real aim is to combat terrorism and other serious crime exclusively. However, the EU legislator does not have the power to adopt harmonization measures in this area.

By adopting the Directive, the Union legislature breached the principle of proportionality , since it did not address the question of the proportionality of the measures implemented and did not carry out an impact assessment. This subsequently led to the adoption of measures manifestly inadequate and disproportionate to the objective pursued – for example, the directive prohibits broadly the types of weapons that are not used in Europe for the purpose of committing terrorism or other crimes.

The Directive is contrary to the principle of legal certainty. A number of the provisions of the contested directive are not sufficiently clear and precise to enable the persons concerned to unequivocally recognize their rights and obligations.

The directive has a discriminatory nature – it allows for an exception to the ban on possession of weapons, but it can only fall on the Swiss system of keeping military weapons on termination of military service without the same exceptions being used by other states.

Grizzly 45

But like Irish ministers and the like he walks away with loaded trouser pockets and bank account.No wonder Irish politicians try and model us after Sweden.However, they forget the accountability issue up there.Anyway good to see one of these EU anti gun architects out on his ear.

Swedish Minister of Interior was fired yesterday – and You should be happy about it!

Swedish Minister of Interior Anders Ygeman [1] was fired yesterday – and You should be happy about it!

But why should you care?

Well, mr Ygeman has been rabid anti-gunner and has used his favourite phrase “We must consider public safety!” to hammer law abiding citizens with further restrictions on legal gun ownership and has allegedly worked hard to hammer through further restrictions from EU level down to the member states.

Actually “We must consider public safety!” were the Anders Ygeman’s famous words as he allowed the civil servants Lars Hinger and Peter Thorsell, two now well-known individuals in the gun community, ignore the mandate given to them by the Swedish Parliament in the negotiations in GENVAL regarding the EU’s Firearms Directive and opted for even harder restrictions for law abiding citizens.

Luckily for us, these words took another meaning when the scandal regarding the Swedish Transport Agency was unveiled. Even though Minister of Interior Ygeman had knowledge about the potentially biggest security breach in Swedish history he failed to inform the Prime minister about it, triggering a major political crisis as the political opposition announced that they would file a vote of non-confidence.

This resulted the political downfall of Mr Ygeman as he was fired from his position as Minister of Interior by Prime minister Stefan Löfv much to the rejoicement of law abiding Swedish gun owners.

As we all know, according to statistics, the more firearms there are in circulation in the hands of the law abiding citizens, the more safe the society is and the less crime there is. However, this must have been the wrong kind of “public safety” for mr Ygeman.

Now, get a bottle of champagne (or your favourite beverage) and raise a toast to the downfall of Mr Ygeman.

Raise your class to the public safety!

PS – According to the news he will still receive 1,5 million Swedish crowns as a severance package, and a seat in the next cabinet, should his party win the election.

Featured Picture: Wikipedia

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Ygeman

[2] http://www.expressen.se/dinapengar/miljonregn-over-ministrar-som-lamnar-lofvens-regering/

#EUGunban

yubabill1

Googled "EU directive ECJ challenge" and there are precedents where ECJ annuls EU directives, so the Czech challenge is not hopeless.

This one failed on the proportionality principle;

"In April 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) declared Directive 2006/24/EC (the Data Retention Directive) invalid on the ground that European Union legislators had exceeded the limits of proportionality in forging the Directive. In particular, the Court held that the Directive entailed serious interference with the rights to privacy and personal data protection of individuals guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and also failed to establish limits on access by competent national authorities, such as prior review by a judicial or an independent administrative authority. Because the ECJ did not specify otherwise, the Data Retention Directive is void ab initio and EU Members who have transposed the Directive into their national legal systems must ensure compliance with the ECJ’s judgment."
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/eu-data-retention-directive/eu.php



Presumably the tobacco advertising directive challenge on the basis of exceeding the internal market provisions failed;

"10. Is it possible that the latest Tobacco Advertising Directive will be annulled by European Court of Justice?
In September 2003 the German government aked the European Court of Justice to review the validity of the Directive. Germany argues that EU lawmakers exceeded their powers under the internal market provisions of the EU Treaty (Article 95) in passing it.
In parallel to the challenge by the German government, the owners of the Nürburgring motor racing circuit have lodged a challenge with the Court of First Instance claiming that the ban on tobacco sponsorship will unlawfully cause them economic damage."
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-05-274_en.htm?locale=en

Other articles I have read end in fudges, such as "the directive is faulty, but can be fixed".

Grizzly 45

https://firearms-united.com.

According to rumours, now confirmed by an article [1], the Norwegian Government wants to ban semi-automatics from civilian use as a national implementation of the firearms directive. At the moment, the proposal concerns “semi-automatic rifles of the kind used by the police and the Armed Forces”, not describing whether it is all semiautomatics, or semiautomatic weapons which have been converted from automatic weapons.

(Note from the editor: We know. Semi-automatic is semi-automatic, and it does not make it more dangerous if it has once been an automatic – except in the eyes of the EU-commission.)

“The prohibition will also apply to those who have already been granted permission to own such weapons”, if true, means that the Norwegian government is flying solo here – thanks to hard lobbying done by the firearms owners and activists, the EU directive explicitly states that member states can continue the existing permits – should they choose to do so.

According to VG the bill was presented by Justice Minister Per Willy Amundsen (Frp) on Friday. Prime Minister Erna Solberg tells VG that there are weapons with large magazines and big firepower that is now going out of civilian hands. With her quote “As a hunter, you do not need more than five shots. Then there will be a small group that is allowed to acquire such weapons, and there will be elite shooters at the international level using such weapons in competition” Solberg demonstrates both lack of understanding how things work in this other reality which we all others share: you can not become “international elite shooter” unless you practice. This is not cross-country-skiing where little push from sports medicine can get you to the top.

It seems that Norway plans extending some exceptions to active athletes and collectors, but judging by several references to “22nd of July” reveal her real idealistic motives even before she blurts it out “We saw July 22 how fast you can shoot many and how difficult it is to get away when someone can shoot with 25 shots. To me, it’s an argument for why this type should not be allowed” she says.

All in all, the article does not have all the facts, at least with the accuracy anyone understanding anything about firearms would like to see, so we suggest following this topic closely.

In worst case, this spells end of IPSC in Norway, because as stated earlier, only perfect practice makes perfect.

If you are part of the firearms community in Norway and hear more, please contact Firearms United and let us know exactly what you know. Because when you put tiny shards of intel from several sources together full picture often emerges.

[1] http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/solberg-regjeringen/regjeringen-vil-forby-halvautomatiske-haandvaapen/a/24131389/

yubabill1

I had to look up the reference to the "July 22nd" shooting, it's a reference to Breivik in 2011.

Now, I'm going to explicitly condemn what Breivik did before I say anything more.

But the Norwegian PM's reference to that incident is going to weaken the EU's defence in the challenge being taken to the new directive by the Czechs.

The Czechs say that the EU is incorrectly applying this directive to combat terrorism, the directive having come from the auspices of making the EU markets more cohesive (IMCO).

Now the Norwegian PM has stated that their implementation of the same directive is designed to prevent another Breivik-style attack.....

The Czechs should use the Norwegian remarks to back their challenge to this directive.

Grizzly 45

Not to mind, Brevick used a civilian semi auto..A Ruger mini14 with lots of silly bits on it, and would be exempt from any EU ban in the first place.After he couldn't acquire a select fire AK down in the Czech Republic!!! Call me a niggler, but the minor fact he had 4 metric TONS of explosive grade Ammonium nitrate legally bought for his farm, and that he used a few kilos of it for blowing up a bit of Oslo beforehand, might have been just as if not more dangerous these days??:rolleyes:

gunny123

The reasons for the eu gun grab seem academic now anyway, as the people looking to hurt and kill large numbers of the public have changed their approach and are using vehicles. Easier to obtain than any firearm, can do much more damage in a shorter amount of time and needs no training to use.

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Not to mind, Brevick used a civilian semi auto..A Ruger mini14 with lots of silly bits on it, and would be exempt from any EU ban in the first place.After he couldn't acquire a select fire AK down in the Czech Republic!!! Call me a niggler, but the minor fact he had 4 metric TONS of explosive grade Ammonium nitrate legally bought for his farm, and that he used a few kilos of it for blowing up a bit of Oslo beforehand, might have been just as if not more dangerous these days??:rolleyes:

There is no doubt that we need controls to prevent unstable or fanatic people attacking the public.

I think it is safe to assume that we have a lot of controls already regarding access to firearms and that many of us think this new directive is excessive.

The liberals (an oxymoron when it comes to firearms) see the proportionality when it comes to ammonium nitrate, but refuse to see proportionality when it comes to firearms because they don't agree with hunting or target shooting.

They see ammonium nitrate as something needed for farming, but they refuse to see a need for guns.

I am a chemist (electrochemistry) and I can tell you that there are many ways of making explosives from materials that can be bought with much less suspicion than is aroused with ammonium nitrate, if you have the knowhow.I have never made any and don't feel a need to. I also know how to make several drugs that could be recreationally abused, but again I never have made any and I am not in favour of drug abuse. And I can drive a van or a light truck on my C1 licence, but I equally have never driven into a crowd of people nor feel the need to.

Likewise, I am a licensed firearm holder and I won't be misusing that privilege either.

The argument against firearms is born out of (i) prejudice against hunting/target shooting and (ii) the perception of guns due to the rise in drug abuse which has thoroughly pervaded society.

You don't need a motorcycle for anything.

Anything.

Lots of people are killed with motorcycles every year, but somehow it's OK to have one.

extremetaz

yubabill1 wrote: »

You don't need a motorcycle for anything.

Anything.

Lots of people are killed with motorcycles every year, but somehow it's OK to have one.

oh they're trying, believe me.

Like that though, I have 4 and I haven't even died once.

Grizzly 45

Obviously remembering the visits of Nazi Germany and the longer visit of Soviet Russia, they are not too inclined to just take anything from the dictatorship in Brussels.

The Slovak National Party wants to enshrine the right to hold a gun in the Slovak Republic
09/03/2017
The President of the National Council of the Slovak Republic and the SNS Andrej Danko, today in the RTVS session "About 5 Minutes 12" spoke about the anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic and about its possible changes.

The Constitution is comprehensive and has shown its viability over the years. The President of the CIS sees scope for some important changes to the Constitution of the Slovak Republic. One of them should be weapon protection that the CIS is currently preparing.

"I am glad we have resolved the amnesty trauma in a constitutional way and I am delighted that I was the maker of a legal solution to break the long-standing problem," said National Council Chairman Andrej Danko. At the same time, however, he adds that we can improve the Institute of the Slovak Republic again. We have neglected some important steps in our negotiations with the European Union. At that time, we could not foresee it, and a large part of it brought life itself. "It concerns rights to citizens' safety, family and property protection, but we must not forget the interests of hunters and sport shooters,"explains the CIS chairman about the right to hold a gun. The CIS started thinking about the change because of the over-regulation of the European Union in the arms and ammunition sector. According to the CIS, it serves to disarm the population and thus reduces national security. At the same time, however, it also greatly hinders hunters and sport shooters. The Slovak National Party therefore considers it its duty to create a space in which the citizens of the Slovak Republic can defend themselves against the security challenges brought by the 21st century. "The Slovak National Party is interested in creating a safe environment. We have to give people the right to participate in securing the national security of the Slovak Republic, even our own legally held weapon. At the same time, however, we must not limit our hunters or sport shooters " explains CIS chairman Andrej Danko, adding that the CIS will not allow disarming the nation at times of increased security risk.

At the end Andrej Danko reiterated his conviction that the Constitution of the Slovak Republic allows for the functioning of the state and it is not necessary to get it out of the table and create a new one. According to him, the question is, "Which laws must be changed?" As an example, the Electoral Law, the Law on Political Parties.

However, a compromise must be sought for all changes. The SNS can cooperate, we are part of the coalition government, and we can work to promote things that have others in brochures. The President of the Parliament and the CIS therefore believe that the new proposals proposed by him will find support.
In Bratislava, on September 3, 2017

yubabill1

I'm not sure whether the Slovaks can bring that into their constitution without contravening the EU firearms directive.

Not a legal expert, so it would be good if someone else knows whether a member state's constitution is subject to subsidiarity to EU law?

Edit; Quick Google says a member state constitution supersedes EU law, but member states volunteer subsidiarity where a conflict occurs.

If a member state does not volunteer its constitutional law as subsidiary to EU law, it could result in possible exit of EU membership.

Now there's a wobbler the Slovaks are gearing up to throw.

Popcorn, anyone?

Grizzly 45

Not content with not getting guns banned the EU now wants to ban bullets with any sort of lead in them This one is deadly serious as it also includes shotgun and .22 bullets as well.
Gotta ask where was NARGC/FACE on this??Been going on a consultation paper since JUNE of this year.

uropean Commission: Banning bullets - do it for the Birds!
Trying to ban guns was not successful – next: Ban on bullets!
EU Commission has asked ECHA (European Chemical Agency) to conduct study and consultation to ban lead bullets. [1] To avoid mistakes done with misguided firearms directive, like missing impact assessment, they have started a public consultation for restrictions of Lead in shot in wetlands AND ”Any other uses of lead ammunition (than lead in shot in wetlands), including hunting in other terrains than wetlands and target shooting. Lead weights for fishing.”
According to their statement ”Modern lead-free ’gunshot cartriges, such as steel cartridges, are suitable for all types of hunting in wetlands and are widely available.”
In other words, EU is currently asking for public feedback on commission plan to ban lead (and copper) on ammunition – using the environment as an excuse.
The attempt to ban concerns [2] ammunition which contains lead in concentrations greater than 1% by weight, for shooting with a shot gun within a wetland or where spent gunshot would land within a wetland, including shooting ranges or shooting grounds in wetlands. And in addition there is another parallel study on restriction on ”other ammunition” meaning lead-based rifle and pistol ammunition. In other words – pretty much all ammunition.
Problem 1:
The definition used for defining the wetland is the following [1]
“areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres”.
The Ramsar definition of wetlands is a comprehensive and internationally recognised definition but it means that lead bullets will be banned up to 24,3% of surface area in for example Sweden.
Problem 2: All current rifles would not be usable anymore. This includes pistols as well. Long range shooting would become impossible for civilians. This is because for any kind of accuracy bullet stability is essential. The issue comes from barrel twist, which is usually calculated with Millers formula which is slightly improved version of classical Greenhill formula, which indicates that bullet material density matters – when for example calculating values for .308, for which barrel twist is usually 12 inches with traditional lead ammunition, corresponding rifle twist for example copper bullets would be about 9,5 inches. This means that your expensive rifle just became unsuitable for ammunition currently available.
Problem 3:
In addition to this – its not only hunters who are going to be royally shafted with this restriction:
It pretty much makes sportshooting impossible by banning .22 ammunition, which we all know is mostly lead.
Problem 4: Steel, which is considered to be suitable ”cheap” enough alternative wears out barrels like there is no tomorrow. I
Problem 5:
t is also classified in many countries as armor piercing round material, which means steel bullets are banned.
Problem 6: Not all shotguns are rated for steel shots. The hunters would have to in some cases buy new shotguns.
According to commission, all of this is ok, because it provides ”Increased (long-term) opportunitiesfor birdwatching.” [2]
Solution:
The public consultation on this proposed restriction will start on 21 June 2017 and end on 21 December 2017, which means that YOU should provide feedback as soon as possible to by reading and providing information according to document [2] .
It is of utmost importance to get involved in this, both on as individuals, and as hunting and sport-shooting organizations because, ECHA considers only the environmental perspective – which according to past does not pain a pretty picture.
For example banning of copper shots has been already proposed. The biggest problem, according to our sources is that at the moment is that for example Danmarks Jaegerforbund lobbies hard for banning lead ammunition by sending out strong signal that lead can be replaced easily in all ammunition, including .22. In addition to this, they claimed that NORMA is already researching steel ammunition for other calibers for civilian market. According to ECHA, there should be zero-tolerance for lead, which means most likely long term campaign
What can I do:
- Spread information. Get your own hunting and sport shooting association to participate and provide their statement for the public consultation! Provide statement as an individual. Clock is ticking!
[1] https://echa.europa.eu/…/…/current-activites-on-restrictions
[2] Public Consultation:
https://echa.europa.eu/…/d7fb96cf-7956-7406-3568-399ca20151…

gunny123

Can you for one second imagine old sexy socks Leo Verruca, standing up to the EU super quango and spelling it out like the Czech guy did ? Its so unlikely thats it basically unthinkable.

Grizzly 45

gunny123 wrote: »

Can you for one second imagine old sexy socks Leo Verruca, standing up to the EU super quango and spelling it out like the Czech guy did ? Its so unlikely thats it basically unthinkable.

No doubt if it was about socks,gayness,at home or abroad,getting up in the morning ,wishing our new neighbours happy Eid or Ramblam or on matters of such import he'd be right on it...

yubabill1

Garda Commissioner Noirin O'Sullivan to retire next month.

Perfect.

Sparks

Almost a funny retiring statement too.

yubabill1

I spent a couple of hours on the phone with Mairead McGuinness' secretary over two or three calls in the lead to the EP vote on the firearms directive. Initially, I thought I was getting a sympathetic hearing, but when the message was bounced back from then-Minister for justice, Frances Fitzgerald, the tone changed dramatically. And Mairead went on to support the new directive.

Now, the minister was very close to the retiring commissioner, whom I believe was one of the senior law enforcement community pushing the new legislation.

No friend of ours.

Grizzly 45

The Sisterhood" in action.:(
At least Pascal might be a bit more sympathetic.Heard he has bollocked out the top brass at AGS about the fake drink driving tests.

Grizzly 45

The bad news first.
It seems the Swiss will adapt the EU weapons directive, as guessed they would as it has been almost customised to their needs. Article from July 2017 ,but used to illustrate the point
http://www.armietiro.it/dovranno-recepirla-o-fuori-da-schengen-8652


However, the good news is that it has now fired up the Swiss gun organisations like PRO TELL to call for 50k worth of signatures to make this a constitutional matter, and there are more than 50k worth of shooters in Switzerland, which could become a Swiss referendum on leaving Schengen

From Firearms United the pro Tell comment
I spoke with Jean-Luc Addor, our friend from proTell and member of Swiss Parliament.
He told me that:
1) the current decision made by the Federal Council is bound for public consultation, and the law abiding citizens WILL express their outrage;
2) The referendum principle applies to this act . So in case the Federal Council pushing their agenda, proTell WILL go after national referendum;
3) After the Swiss will clear their home turn, proTell wants to work with us to remove the root of all evil - the Directive itself.
So, high five to our Swiss brethren. And if anyone wants to express their support, you can do it at Jean-Luc’s profile.
Do not lose faith, regardless of setbacks. We will prevail.
Tomasz

Walter Mittys Brother

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-to-consult-on-new-laws-on-offensive-weapons

Seen this ....................... UK shooters reckon they may loose straight pull AR type rifles according to chatter online.

Cass

We have pretty much most of that.

Not up to speed on the situation with acids or corrosive substances but regarding knives, and other offensive weapons/items we have that covered under the 1990 offensive weapons act. Same as they want to do, you cannot have it in public without good and lawful reason. The Act is small and the following is only a section but it covers most things:

1990 Offensive Weapons Act wrote:

Section 9(4)

(4) Where a person, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the onus of proving which shall lie on him), has with him in any public place—

(a) any flick-knife, or

(b) any other article whatsoever made or adapted for use for causing injury to or incapacitating a person,

he shall be guilty of an offence.

As for 50 cals and rapid fire rifles being made, possibly, into Cat 5. I'm not up versed on English laws, but is Cat 5 firearms not like our Restricted firearms?

Walter Mittys Brother

IIRC the UK laws on offensive items are more or less same as we have here in fact a bit more severe as if you're wearing a ring that's big & bulky eg the sovereign coin ones Brits like to wear can be deemed a weapon if you were wearing it & hit someone.

The acid thing is because there have been a spate of attacks there with people throwing acid on others. Another case of extra legislation where enough exists already I reckon.

Their Section 5 ...... not sure tbh ...... must have a wee Google on that

Cass

Goes back to what i said on another thread about legislating to be seen to be doing something, but not enough enforcement of existing legislation that is quite sufficient.

Walter Mittys Brother

Cass wrote: »

Goes back to what i said on another thread about legislating to be seen to be doing something, but not enough enforcement of existing legislation that is quite sufficient.

Yep, more political BS

Grizzly 45

Section 5 is prohibited or export only. but notice the way they are trying Irish like to sneak it in under a prohibition of the traditional and ignoble, and lately revived cultural enrichment art of revenge, in the UK since Victorian times of acid throwing?: mad:
Dont like some type of gun."No prob Guv we'll just get our lot to lie it up about it being as deadly as those ones that Yank used in Vegas..They'll belive us we are coppers after all hurr hurr!":rolleyes::rolleyes:

gunny123

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Section 5 is prohibited or export only. but notice the way they are trying Irish like to sneak it in under a prohibition of the traditional and ignoble, and lately revived cultural enrichment art of revenge, in the UK since Victorian times of acid throwing?: mad:
Dont like some type of gun."No prob Guv we'll just get our lot to lie it up about it being as deadly as those ones that Yank used in Vegas..They'll belive us we are coppers after all hurr hurr!":rolleyes::rolleyes:

I believe acid was the weapon of choice back in Victorian times, just read the Sherlock Holmes stories, someone was always throwing "oil of vitriol" which is sulphuric acid in modern.

Grizzly 45

Very true, it was quite the fashion in the Victorian underworld at the time,and again the mind boggles how the Hell the Brit govt intend to ban or regulate one of the most common chemicals in the industrialised world??And not just acid,any corrosive chemical will do.

gunny123

The Brits looking to further restrict .50 cal rifles (which i think i am right in saying have never been used in a crime ?) and rapid firing rifles, which must mean .22lr sa rifles such as the ruger 10/22 etc.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/home-secretary-to-consult-on-new-laws-on-offensive-weapons