tudderone wrote: »

A worrying apect is the presumption of guilt if you were to be found to be within 100 meters of wetland and had lead cartridges on you. Wouldn't this be illegal ?

Yes it is!! But apparently now "All are innocent until proven guilty, except gunowners,as they are guilty anyway!" This is the pertinent point Scallan et al have been trying to raise that this flies in the face of natural justice and EU law itself. So now the only way to smash this is to make a test case of this and get arrested under this new legislation to show the gross error of this AFAICS:(

Got replies from EU MEPS via FUN, but nothing from Irish MEP's.Pity Marian Harkin quit Brussels. She was a good person to have in our corner.

richiedel123 wrote: »

Got 3 replies to be fair. One good reply one bad reply and one big debate that ended up in a bit of to and Froing but I knew my point would never have been listened to so I was really wasting my breath. But I tried so there wasn't much more I could do.
To be honest I don't think many meps would have even properly read it. Just seen lead = bad so decided they would vote for it. I watched the agenda for the plenary where it was voted and they had a full agenda of proposals to be voted on. I think the lead ban would have been bottom of their list to worry about

Yes I sent off the mail but I put all the MEP’s on it but only 2 replied to me one was low and behold the party against shooting but I feel fellows tried there best but as a shooting community we’d nearly have to start supporting or funding candidates in government and Europe on our behalf as the anti’s are gaining ground left right a e centre.

Have a look here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058137505

So steel drops like a stone and has much less penetration.

Talking to a lad on another forum, who is a gunsmith. He was telling me if the lead ban comes in, that the small bores shotguns are history, by small bore he means the .410 and 28 bore. They can't throw enough steel shot to be worth a curse on either clays or game. :mad:

GooseB wrote: »

It's quite quick to fill in, takes about 2 minutes.

https://www.face.eu/2020/12/hunters-survey-on-lead/

Click on the green box labelled "English" to launch the survey itself.

I think it took a bit more than 2 minutes, tbh - but no doubt that its worth completing.

minktrapper wrote: »

With all this talk of banning lead I hope they (The authorities) put as much effort in to banning plastic. The amount of damage plastic is doing to the environment and humans (microbeads) must far outweigh the damage lead in hunting is doing. If any damage is being done at all.

Nothing to do with the environment Minktrapper, its gun control pure and simple, which is why some of the eastern European countries, like the Czech republic are fighting it so hard.

tudderone wrote: »

Nothing to do with the environment Minktrapper, its gun control pure and simple, which is why some of the eastern European countries, like the Czech republic are fighting it so hard.

Is that because of their close proximity to Russia and a fear of communism.

Or from invasions from the West particularly from Berlin to annex areas that have got some faint trace of German ethnicity.Be like Ireland invading Iceland or the Scottish isles as they are "Irish" living there from slave raids in the early middle ages.

Bundeswehr training ammo...Comes or came in 9mm and 7.62 NATO.Still leathl enough.I believe some German police had an accident with it in 9mm in a killing house arena where one officer caught one in the chest and died.

I remember some rounds like that but they were black and had alloy rims.

FACE Statement:


Europe has received clear answer over claims of maladministration
Statement by FACE President, Torbjörn Larsson - 22/12/2020.
Back in May, many national and European politicians expressed serious concerns over the European Commission’s (DG Environment) handling of the lead shot over wetlands restriction under REACH.
It was claimed (e.g. see link) that the Nature Protection Unit within DG Environment was in breach of the rules by encouraging national representatives in an expert group to actively engage to ensure a positive vote on a legal proposal (lead shot over wetlands) that had exclusive competence within another formal committee under REACH.
This was a serious claim about maladministration affecting millions of citizens within the European Union. More importantly, a claim about a union of Member States and institutions that is founded on strong principles of democracy, transparency and the rule of law.
At the time, I met with Virginijus Sinkevičius, the Commissioner for Environment, Oceans and Fisheries and raised the concerns of citizens in the European hunting community. Many Members of the European Parliament raised concerns too, but the Commission denied any misconduct (e.g. see link). However, following a complaint to the European Ombudsman, the result, which was just published, is clear:
“…the Ombudsman considers that the Commission’s request went beyond what is appropriate to promote its legitimate interest when it explicitly asked NADEG members to contact their national authorities to advocate for a positive vote on the draft Commission Regulation. In accordance with the rules governing expert groups, the role of these groups is to provide advice and expertise to the Commission. Their role does not ostensibly extend to influencing a vote in a comitology committee.
NOTE TO EDITORS: FACE is the European Federation for Hunting and Conservation. Established in 1977, FACE represents the interests of Europe’s 7 million hunters as an
international non-profit-making nongovernmental organisation. FACE is made up of national hunters’ associations from 37 European countries including the EU-28. FACE is
supported by 7 associate members and is based in Brussels. FACE upholds the principle of sustainable use and has been a member of the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) since 1987. Visit www.face.eu
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: Alessio Borrello, Communication Manager – alessio.borrello@face.eu
The Ombudsman further stated that such “an expert group is not the appropriate forum for the Commission to make a request such as the one that it made to NADEG members” adding that “that the Commission’s request to NADEG members was not appropriate in this case”.
As President of FACE, my view on this is clear: EU democracy has failed millions of European citizens. The Commission acted in breach of procedural rules and due practice on a file that will affect millions of citizens. The Members of the European Parliament reacted but need to be much stronger in the future when such serious claims of maladministration are made.
Europe has received a clear answer on these claims. I trust that there will be critical lessons learned and consequences resulting from this significant Ombudsman verdict.
FACE works closely with the Nature Protection Unit, which is responsible for the implementation of the EU’s nature directives.
Torbjörn Larsson, President of FACE (22 December 2020).

berettaman wrote: »

Bottom line:


The EU Ombudswoman found that the EC was involved in maladministration by instructing the NADEG experts from each member state to instruct the reach representative from each member state to vote for the restriction ' Lead Shot over Wetlands.


In other words they fouled the ball to get the measure passed.

Quelle suprise

The Rifleman wrote: »

Unfortunately it seems that it won't go any further that this.

https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/136305

Conclusion: "No further inquiries are justified on the basis of this complaint"

I'll think you'll find this is usually the case. Breaking their own fiscal/budget rules ? Ah shure be grand, don't do it again.................until the next time.