EU Review of Firearms Legislation

[mick miller]

I have pasted the copy of the email I received from Vicky Ford MEP, I suspect this is an automated reply to the flood of emails automatically generated by the BASC link. Once again, well done to the BASC for organising this.

 

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for writing to me about the proposal to amend the EU legislation on the control and possession of weapons (The "Firearms" directive).

As you are aware on 18th November 2015, the European Commission proposed amendments to the current EU Directive which has been in place since 1991 and which was last reviewed in 2008. This new proposal includes elements that will improve the sharing of registers across borders between Member States and enhance the marking and tracking of weapons, particularly prohibited weapons.

I requested that the Commission officials came to the Internal Market Committee at the earliest possible opportunity to present their proposal to change the existing Firearms directive and to hear the initial views of MEPs. This meeting happened on 7thDecember 2015 and the recording is available here and the debate starts at about 1.22.

In the aftermath of the tragic terrorist attacks last year, it is right that we look at what more can be done on a practical basis to tackle terrorism and criminal activities. Effective gun controls are part of this, especially given that some firearms used in the Charlie Hebdo attacks had been reconverted from "blank-firing" acoustic firearms into live firearms in Slovakia. UK deactivation standards would not have let this be possible.

However, there was much discussion about the need to ensure the rules are proportionate and that they tackle real problems supported by real figures. A number of concerns have been raised about the new proposals as currently drafted, not least the absence of an impact assessment and the lack of clarity of some of the language. These concerns have come from museums, collectors, re-enactors, those involved in the film industry, "airsoft", sports shooters and those using firearms for pest control as well as military reservists in some countries.

Given this, I volunteered to lead the European Parliament's work on this file, which involves scrutinising the Commission's proposal and proposing amendments where necessary. It is completely normal for MEPs to propose amendments to any proposal from the Commission and it is likely to take many months before there is a vote on both the proposal and any amendments.

I have already met with FACE and the issues they address have all been identified as areas where MEPs would like to see amendments to the current text.

Regarding deactivated weapons, many MEPs have expressed concerns about this. I am concerned that the Commission and Member States took 7 years to put in place rules to ensure such firearms are properly rendered inoperable. We need to ensure that these new rules are effective and they clearly need to be taken into consideration during the scrutiny process.

MEPs will also want to clarify what is meant by the need for a medical test to be carried out before a license is granted and the distance selling requirements.

I will be working closely with colleagues in the coming months to make sure we get the legislation right. I also believe it will be important to work closely with experts especially those representing stakeholders.

Whilst it is right that at this time we check for any loopholes in the law and improve communication, any new legislation must be coupled with much greater enforcement against illegal arms, crime and terrorism.

I will endeavour to keep members of the public updated as this legislation progresses through regular press releases. Please do check my website.

I put a short video of this on my Facebook site recently and you may wish to watch this: https://www.facebook.com/vickyfordmep/videos/vb.152384924850614/978089762280122/?type=2&theater

Yours sincerely,

Vicky Ford

MEP

 

[Scully]

I wasn't aware that deactivated firearms on the continent were capable of firing 'blanks', nor that some of those firearms used in the Charlie Hebdo attack were in fact reactivated deactivated blank firers. Is this true?

I have no idea how the 'marking and tracking of (particularly) prohibited weapons' works.

Edited February 8, 2016 by Scully

[mick miller]

Well, if it is true then we should logically ban anything that looks like 'military-style weapons' obviously, and while we're at it make you jump through some medical hoops too; at your own expense of course. It'll give all those layabout, lazy Doctors something to do instead of scrolling through Facebook all day in their surgeries...

 

Meanwhile it's open borders for all our eastern European smuggler friends, it's all about free movement of labour don't you know. Sweet lord Jesus, you literally couldn't make this nut-nut type stuff up.

[CaptainBeaky]

Herewith the reply from Catherine Bearder MEP (LibDem)

Dear Constituent,

 

Thank you for your email about possible changes to firearms regulation in the European Union (EU).

 

The European Commission has recently announced two sets of proposals about firearms. Firstly, on 2nd December the Commission adopted a package of measures to step up the fight against terrorism and the illegal trafficking of firearms and explosives. Although I would welcome more details on the plans, I am minded to support these proposals.

 

However, there are also plans announced in November that are more wide ranging and, judging by the amount of correspondence I have received since, not supported by many people. The Commission has tabled proposals to amend the Firearms Directive to make it more difficult to acquire firearms, including deactivated firearms by:

 

- Stricter conditions for the online acquisition of firearms, to avoid the acquisition of firearms, pieces thereof or munition through the Internet;

- Stricter rules to ban certain semi-automatic firearms, which move from Category B to Category A and will not, under any circumstances, be allowed to be held by private persons, even if they have been permanently deactivated;

- The inclusion of blank-firing weapons (e.g. alarm, signaling, life-saving weapons) in the scope of the Directive, because of their potential to be transformed into firearms.

- Further restrictions to the use and circulation of deactivated firearms. National registries should keep records of deactivated firearms and their owners. Under no circumstances will civilians be authorised to own any of the most dangerous firearms falling under Category A (e.g. a Kalashnikov), which is currently possible if they have been deactivated. The enforcement of the ban is a national responsibility, and Member States have all necessary tools at their disposal including the destruction of illegally held deactivated arms;

- Collectors, as defined by national law, are currently excluded from the scope of the Directive. The Commission is proposing today to change this, since collectors have been identified as a possible source of traffic of firearms. In the future, collectors will have the possibility to acquire firearms, but subject to the same authorisation/declaration requirements as private persons.

- Brokers will be brought into the scope of the Directive, since they provide services similar to those of dealers. Member States will have to introduce regulation covering the registration, licensing and/or authorisation of brokers and dealers operating within their territory.

 

The Commission also wants tighter rules on marking of firearms to improve the traceability of weapons by making them harder to erase (e.g. by affixing markings on the receiver), extending the obligation to imported firearms and clarifying on which components the marking should be affixed. Member States will have to keep the data until the destruction of the firearm (i.e. not only for 20 years as currently the case) and better exchange of information between Member States, for example on any refusal of authorisation decided by another national authority, interconnection of national registers to ensure full European cooperation, and obligations for dealers and brokers to connect their registers to national registers.

 

Regarding deactivation, this package of measures also includes an Implementing Regulation imposing stringent minimum common guidelines for the deactivation of firearms which will render reactivation much more difficult.

 

The Firearms Directive specifies that weapons which have been rendered unfit for use are no longer considered firearms but pieces of metal which can move freely within the internal market without authorization/declaration. However, recent experience shows that deactivated arms can be illegally reactivated by using pieces from other deactivated arms, home-made pieces or pieces acquired via the Internet. The fact that there is no harmonised way to deactivate weapons across the EU increases the security risk.

 

To solve this problem, the Commission has prepared a Regulation that sets out common, strict, harmonised criteria on how Member States must deactivate weapons so they are rendered unfit to use. This is complemented by the ban on the possession of Category A firearms even when they are deactivated. The Implementing Regulation is based on the criteria for deactivation developed by the Permanent International Commission for the Proof of Small Arms (the CIP).

 

The Commission has been negotiating this Implementing Regulation with Member States since April 2015 in the context of the comitology procedure, with discussions intensifying in the last few weeks. The draft text sent to Member States on Friday 13 November was adopted in committee on 18 November, following which the College adopted the implementing act on the same day.

 

In summary, the proposed revision of the Firearms Directive will debated by European Parliament and Council in the near future. I understand the Commission are hoping its plans will be approved and come into effect by July 2016. I can assure you I will be monitoring the proposals closely. Although I think the EU needs to play its part in the fight against crime and terrorism, I will not support over-regulation and a knee-jerk reaction.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Catherine Bearder MEP

 

Liberal Democrat member of the European Parliament for the South East of England

Constituency Office

27 Park End Street

Oxford

OX1 1HU

+44 1865 249838

www.bearder.eu

 

 

 

"I will not support over regulation and knee-jerk reaction" follows at the end after "I am minded to support these proposals".

Some logical disconnect there, methinks...

 

I will reply when I've simmered down a bit.

Edited February 8, 2016 by CaptainBeaky

[simjakcal]

Here's my Reply !

 

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me concerning the proposal to strengthen the current EU Firearms Directive. Labour MEPs have always supported firm but fair firearms laws both at home and abroad and our support will continue as these proposals make their way through the legislative process which is hoped to be concluded swiftly. I am firmly in favour of these directives, and would like to take a moment to outline why.

The key changes to the existing rules in order to improve and toughen the current EU firearms law cover eight keys areas: stricter rules on on-line sales; a ban on certain automatic weapons; the inclusion in the scope of the directive of blank firing weapons which have the potential to be transformed into a firearm; greater restrictions on the use and circulation of deactivated firearms; creation of national registers of deactivated firearms; collectors and brokers will now be brought into the scope of the directive; better traceability of firearms which means an improved marking system and an enhanced information exchange on firearms between Member States.

Under the 2008 Firearms Directive firearms are not required to be on any register once deactivated. Evidence gathered by Commission studies showed this is a serious weakness in the EU legislation in terms of security. In fact, Slovakian media reported in February that the terrorists attacking Charlie Hebdo in January bought their Kalashnikovs legally in Slovakia, where they were sold as decommissioned weapons to be used as film props, but then found an expert in Belgium who was able to reactivate them.

The new proposal will introduce stringent minimum common guidelines regarding the deactivation of firearms and will in turn render reactivation much more difficult. As a consequence, for the most dangerous firearms (category A) stricter rules have been introduced – even if they are deactivated. This now means that deactivated firearms from Category A (fully automatic weapons and military weapons) will not be allowed to be owned or traded by private persons (except for museums). A new provision establishes the requirement for record keeping of deactivated firearms in national registries and any transfer (i.e. change of owner) of deactivated firearms will now also be registered.

For the sake of clarification, I would like to emphasise that hunters will not be affected by the proposed changes. It is true that collectors and brokers will now fall under the scope of the Directive. Collectors have been identified as a possible source of traffic of firearms by the evaluation carried out by the Commission. Therefore, in the new proposal the collectors will still have the possibility to acquire firearms but this will be subject to authorisation/declaration. Since brokers provide services similar to those of dealers, they will also be covered by this Directive.

On all of these areas of improvement Labour MEPs support reform in order to tackle criminality and terrorism across the EU more effectively. However, these proposals also strike at a problem less striking to the public eye, but not less significant – not least in quantitative terms – the numbers of people in Europe killed by firearms in the context of gun-related crime or in domestic shootings. It is estimated that between 2000 and 2010, over 10,000 victims of murder or manslaughter were killed by firearms in the 28 EU Member States. Every year, over 4000 suicides by firearm are registered in the EU.

Terrorists aside these numbers are simply not acceptable and are a call for action, and we as Labour MEPs believe the Commission's proposal takes the right approach.

 

Kind regards,

Derek Vaughan
Member of the European Parliament for Wales

ASP 13 G 257
European Parliament
Rue Wiertz 60
B-1047 Brussels

Phone +32 22845419

 

[mick miller]

It does sound like the EU would do better by simply banning Belgium and placing further restriction on it, rather than the rest of us? I'd vote for that! It's the second dullest place on Earth.

 

Although, to keep a perspective on things, in 2014 there were 27,500 fatalities on the road in the EU. I'm not hearing anyone clamouring for car control in the same frothy or emotive manner.

Edited February 8, 2016 by mick miller

[mick miller]

In case anyone is wondering, the dullest place on Earth is Newark.

[Gordon R]

Most of the MEPs show themselves to be incapable of independent thought and merely trot out the party line.

 

Catherine Bearder - mastered the art of having your cake and eating it - pathetic.

[Danger-Mouse]

Another reply

 

Dear Mr ............,

Thank you for writing to me about the proposal to amend the EU legislation on the control and possession of weapons, the Firearms Directive.

As you are aware, on the 18th November 2015 the European Commission proposed amendments to the current EU Directive, which has been in place since 1991 and was last reviewed in 2008. The amendments include elements that will improve the sharing of weapons registers between member states, enhance the marking of weapons and enable the tracking of deactivated weapons, such as antiques.

The Commission officials were asked to come to the Internal Market Committee at the earliest possible opportunity to present their proposals and to hear the initial views of MEPs. This meeting happened on the 7th December 2015 and the recording is available here - the debate starts at about 1:22 minutes into the video.

In the aftermath of the tragic terrorist attacks last year, it is right that we look at what more can be done to tackle terrorism and criminal activities. Effective gun controls are part of this, especially given that some weapons used in the Charlie Hebdo attacks were legally acquired and had been converted from blank-firing acoustic weapons into live weapons in Slovakia.

However, there was much discussion about the need to ensure the rules are proportionate and that they tackle real problems supported by real figures. A number of concerns were raised about the drafting of the proposals, not least that an impact assessment is absent and some of the language unclear. These concerns have come from museums, collectors, re-enactors, those involved in the film industry, 'airsoft' enthusiasts, sports shooters, those using firearms for pest control and military reservists.

The European Parliament's work on this file involves scrutinising the Commission’s proposal and proposing amendments where necessary. It is completely normal for MEPs to propose amendments to proposals from the Commission and it is likely to be months before there is a vote on either the proposal or any amendments.

Many MEPs have expressed concern about deactivated weapons. I am concerned that the Commission and member states took 7 years to put rules ensuring proper deactivation in place. We need to ensure that these new rules are effective and they clearly need to be considered in the scrutiny process. MEPs will also want to clarify what is meant by the need for a medical test to be carried out before a license is granted and the distance selling requirements.

I will be working closely with colleagues in the coming months to make sure the legislation is clear and appropriate. I also believe it will be important to work closely with relevant experts, especially those representing stakeholders.

Whilst it is right that at this time we check for legal loopholes and improve communication, any new legislation must be coupled with much greater enforcement of the law in order to combat the proliferation of illegal arms, crime and terrorism.

Yours sincerely,
Timothy Kirkhope MEP

[mick miller]

Deactivated weapons...blah...Charlie Hebdo blah...Slovakia.. blah...blah...re-enactors and sporting shooters...blah....legal loopholes.... etc.

 

Odd that there is no inward examination? After all, the EU sanctioned the arrival of tens of fundamentalist, extremist muslims, let them gather and fester their twisted ideals in a suburb of Brussels. Seemingly missed the fact that this suburb was a hot-bed of radicalisation and then put in place relaxed border controls which allowed a group of them drive to Slovakia, purchase some deactivated Kalashnikovs, then return to their Belgian suburb where one of them was able to reactivate the firearms.

 

I'm not sure, if I were an MEP, I would be so interested in outlawing all 'military style' deactivated weapons across Europe but rather, be wondering if my immigration and border policies were actually in the best interests of my citizens security? But then, that's probably why I'm not an MEP.

Edited February 8, 2016 by mick miller

[mick miller]

At last some sense, sort of echoes my thoughts...

 

Thank you for your email regarding the proposed new firearms restrictions addressed to Stuart Agnew MEP. He has asked me to reply to you on his behalf.

 

 

 

Mr Agnew very much agrees with your view on this proposed tightening of the regulations. The danger with these proposals is that they are a kneejerk reaction to what happened in Paris and will end up penalising the law abiding while not affecting the terrorists. Ironically, the EU itself is in part responsible for making it so easy for the jihadist terrorists to do what they did because of its failed open door immigration and asylum policies. Some of those responsible for the killings in Paris have been identified as coming in through Greece, as part of the refugee exodus. You might be interested in the speech on this subject made in the European Parliament by UKIP MEP Gerard Batten: http://www.ukipmeps.org/articles_1704_EU-Firearms-Directive-amendment-the-latest-example-of-ill-considered-legislation---Gerard-Batten-MEP.html

 

 

 

I should add that firearms are already well regulated in this country and interference from the EU is not needed.

 

 

 

The UKIP MEPs were elected on a platform of withdrawal from the EU and thus have no mandate for supporting EU legislative proposals and would not, therefore, support this legislation. They are opposed, as a matter of principle, to unelected members of the European Commission being the sole originators of all new EU legislation, much of which is binding upon the British people. They will vote against the final legislation. However, they will consider their position on any proposed amendments, which could improve it and/or reduce its impact on law abiding gun owners.

 

 

 

It should be a matter for our elected Government and Parliament at Westminster, not the unelected European Commission in Brussels. However, do bear in mind that there are 751 MEPs and the UK has just 73. Many of the latter are EU supporters and will not vote against the Commission. Another problem we have to face is that many member state countries are net beneficiaries of EU largesse (taxpayers money) and will rarely vote against the Commission i.e. bite the hand that feeds them. It is a deeply undemocratic and unsatisfactory system and is one of the many reasons why UKIP MEPs campaign so hard for UK withdrawal.

 

 

 

UKIP was created in 1993 to campaign for our country's freedom from the EU and we will continue to campaign for exactly that outcome.

 

 

 

Best wishes

 

 

 

Stuart Gulleford

 

Political Advisor to Stuart Agnew MEP

 

 

 

Office of Stuart Agnew MEP

 

UK Independence Party

 

25 Regent Street

 

Great Yarmouth

 

Norfolk NR30 1RL

 

Tel: 01493 856744

 

 

 

Email: ukipeast@intamail.com

 

www.stuartagnewmep.co.uk

[wymberley]

This from the Greens:

 

Good morning,

Many thanks for your email on the revision of Directive 2008/51/EC, on Control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (Firearms Directive). My group in the European Parliament, the [greens-efa.eu]Greens/EFA Group, was responsible for drafting the previous Report of the European Parliament on this 2008 Directive, and we will be looking very carefully into its revision. However, the revision process is currently at its very early stage, and our Group will assess all the details of the proposal before taking a definitive stance.

Although the proposal by the Commission coincides with the awful events that struck France in January and November 2015, I wish to be clear that a revision was already due, as the 2008 Directive stipulates that the Commission shall submit a Report by 2015, accompanied if appropriate by proposals. Obviously, the context of the terrorist attacks raises awareness that additional measures are needed to better control the acquisition and possession of weapons, but the revision does not seek to instrumentalise these attacks. In any context, a revision of the 2008 Directive is necessary and useful, in order to better tackle security problems linked to the trade and possession of weapons.

One of the new provisions proposed by the Commission is to modify the classification regarding a specific category of semi-automatic firearms. These specific weapons ("semi-automatic firearms which resemble weapons with automatic mechanisms"), currently classified in category B7 as legal weapons subject to an authorisation, would be reclassified as prohibited weapons. Our Group will assess the possible implications of this proposed change very carefully. We generally share the Commission's view that at least some semi-automatic firearms pose a threat to security, as they can be easily converted to automatic firearms, or they have the capacity to cause considerable damage due to the high number of rounds. We believe in any case that there is a need to clarify and harmonise at EU level the rules defining which weapons are particularly dangerous and should therefore be banned for civil use.

I understand the concerns expressed by many hunters and sport shooters who feel the risk of an amalgam between their activities and terrorism, or fear the addition of useless restrictions to the legal exercise of their activities. This was not the purpose of the 2008 Directive and it should not become an effect of the upcoming revision. Our Group is determined to support or propose measures which bring real and concrete improvements to the security of citizens, rather than provisions which would merely serve a purpose of window dressing.

There are many other measures proposed by the Commission and/or proposals that our Group wants to put forward in the framework of this revision. The existing legislation contains a series of loopholes; for instance in terms of deactivation, registration and marking of firearms, their parts, components and ammunition, of online acquisition of such products, as well as in terms of information exchange between authorities in charge of controls. Here again our Group will be attentive to propose the most appropriate measures in order to efficiently protect the security of all the citizens.

Many thanks for your contact on this issue. You can check for updates on this issue via [greens-efa.eu]greens-efa.eu. For more information on my work in the European Parliament, please see http://mollymep.org.uk.

Best regards,

Molly Scott Cato

Green MEP for South West England and Gibraltar

And my brief reply for what it's worth:

Thank you for your comprehensive reply.

Just one or two things that are worth bearing in mind when discussing the matter with law abiding UK shooters. Firstly, no Chief Constable of any Force is going to issue an FAC or SGC to anyone for the purpose of acquiring/using "weapons". The term reflects the use of a firearm or shotgun - or anything else for that matter - but the UK shooter uses sporting guns. Secondly, it is perhaps somewhat unfortunate that we in the UK have adopted and American expression which can (quite rightly) cause alarm by association in the general population when the topic is aired, but, again, it is worth noting that the correct term for "semi automatic" is 'self loading'.

 

[Savhmr]

You have to wonder why the UK isn't just sticking two fingers up and vetoing Brussels's attempts to further curb freedoms which do little to improve UK security whilst potentially curbing freedoms for law abiding sport shooters, collectors, airsoft enthusiasts, in fact the whole shooting community by restricting access to firearms (deactivated, airsoft, and self loading) where there is little to no evidence of these types of things having any sort of significant impact to UK security at all.

 

Some of the sheep-flock mentality do-good replies from the MEPs canvassed for support indicate that their general consensus is that 10,000 people killed over a decade in all member states is unacceptable hence tighter gun controls have to be welcomed. What absolute brain washing unintelligent garbage! What proportion were deactivated auto or military style firearms, or pump action shot guns? What was the spread of these "murders and manslaughters"? I'm willing to lay a pretty hefty bet that a vast majority were recorded from basically unregulated Eastern European states where historically scant and paltry firearms controls have been largely ineffective and where until recently many of those member states were at civil war with one faction or another so there have to be tens of 1000's of AK47s floating about unrecorded in Eastern Europe.

 

Meanwhile, back in Blighty, and more so in N Ireland, we have some of the strictest gun controls anywhere in the world, and consequently some of the lowest reported gun crime involving legally held firearms anywhere, period. So remind me again of just why we should be supporting any legislation which will affect us looking to curb our freedoms even more, especially when there is no case for the UK to do so? Remind me again of why the UK allowed known radicals to travel to Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan, then to return to the UK (presumably, some after being trained in the art of bomb and weapons manufacture). Remind me again of why we're not seeking tougher EU wide border controls and in light of recent atrocities making if far more difficult for known radicalised individuals to leave the UK and for who knows how many radicalised terrorists to enter the EU quite freely and to congregate in little cells?

 

It beggars belief that a vast majority of all UK MEPs have spectacularly failed to see the whole picture and the real root cause of the freedoms within the EU for terrorists to operate and move freely. Instead, they cling to politically correct agendas, laughably pretending that this has nothing to do with any opportunity to exercise ever further tightening of gun controls. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find, if polled, that a slim majority of UK politicians were in favour of banning private gun ownership full stop. All wedges start with a thin end.

 

Meanwhile, Rome burns whilst the same MEPs fiddle around the edges of the real threats to our security. Naval gazing nonsense.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Savhmr

[wymberley]

^^^^^

Cracking post.

 

"It beggars belief that a vast majority of all UK MEPs have spectacularly failed to see the whole picture"

 

The whole picture is probably their next bank statement.

[Scully]

You have to wonder why the UK isn't just sticking two fingers up and vetoing Brussels's attempts to further curb freedoms which do little to improve UK security whilst potentially curbing freedoms for law abiding sport shooters, collectors, airsoft enthusiasts, in fact the whole shooting community by restricting access to firearms (deactivated, airsoft, and self loading) where there is little to no evidence of these types of things having any sort of significant impact to UK security at all.

 

Some of the sheep-flock mentality do-good replies from the MEPs canvassed for support indicate that their general consensus is that 10,000 people killed over a decade in all member states is unacceptable hence tighter gun controls have to be welcomed. What absolute brain washing unintelligent garbage! What proportion were deactivated auto or military style firearms, or pump action shot guns? What was the spread of these "murders and manslaughters"? I'm willing to lay a pretty hefty bet that a vast majority were recorded from basically unregulated Eastern European states where historically scant and paltry firearms controls have been largely ineffective and where until recently many of those member states were at civil war with one faction or another so there have to be tens of 1000's of AK47s floating about unrecorded in Eastern Europe.

 

Meanwhile, back in Blighty, and more so in N Ireland, we have some of the strictest gun controls anywhere in the world, and consequently some of the lowest reported gun crime involving legally held firearms anywhere, period. So remind me again of just why we should be supporting any legislation which will affect us looking to curb our freedoms even more, especially when there is no case for the UK to do so? Remind me again of why the UK allowed known radicals to travel to Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan, then to return to the UK (presumably, some after being trained in the art of bomb and weapons manufacture). Remind me again of why we're not seeking tougher EU wide border controls and in light of recent atrocities making if far more difficult for known radicalised individuals to leave the UK and for who knows how many radicalised terrorists to enter the EU quite freely and to congregate in little cells?

 

It beggars belief that a vast majority of all UK MEPs have spectacularly failed to see the whole picture and the real root cause of the freedoms within the EU for terrorists to operate and move freely. Instead, they cling to politically correct agendas, laughably pretending that this has nothing to do with any opportunity to exercise ever further tightening of gun controls. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find, if polled, that a slim majority of UK politicians were in favour of banning private gun ownership full stop. All wedges start with a thin end.

 

Meanwhile, Rome burns whilst the same MEPs fiddle around the edges of the real threats to our security. Naval gazing nonsense.

I couldn't agree more, but you've sent the above to the wrong place. Do you intend to send it to your MEP, or any other politician?

[bluesj]

The problem is we as shooters have no political strength, even if we all voted the same way in an election is wouldn't change the result so why is any politician going to worry if we are unfairly treated

[treetree]

All you have to do is vote to leave the Eu in the forthcoming referendum.

Faceless unelected eu officials will stick two fingers up to anyone as they are unelected and unaccountable.

 

Put control of our laws back with our own parliament. They would think twice before messing with a united shooting lobby.

Edited February 9, 2016 by treetree

[Savhmr]

I couldn't agree more, but you've sent the above to the wrong place. Do you intend to send it to your MEP, or any other politician?

 

Already in hand, so yes

[rbrowning2]

Lost for words when you read some of the MEP replies. Do they not understand that the only self-loaders we can have are in .22 rimfire

Not the first choice of terrorist me thinks.

 

Ok so let's have an EU wide firearms laws we are all treated equal no UK laws just EU.

 

so I think I am correct in saying that you can buy a .22 in France without any licence so that would then apply for us.

 

In practice all we keep getting is more and more restrictions on gun ownership.

 

I just hope we can vote to leave the EU ASAP and yes to hell with the economic consequences it will just be so good to put these MEPs out of a job.

[treetree]

 

I just hope we can vote to leave the EU ASAP and yes to hell with the economic consequences it will just be so good to put these MEPs out of a job.

There won't be any economic consequences! Don't listen to the scaremongering! The Eu costs us a staggering £55 Million every day. The sky will not fall in if we leave the Eu.

[Scully]

 

Already in hand, so yes

Good for you.

[Billett]

When is this going back to the EU parliament? I hear it's this month but can't find a date anywhere

[Savhmr]

Here's the response from Julie Girling MEP to my questions put to her as in my post above, and then below, is my response to her:

 

Thank you for writing in to me with your concerns over the Commission's proposal to amend the Firearms Directive.

 

In the aftermath of the tragic Paris attacks, it is right that we look at what more can be done on a practical basis to tackle terrorism and criminal activities. It is important to ensure that there are appropriate restrictions on the acquisition and trade of weapons that have the potential to harm EU citizens. Many of the proposals are already enacted in the UK, but there are some new provisions on the table.

 

The Commission has come up with new legislation which was referred to the Internal Market committee for scrutiny and potential amendment. The committee is chaired by my colleague Vicky Ford. I have been in contact with Ms Ford's office regarding the issues you raise and she has informed me of the following:

 

The Committee has had a preliminary discussion on the legislations and this process will continue for several months.

 

There has been European legislation on firearms since 1991 and it was last reviewed in 2008. This new proposal includes elements which will improve sharing of registers across borders between Member States, enhance the marking of weapons and enable the tracking of deactivated arms, such as those of a historical nature.

 

Concerns have been raised by members of the public on parts of the detailed drafting, particularly of the use of the word "resemble" and the exact nature of the responsibilities for museums and collectors. Ms Ford hopes that these details can be addressed during the committee process.

 

The weapons that were used in the Paris attacks were illegal. Their ownership was illegal and the trading of these weapons was illegal. Whilst it is right that at this time we check for any loopholes in the law and improve communication, any new legislation must be coupled with by much greater enforcement against illegal arms, crime and terrorism.

 

Thank you again for taking the time to write to me on this matter.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

For and on Behalf of

Julie Girling

MEP for the South West & Gibraltar

 

Linda Teague

PA to Julie Girling MEP

 

 

 

My response:

 

Dear Julie

Many thanks for your swift response and that of your colleague, Vicky Ford. Whilst what she says about doing everything possible to counter terrorism threats is sensible and right, the response doesn't actually address the detailed nature of what is being discussed or likely to be proposed and what it means for law abiding gun owners within the UK.

As Vicky rightly points out, the weapons used in Paris were illegally obtained, illegally transported and illegally used, so it seems to make little sense to tighten current ownership laws for the UK when in fact, doing so makes no difference to the terrorists and criminal elements who will continue to flout any laws necessary to obtain and use illegal firearms.

Whilst I understand that more should be done to prevent deactivated weapons being reactivated, it is a little obtuse to also have proposals on the table which suggest the banning of military style firearms. This is a dangerous precedent because who makes that interpretation and why is it important for legally held and registered firearms? Your colleague should be aware that there are a great number of sport shooters in the UK who use target and field type rifles of modular construction which has evolved over the years for practical and performance reasons, and it can be argued that even bolt action multi-shot rifles could be said to resemble tactical firearms. These are perfectly legally held and used so myself and I daresay the whole law abiding shooting community needs reassurance that there will be no moves to ban such firearms.

Our laws are tight enough in the UK so there will be stiff resistance from the wider shooting community to any proposals which could see our civil liberties further eroded by Brussels, who at the same time are doing little to really get to grips with effective border controls. Energies, it would seem, ought to be concentrated on closer collaboration of intelligence agencies and on more effective border controls and that means a wholesale shake up of the current open border policies.

Thank you again for your prompt response and I do hope that your colleague will take on board some of the points raised above to protect the interests of the UK shooting community

Kind Regards

[wymberley]

The replies are coming in thick and fast now. This from Ashley fox who actually went to the trouble to reply to me personally:

 

Thank you for writing to me about proposed EU changes to firearms classifications. The events in Paris at the end of 2015 were horrific and it is important that in the wake of these monstrous actions we pursue the guilty and bring them to justice.

However, I agree with you that it is important to resist the urge to overreact and punish the law-abiding through knee-jerk political reactions. The draft legislation being suggested includes a ban on collectors owning deactivated Category A weapons, such as machine guns, ending civilian use of semiautomatic Weapons which resemble those with automatic mechanisms, and standardised medical tests for anyone applying for a firearm certificate. Most of these changes concern the internal trading of firearms rather than the licensing of guns, which remains a Nation State competence. I do not believe that had the European Commission proposed measures to tighten gun controls across the EU already been in force that this would have had any effect on what happened in Paris.

None of the weapons used there were legally held by licensed residents. They were illegally acquired and illegally used. There are many law abiding citizens who use firearms either professionally or recreationally. There are others who collect decommissioned guns, or replicas thereof, perfectly legitimately. I am a supporter of both groups.

The Commission's proposals will now have to go through the European Parliament this year and will no doubt be subject to change and amendment. My colleague Vicky Ford MEP has been given the role of overseeing the scrutiny of the new proposals and I will certainly be considering any attempt to tighten gun controls very carefully before voting on them.

Yours sincerely

Ashley Fox MEP

 

And my reply:

 

Dear Mr Fox,

Thank you very much indeed for making the effort to reply to me personally.

Just one or two things that are worth bearing in mind when discussing the matter with law abiding UK shooters. Firstly, no Chief Constable of any Force is going to issue an FAC or SGC to anyone for the purpose of acquiring/using "weapons". The term reflects the use of a firearm or shotgun - or anything else for that matter - but the UK shooter uses sporting guns. Secondly, it is perhaps somewhat unfortunate that we in the UK have adopted and American expression which can (quite rightly) cause alarm by association in the general population when the topic is aired, but, again, it is worth noting that the correct term for "semi automatic" is 'self loading'.

I have also had a response from your colleague, Julie Girling and have copied her final sentence below:

"The weapons that were used in the Paris attacks were illegal. Their ownership was illegal and the trading of these weapons was illegal. Whilst it is right that at this time we check for any loopholes in the law and improve communication, any new legislation must be coupled with by much greater enforcement against illegal arms, crime and terrorism. "

Both your and her comments are welcome indeed. I could be easily be persuaded to say that if the final thrust of your endeavors relates simply to the three final elements that she details - but, perhaps more importantly, you could convince us of that - then you would have the full support of every single sports shooter in the UK - something that no one else has been able to achieve in view of the continual "knee jerk reactions" which we consistently have to endure.

[Scully]

Excellent work folks👍 I haven't received a single response, which doesn't surprise me; I had never heard of my MEP before I had to contact him.