EU Review of Firearms Legislation

[Savhmr]

And another reply:

 

Thank you for your email of 9th February, and your concerns over increased firearms legislation, relating to the proposed amendments to Directive 91/477/EEC in respect of the possession and acquisition of firearms.

 

This issue is causing much concern for those connected with sport and historical organisations associated with weaponry, and there is general unease and belief that this legislation could have unintended consequences. In addition, the free movement of people across the EU is far more pressing and in need of reform, to protect personal and national security across the continent.

 

I will forward your thoughts direct to William.

 

Kind regards, Guy

 

Guy Parfitt

Members Representative to William Dartmouth MEP

[McSpredder]

Re the EU proposal, who would be qualified to conduct medical tests?

 

A press release from the British Psychological Society suggests that among the NHS psychological professionals, almost half are suffering from depression, and about half report feeling that they are a failure. Are certificate applicants going to be assessed by people who are themselves quite likely to be suffering from mental illness?

 

http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/Public%20files/Comms-media/press_release_and_charter.pdf

 

"Press Release: Embargo Wednesday 3rd February 2016 00.01

 

Psychological therapies staff in the NHS report alarming levels of depression and stress their own.

 

Findings from the British Psychological Society and New Savoy staff wellbeing survey in 2015 show that 46% of psychological professionals surveyed report depression. 49.5% report feeling they are a failure. One quarter consider they now have a long-term, chronic condition, and 70% say they are finding their jobs stressful."

[Savhmr]

Another response, this time from Ashley Fox MEP, and well written and welcomed it is:

 

 

 

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 in the New 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.

 

With regards the matter of immigration and border control, I feel that the current migrant crisis is partially of Europe’s own making and one which the Commission and European leaders, have struggled to find a solution to. Germany's decision to open its borders has had a catastrophic effect on neighbouring countries, who simply cannot cope with the number of migrants now moving across Europe.

 

As Leader of the Conservative Delegation of MEPs in the European Parliament I argued that the Commission’s proposals for compulsory relocation of 120,000 refugees and migrants would do nothing to solve the current crisis. I, and my Conservative colleagues believe the focus should be on helping the people in refugee camps and not providing further encouragement for migrants to travel through Europe. Simply opening Europe's borders still further will only make the situation worse.

 

Speaking recently in the European Parliament I argued that the most needy are not those who have the wealth, health and ability to walk from Syria to the borders of Europe. The most needy are those in the refugee camps in Turkey and Lebanon. We do not think that opening the gates of Europe to anyone who can get to the frontier is the right method of helping them. We also think it is wrong as a matter of principle that the EU orders member states to accept people into their countries against their will.

 

This latest crisis has only underlined the problems contained within the European Project. The EU works when it focuses on trade and making people wealthier – but by indulging in projects such as Schengen, which removes internal border controls for much of the EU, and the Euro European Politicians have created two structures that are incapable of functioning during a crisis. I have always been a supporter of the idea that Europe should do less and do it better – I fear though that rather than embracing this approach many of my European colleagues will come to the conclusion that more, and not less, Europe is the answer.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Ashley Fox MEP

 

 

Ashley Fox, MEP for the South West of England & Gibraltar

 

* Ashley Fox MEP, 5 Westfield Park, Bristol, BS6 6LT

( 0117 973 7050

* ashley@ashleyfoxmep.co.uk

[Danger-Mouse]

A nice response from Mr Fox.

[Ttfjlc]

Received this email today....

 

Dear constituent,

 

 

 

Thank you for your email about this very sensitive subject. I recall in the wake of the Hungerford and Dunblane tragedies here in the UK there was a very swift - and some felt, indeed, hasty - legislative reaction which ran the risk of penalising entirely law-abiding citizens because of the actions of deranged individuals. In those very sad cases the argument could have at least be made that those people had used legally held firearms to carry out their dreadful crimes and it was therefore a challenging and finely balanced judgement that legislators had to make between the rights of individuals and the overall perceived risk to society.

 

 

 

In the case of the Paris attacks, however, you quite rightly stress the fact that none of the perpetrators used legally obtained - or indeed obtainable - firearms and that these hideous terrorist outrages are not in any way connected to normal people or normal laws, or normal patterns of ownership.

 

 

 

I am, therefore, nervous to say the least to see this proposal being made at this time and feel there will have to be very persuasive arguments made for me to agree to anything like what is being proposed. It is the context and the Europe-wide scope of this proposal that particularly concern me, as distinct in some respects from the merits or otherwise of the proposal in its own right.

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

 

ANDREW

 

 

 

Andrew Lewer MBE MEP

 

Conservative Spokesman for Culture, Education and Regional Development

 

European Parliament Brussels

[Guest stevo]

and heres my reply too ,got it today

 

Dear constituent,

Thank you for your email about this very sensitive subject. I recall in the wake of the Hungerford and Dunblane tragedies here in the UK there was a very swift - and some felt, indeed, hasty - legislative reaction which ran the risk of penalising entirely law-abiding citizens because of the actions of deranged individuals. In those very sad cases the argument could have at least be made that those people had used legally held firearms to carry out their dreadful crimes and it was therefore a challenging and finely balanced judgement that legislators had to make between the rights of individuals and the overall perceived risk to society.

In the case of the Paris attacks, however, you quite rightly stress the fact that none of the perpetrators used legally obtained - or indeed obtainable - firearms and that these hideous terrorist outrages are not in any way connected to normal people or normal laws, or normal patterns of ownership.

I am, therefore, nervous to say the least to see this proposal being made at this time and feel there will have to be very persuasive arguments made for me to agree to anything like what is being proposed. It is the context and the Europe-wide scope of this proposal that particularly concern me, as distinct in some respects from the merits or otherwise of the proposal in its own right.

Regards

ANDREW

Andrew Lewer MBE MEP
Conservative Spokesman for Culture, Education and Regional Development
European Parliament Brussels

[Ttfjlc]

I can't believe it's exactly the same!

Edited February 16, 2016 by Ttfjlc

[Guest stevo]

haha to be fare its no differnt from the emails that w all sent to them

[mossberg-operator]

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/2016/02/16/eugunban-would-cost-britain-up-to-160000-guns/

[David BASC]

The UK Shooting article needs to be read with one eye on the fact that only some military looking semi-automatic .22 rim-fire rifles could be restricted, but not non military looking sporting rifles. Semi-automatic shotguns fall outside the intent of the proposal and most do not resemble ‘automatic’ weapons but some specialist combat shotguns could be caught. So the statement that 160,000 guns could be taken from law abiding shooters is not correct.

 

 

Thanks very much indeed for all your efforts contacting your MEP's

 

David

[mick miller]

But given the fact that no law abiding owners of 'military looking semi-automatic 22 rimfire rifles' went Tonto, killing innocent people - but rather, a bunch of radicalised Arabs, who slipped through Europes loose borders, joined their pals in a little enclave in Brussels (kind of ironic that), drove to Slovakia and purchased poorly deactivated ACTUAL assault rifles, drove back - one assumes through several borders - unopposed and without checks, met one of their other nutcase friends and got the ACTUAL assault rifles reactivated, again seemingly without raising any eyebrows AND managed to smuggle several hundred rounds of live ammunition through the porous and laughingly lax EU borders, again undetected it does rather beg the question why should law-abiding owners of 'military looking semi - automatic 22 rimfire rifles' face ANY restrictions when clearly the problem lies at the doors of the EU for their stance on immigration, their ability to police their borders and their lack of enforcement/unification of existing legislation on the deactivation of firearms?

To accept any further restrictions on gun ownership without first addressing those questions is a disservice to the shooting community and frankly, I'm surprised to see any organisation that represents that community capitulating and lending support to these proposals.

It will do and achieve NOTHING to protect the citizens of the member states from further attacks and is merely more chipping away at personal freedoms.

Although, it may indeed, make a bunch of bureaucrats feel better about their roles and themselves; and of course, it gets rid of some more nasty guns.

 

By the way David, I'm not sure about the repeated use of the term 'semi-automatic' in the press and any pre-releases. Is it not overly emotive (with connotations of battlefield assault weapons)? Shouldn't the actual term used be 'self-loading'?

Edited February 17, 2016 by mick miller

[Danger-Mouse]

Exactly Mick.

[mick miller]

I believe that one of the performers in the band 'Eagles of Death Metal' believes that, if everyone had guns in the audience, these tragedies would have never happened. The attitude being, 'until NOBODY has guns EVERYBODY needs to have them'. Not a stance I, nor many other legitimate holders of firearms in the UK or wider European community, would agree with granted. But it's certainly a different perspective to the one of 'all guns are bad and anyone who owns one is a nutcase' that seems to influence much of modern policy decision toward firearms with in the EU and here at home.

 

I'm seeing, in many of these scripted and pre-prepared replies from MEPs, a common thread throughout. That is the mis-representing and massaging of statistics to prove a point or bolster a weak argument; it really shouldn't surprise me, these are politicians after all. Show me the clear and unequivocal proof that further restrictions that the banning of semi-auto 'military looking' (whatever the hell that is?) firearms will make me or my loved ones 'safer' and I'll back these proposals, I'm confident that no-one can; I'm confident that it simply doesn't.

[mossberg-operator]

The UK Shooting article needs to be read with one eye on the fact that only some military looking semi-automatic .22 rim-fire rifles could be restricted, but not non military looking sporting rifles. Semi-automatic shotguns fall outside the intent of the proposal and most do not resemble ‘automatic’ weapons but some specialist combat shotguns could be caught. So the statement that 160,000 guns could be taken from law abiding shooters is not correct.

 

 

Thanks very much indeed for all your efforts contacting your MEP's

 

David

. Hi David! So, if I paint a military looking black 0.22 rifle PINK, is it gonna be alright? So the look counts, not the capability? (Shaking head). Of course this message is not aimed at You, just pointing out fails in the logic by the proposal...

[David BASC]

Not sure pink paint will do the job

 

I understand your points and its very encouraging to see that many of the MEP's who have responded have picked up on the point that the guns which were used in these murders were illegal guns, illegally possess and not connected in any way to sporting shooters / hunters.

 

So keep lobbying and spread the good word!

 

David

[Savhmr]

I'm afraid David, that to infer that some "military looking semi-auto 22LR rifles" are somehow fair game is a poor show if that is BASC's official stance (I sincerely hope it is not!).

 

In the UK at present, it remains perfectly legal for FAC holders to purchase and use "military looking" semi auto 22LRs and use them in the field or at target clubs, and why the heck shouldn't people be allowed to do this? Are politicians that brainless that they would consider a 22LR semi auto the weapon of choice for terrorists? Come one, lets get real here. It's nothing but yet another European attempt to drive that control wedge in further and restrict freedoms further. The UK ought to veto this nonsense but instead we have a senior MEP working in the heart of Brussels with other EU MEPs on broad brush anti gun ownership proposals and furthermore, supportive of an outright ban on privately held firearms. BASC ought to be shouting from the rafters for support to veto these ridiculous knee-jerk proposals and instead be pushing, like many of us, for tougher cross border controls and for the rest of the EU to get into line with the UK's tough gun laws without sacrificing a single thing for law abiding UK shooters.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Savhmr

[David BASC]

The point is that the EU are looking at military style guns, as per our entry on the BASC web site home page.

 

I take your point 100% and that's why for weeks BASC has been urging shooters to lobby their MEP's on this important issue

[Whitebridges]

But given the fact that no law abiding owners of 'military looking semi-automatic 22 rimfire rifles' went Tonto, killing innocent people - but rather, a bunch of radicalised Arabs, who slipped through Europes loose borders, joined their pals in a little enclave in Brussels (kind of ironic that), drove to Slovakia and purchased poorly deactivated ACTUAL assault rifles, drove back - one assumes through several borders - unopposed and without checks, met one of their other nutcase friends and got the ACTUAL assault rifles reactivated, again seemingly without raising any eyebrows AND managed to smuggle several hundred rounds of live ammunition through the porous and laughingly lax EU borders, again undetected it does rather beg the question why should law-abiding owners of 'military looking semi - automatic 22 rimfire rifles' face ANY restrictions when clearly the problem lies at the doors of the EU for their stance on immigration, their ability to police their borders and their lack of enforcement/unification of existing legislation on the deactivation of firearms?

 

To accept any further restrictions on gun ownership without first addressing those questions is a disservice to the shooting community and frankly, I'm surprised to see any organisation that represents that community capitulating and lending support to these proposals.

 

It will do and achieve NOTHING to protect the citizens of the member states from further attacks and is merely more chipping away at personal freedoms.

 

Although, it may indeed, make a bunch of bureaucrats feel better about their roles and themselves; and of course, it gets rid of some more nasty guns.

 

By the way David, I'm not sure about the repeated use of the term 'semi-automatic' in the press and any pre-releases. Is it not overly emotive (with connotations of battlefield assault weapons)? Shouldn't the actual term used be 'self-loading'?

 

This is a top post. Congratulations on grasping the problem.

 

 

The UK Shooting article needs to be read with one eye on the fact that only some military looking semi-automatic .22 rim-fire rifles could be restricted, but not non military looking sporting rifles. Semi-automatic shotguns fall outside the intent of the proposal and most do not resemble ‘automatic’ weapons but some specialist combat shotguns could be caught. So the statement that 160,000 guns could be taken from law abiding shooters is not correct.

 

 

Thanks very much indeed for all your efforts contacting your MEP's

 

David

 

This is a poor post apart from the last sentence.

Edited February 17, 2016 by Whitebridges

[deadeye18]

But given the fact that no law abiding owners of 'military looking semi-automatic 22 rimfire rifles' went Tonto, killing innocent people - but rather, a bunch of radicalised Arabs, who slipped through Europes loose borders, joined their pals in a little enclave in Brussels (kind of ironic that), drove to Slovakia and purchased poorly deactivated ACTUAL assault rifles, drove back - one assumes through several borders - unopposed and without checks, met one of their other nutcase friends and got the ACTUAL assault rifles reactivated, again seemingly without raising any eyebrows AND managed to smuggle several hundred rounds of live ammunition through the porous and laughingly lax EU borders, again undetected it does rather beg the question why should law-abiding owners of 'military looking semi - automatic 22 rimfire rifles' face ANY restrictions when clearly the problem lies at the doors of the EU for their stance on immigration, their ability to police their borders and their lack of enforcement/unification of existing legislation on the deactivation of firearms?

 

To accept any further restrictions on gun ownership without first addressing those questions is a disservice to the shooting community and frankly, I'm surprised to see any organisation that represents that community capitulating and lending support to these proposals.

 

It will do and achieve NOTHING to protect the citizens of the member states from further attacks and is merely more chipping away at personal freedoms.

 

Although, it may indeed, make a bunch of bureaucrats feel better about their roles and themselves; and of course, it gets rid of some more nasty guns.

 

By the way David, I'm not sure about the repeated use of the term 'semi-automatic' in the press and any pre-releases. Is it not overly emotive (with connotations of battlefield assault weapons)? Shouldn't the actual term used be 'self-loading'?

Brilliant post,spot on!its the old death by a thousand cuts that they're after . When the military looking. 22's have gone then they'll move onto the other military weapons like those oh so scary Lee enfields and such .

[David BASC]

BASC has certainly not capitulated on this issue, I cant speak for other organisations though.

 

My post, which as been criticised as poor, was simply pointing out the facts of what the EU are looking at.

 

I would also remind all that for many weeks BASC has been encouraging its members and others to lobby their MEP's to fight off these proposals

 

David

[mick miller]

Sorry, I had misunderstood your earlier post as a veiled admission of compliance. Of course, BASC have contacted their members to lobby (or at least email there MEPs) regarding this issue and so, undeniably, have been pro-active in trying to raise awareness and support from their membership in order to counter these rather daft proposals.

 

Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

A lot of us have contacted our MEPs in regard to this matter and posted the returned correspondence here - is there anything further we can do as a community to try and steer our policy makers in the right direction?

[David BASC]

No problem at all, its easily done and no need for an apology , but thank you anyway

 

All we can do as a shooting community is to ask our friends to do the same and get in touch with their MEP's, as and when anything else happens or if there is anything more we can do I will let you all know

 

I am pleased that Shooting Times this week also have this as one of their main stories and also in their Editors column at the front of the mag

 

D

[Danger-Mouse]

David, do you have any figures for how many people have used the BaSC website to contact their MEP?

[David BASC]

Not to hand, but judging by the number of replies, many MEP's have been contacted and of ocurse you can check how many emails have been sent to MEP's on the site

Edited February 19, 2016 by David BASC

[Bad Monkey]

Received one reply so far from 5 emails sent.

 

Dear constituent,

 

 

 

Thank you for your email about this very sensitive subject. I recall in the wake of the Hungerford and Dunblane tragedies here in the UK there was a very swift - and some felt, indeed, hasty - legislative reaction which ran the risk of penalising entirely law-abiding citizens because of the actions of deranged individuals. In those very sad cases the argument could have at least be made that those people had used legally held firearms to carry out their dreadful crimes and it was therefore a challenging and finely balanced judgement that legislators had to make between the rights of individuals and the overall perceived risk to society.

 

 

 

In the case of the Paris attacks, however, you quite rightly stress the fact that none of the perpetrators used legally obtained - or indeed obtainable - firearms and that these hideous terrorist outrages are not in any way connected to normal people or normal laws, or normal patterns of ownership.

 

 

 

I am, therefore, nervous to say the least to see this proposal being made at this time and feel there will have to be very persuasive arguments made for me to agree to anything like what is being proposed. It is the context and the Europe-wide scope of this proposal that particularly concern me, as distinct in some respects from the merits or otherwise of the proposal in its own right.

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

 

ANDREW

 

 

 

Andrew Lewer MBE MEP

 

Conservative Spokesman for Culture, Education and Regional Development

 

European Parliament Brussels

 

WIB 05M067

 

+32 228 45598