EU Review of Firearms Legislation

[Whitebridges]

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

 

This is another reason why I would like "OUT" of Europe. Mindless Buffoons, they raise this rubbish (i.e. military looking semi-automatic .22 rim-fire rifles ) without due care and consideration just to pen push in a pathetic effort to justify their ineffective jobs.

[mossberg-operator]

Got this as an answer... Not really positive....." 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

 

-----Original Message-----

From:

Sent: 11 February 2016 18:22

To: KIRKHOPE Timothy

Subject: Regarding the Revision of the Firearms Directive

 

 

Mr Timothy Kirkhope

European Parliament

60, rue Wiertz / Wiertzstraat 60

B-1047 Bruxelles/Brussel

 

Dear Mr Kirkhope,

 

Revision of the Firearms Directive (91/477/EEC)

 

The European Commission has recently proposed a number of restrictions to the lawful possession of firearms which impose unnecessary and burdensome limitations on hunters and sports shooters.

 

As a constituent I wish to raise a number of concerns about these proposals which will do nothing to tackle the illicit trafficking of firearms, or to prevent future terrorist attacks.

 

These include an unjustified increase in standardised medical checks, a 5 year limit on licences and the banning of some semi-automatic rifles. These are outlined in the attached brief from FACE UK (the Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation in the UK).

 

Please click the link below or copy and paste to your browser.

 

http://bit.ly/20wHcu4

 

I hope that you will consider the brief and vote to prevent the unintended and damaging consequences that the current proposals will have for many of your constituents.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

Mr ....."

[Savhmr]

Thankfully, after this weeks debacle in Brussels, where at best, it looks like Cameron might only reach a temporary concession on "emergency welfare brake" judging by responses from other EU leaders. It looks more likely that we'll go to a referendum with a majority wishing to leave this failed EU project. My mind is firmly made up that we'd be far better and far safer outside of the EU. We don't have to accept migrants in UK port camps as we have the powers to prevent them getting tickets and boarding any flight or boat to the UK in the first place despite the rubbish spouted by pro EU crowd to the contrary. I for one will watch what happens over the weekend with interest, but am pretty convinced that France, Belgium and Greece (to name a few) will strongly resist any meaningful concessions for the UK. MEPs may well be needing to brush up their CVs before too long...

[bluesj]

Got this reply today

 

Thank you for your email and for sharing the briefing document from the Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation in the UK.

I certainly will take on board the points raised in the briefing and consider these whilst working with my MEP colleagues on our response to the European Commission’s proposals.

As the plenary on this issue is not until September, the group response will not be determined until closer to the time but please rest assured that I will feed your views into the process.

Thanks again for getting in touch with me about this important issue.


With best wishes,
Yours sincerely

Anneliese Dodds MEP

[impala59]

"Certain semi-automatics" seems to be the vague key phrase. Don't be surprised if this is interpreted to include small bore rifles and box fed shotguns that "resemble" military equipment

[mossberg-operator]

Good morning,

 

Thank you for writing to me about the proposal to strengthen the current EU Firearms Directive.

 

Overall, Labour MEPs are supportive of many of the points of the new proposal as it seeks to address weaknesses in current legislation. However, a number of more detailed concerns are now being raised by a variety of organisations. These will be looked at as the draft legislation makes its way through the EU institutions. The European Commission only has the ability to draft proposals for laws, but only Ministers - including UK Ministers and MEPs can agree laws. The draft was published on 18 November 2015 following recommendations from Home Affairs Ministers who were concerned at loopholes in the current Firearms Directive. There will now be a large window available for amendments to be made and for interested parties to make their views known in a full legislative process over coming months.

 

As the draft stands, proposals include revisions to the current EU firearms law in eight key areas: stricter rules on online sales; stricter rules to ban certain semi-automatic firearms; greater restrictions on the use and circulation of deactivated firearms; the inclusion in the scope of the Directive of blank-firing weapons which have the potential to be transformed into a firearm; collectors and brokers will now be brought into the scope of the directive; better traceability of firearms which means an improved marking system; an enhanced information exchange on firearms between Member States and a 5 year time limit for the duration of a licence.

 

We now need to assess these proposals on their merits, to see which ones are justified, which need modification or should be abandoned and, for those where there is a good case, to consider for which of them having common European rules would be an advantage.

 

My colleague Catherine Stihler MEP who is leading on this issue within the European Parliamentary Labour Party will be working with a broad range of organisations as the legislation progresses. Representations can also be made to UK ministers as they are fully involved in the process.

 

Thank you for writing to me about this important issue.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Linda McAvan

 

Labour MEP for Yorkshire & the Humber

Constituency Office

79 High Street

Wath upon Dearne

South Yorkshire

S63 7QB

Phone +44 (0) 1709 875665

Email lindamcavan@lindamcavanmep.org.uk

[wymberley]

Somewhat belatedly, just had this:

 

Thank you for writing to me about the proposed EU directive on firearms, I welcome your views on this diverse matter. As you will no doubt know, this proposal came from member states and the European Commission reacted by producing a statement in November. On the 7th December the proposal was brought to the Parliament's lead committee on single market issues, the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) and a Rapporteur has now been appointed. The Committee will now start to review and amend the proposal.

As such, the European Parliament has yet to take a firm view on the details of any changes to the existing regulations. The report will be discussed fully in the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee. I am not a member of that Committee but will be in touch with my colleagues who will be closely involved with the discussions and I have raised your concerns with them.

By the time any proposed changes to the current regulations come before the Parliament, there will have been a detailed and robust examination of all evidence presented.

Please keep in touch on this or other issues.

With best wishes

Clare Moody

Labour MEP for the South West and Gibraltar

[simonb]

I have to say that unless I've missed something BASC's response is to be expected in that it appears to be directed to those who roam the country side shooting animals. I cannot find a reference to the target shooter on an approved range shooting at paper targets with a .22 rimfire semi-automatic target rifle. Also, who is going to assess what and which .22 semi-automatic rifle resembles 'a military firearm will there be a benchmark or will all be down to the 'eye of the beholder'?

 

 

Following the Conservative knee jerk reaction after Dunblane compensation was paid to the shooter in compensation will the same happen in the event of a semi-automatic ban? My 'semi' is worth £3000 will I be paid?

 

I read in BASC's latest magazine "BASC believes we have the right person in Ms. Ford to lead the Directive" Really? Watch her unqualified comments on the you tube video shown earlier in this topic. e.g. the last change to firearm legislation was in 1991 no it wasn't it was in 1998 with the handgun ban. But then I am British not European. Listen to her say of deactivated firearms "what we call in the UK blank firers. Do not forget it was her party the Conservatives who instigated the handgun ban. The "right person?" I don't think so.

[mossberg-operator]

Not good response from labour MEP, also there are mistakes in it. Mixing up semi and full auto guns, etc. Last part about how many people is killed in EU by firearms/per year, etc: where is the logic? So a total ban would be welcomed by labour? Also why don't we ban cars? There are more traffic deaths per year than guns... Pls share it!

 

Sent from my iPad

 

Begin forwarded message:

 

From: Richard Corbett MEP <richard@richardcorbett.org.uk>

Date: 7 March 2016 at 11:27:16 GMT

 

Thank you for taking the time to contact me concerning the proposal to strengthen the current EU Firearms Directive. The proposal was launched on November 18 and is in line with the declaration by Home Affairs Ministers of the EU member countries on 29 August 2015, calling for the revision of the Firearms Directive and for a common approach on the deactivation of firearms.There will now be a large window available for amendments to be made and for interested parties to make their views known in a full legislative process over coming months.

 

Labour MEPs have always supported tough firearms laws both at home and abroad and our support will continue as these proposals make their way through the legislative process.

 

The key changes proposed to the existing rules cover eight 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 being brought into the scope of the directive; better traceability of firearms which involves an improved marking system and an enhanced information exchange on firearms between Member States and a 5 year time limit for the duration of a licence.

 

Under the 2008 Firearms Directive, firearms are not required to be on any register once deactivated. Evidence shows 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 (ie 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 Europe more effectively. I received several e-mails stating that terrorists do not acquire firearms from legal sources and the new proposal is therefore not the right solution. However, the Slovak example shows that that is not always true. In addition - albeit less striking to the public eye, but not less significant - there are significant 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. The proposal only sets minimum firearms laws for EU Member States and Member States may enforce stricter firearms laws in their home country should they choose to do so.

 

 

Kind regards,

 

Richard Corbett MEP

 

On 11 February 2016 at 17:22, londonercsecse@gmail.com <londonercsecse@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Mr Richard Corbett

European Parliament

60, rue Wiertz / Wiertzstraat 60

B-1047 Bruxelles/Brussel

 

Dear Mr Corbett,

 

Revision of the Firearms Directive (91/477/EEC)

 

The European Commission has recently proposed a number of restrictions to the lawful possession of firearms which impose unnecessary and burdensome limitations on hunters and sports shooters.

 

As a constituent I wish to raise a number of concerns about these proposals which will do nothing to tackle the illicit trafficking of firearms, or to prevent future terrorist attacks.

 

These include an unjustified increase in standardised medical checks, a 5 year limit on licences and the banning of some semi-automatic rifles. These are outlined in the attached brief from FACE UK (the Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation in the UK).

 

Please click the link below or copy and paste to your browser.

 

http://bit.ly/20wHcu4

 

I hope that you will consider the brief and vote to prevent the unintended and damaging consequences that the current proposals will have for many of your constituents.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

 

 

--

Richard Corbett MEP

Labour Member of the European Parliament for Yorkshire & Humber

 

Tel | +44 113 243 0554

Address | Unity Business Centre, 26 Roundhay Road, Leeds, LS7 1AB

Web | richardcorbett.org.uk

Twi | @RCorbettMEP

App | www.richardcorbett.org.uk/app

[simonb]

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.

 

So, if I have a military looking.22 rimfire rifle with a black stock and change it to a red stock that will be OK then will it and, who will decide what resembles a military 'looking' firearm?

BASC are aware are they we only have .22 rimfire semis in the UK aren't they?

This is the same BASC who said "BASC believes we have the right person in Ms. Ford (MEP) to lead the directive".

[wymberley]

Playing the devil's advocate, a word of caution perhaps. There are three threads running at the moment - this, the EU and Dunblane and they're all linked. Which has/could affect/ed us the most, the current EU proposals or the UK Government actions following Hungerford/Dunblane?

 

Having been swanning around Europe at the tax payers expense during the early 70s and moonlighting on a German farm for three years with frequent visits to France and Belgium, arriving back in the UK in time to vote in the 1975 referendum, the right choice was a no brainer. Similarly, but for different reasons, June 23 will also be easy.

 

Post Dunblane, we were invited by our associations to act in a gentlemanly fashion, showing due consideration for the bereaved by taking no action until the Cullen Report was to be published. We did so and were duly shafted by the government which showed no such consideration other, of course, than winning votes.

 

Our biggest threat, therefore, in this respect, does not come from the EU but our own home grown bunch of rogues. Taking our eye off the really serious balls could do severe damage if following the result of June 23 the Government decides either a vote winning or distraction piece of legislation is required. Balls? Plural? Yes - small ones made of lead. If we're in any way relaxed about the possibility of no further action by any UK government on this subject, then it is perfectly conceivable that we're making a big mistake.

 

It is said that it's better to have the devil you know rather than one you don't. In this case, I'm not so sure about that.

Edited March 10, 2016 by wymberley

[mossberg-operator]

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/exclusive-eugunban-will-not-tackle-the-threat-of-terrorism-admits-ec/

[mossberg-operator]

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2F%2FEP%2F%2FNONSGML%2BCOMPARL%2BPE-578.822%2B01%2BDOC%2BPDF%2BV0%2F%2FEN

[simonb]

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/exclusive-eugunban-will-not-tackle-the-threat-of-terrorism-admits-ec/

 

Today's UK Shooting News states : "semi auto gun plan has been dropped"

 

 

 

[Danger-Mouse]

 

 

Today's UK Shooting News states : "semi auto gun plan has been dropped"

 

 

 

 

 

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/eugunban-latest-semi-auto-gun-ban-plan-has-been-dropped/#more-4766

[bluesj]

Probably not the right place to ask but here goes any way. Why is it that we in the uk have to follow the rules laid down by europe on some things and not on others?

Our fire arms law is much stricter than the rest of europe because our government want it that way, but the government can not make the rules on who can come in to or who we can kick out of the country stricter?

[Savhmr]

So, Vicky Ford has completed 58 pages which will probably be deciphered by the UK government to a more concise 100 pages by the time they're done with it and who knows what we will end up with.

 

It is simply ludicrous that what started out ostensibly as reaction to France terrorism acts, has been effective in only one main area....tighter control on deactivation and traceability which has to be welcomed as good common sense, BUT then Ms Ford spoils it all by introducing a wider EU (and I have no doubt) personal agenda on more general tightening of the gun control noose which has nothing to do with terrorism.

 

Increased medical checks, suggestions of more monitoring in the amount of ammunition bought in bulk (home loaders wanting to buy 500 bullets at a time for target, watch out...you'll end up on a terrorist watch list), suggestions of firming up EU wide storage requirements etc etc. Just how an MEP with zero firearms experience, and a personal anti-gun ownership stance ends up drafting legislation to be enacted EU wide beats me, and with the blessing of an unelected EC commission who, along with the EU parliament will rubber stamp this should worry the hell out of legal and responsible gun owners.

 

Despite people thinking "what a relief...it's not so bad!" in reaction to this paper, it is far from ok. The deact bit is fine, the rest is meddling and has not been brought by this UK elected government in the guise of Home Office reviews of current need for amendments to firearms legislation but by an anti-gun MEP acting on behalf of the EU.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Savhmr

[Breastman]

Probably not the right place to ask but here goes any way. Why is it that we in the uk have to follow the rules laid down by europe on some things and not on others?

Our fire arms law is much stricter than the rest of europe because our government want it that way, but the government can not make the rules on who can come in to or who we can kick out of the country stricter?

 

The EU issues directives, its up to the individual countries to come up with legislation to comply with those directives. Or just ignore them as is often the case on the continent (the UK LOVES legislation though and reacts each and every time, usually in a manner more extreme than the directive actually asks for )

 

There was actually a 2008 Firearms Directive that insisted upon stricter (closer to UK) deactivation/blank firer requirements which several eastern bloc countries chose to ignore. Its alleged that is where the terrorists that committed the Charlie Hebdo attack got their guns from (Slovakia IIRC)