More proof.....

[Scully]

......if it were needed, that the EU firearms directive has nothing to do with combatting terrorism. Much much easier for our politicians (including those we never voted for in the EU) to legislate against the legitimate gun owner.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Scully

[bluesj]

Don't think the link is quit right!

[la bala]

Don't think the link is quit right!

+1

[malantone]

+2

[brian28]

+3

[Scully]

Sorry gents, let me give this one a go:https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/justice-minister-confirms-the-british-state-is-fully-behind-the-eugunban/

[ordnance]

As i said sooters in the UK have more to be concerned about their own governments firearms controls than controls coming from the EU.

[bluesj]

so when do we march on london ?

[belly47]

so when do we march on london ?

Feels like we should do something

[bluesj]

Feels like we should do something

Not that it did any good last time

[rodp]

As we've always said

with the two principal shooting representative bodies, BASC and the Countryside Alliance, putting up a token fight.

 

Suppose now we wait for basc to come along and say they've fought tooth and nail !

[martyn2233]

As we've always said

Suppose now we wait for basc to come along and say they've fought tooth and nail !

yep they will have nailed the coffin lid shut basc are like mp's take money but don't do a great deal us

[deadeye18]

The EU has already swung into action and screwed those of us that collect de act weapons . I can't wait to vote OUT.

Feels like we should do something

+1

[David BASC]

Please read the quote carefully 'certain high powered semi automatic weapons' ..this is not looking to ban all sporting rifles from civilian ownership, surely you have read what the EU drafts reads? if not here is a more information http://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/qa-european-commission-proposals-for-amending-the-firearms-directive/

 

Should you be doing something? Yes you should, you should be lobbying your MEP's, not just resorting to the usual 'lets have a pop at BASC'...

 

To lobby your MEP see here: http://e-activist.com/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1979&ea.campaign.id=47315

 

David

[rbrowning2]

David the bottom line is that any addition ban even just one is one ban to many as somebody who suffered due to hungerford and then dunblane I for one am fed up with the policy of bashing private gun owners. Nothing will ever stop a terrorist obtaining a weapon but ban by ban they will stop sports men and women owning guns if this continues.

 

Look at the large number of illegal guns that recently came in to the country via the river Medway they looked to be acquired by gangsters or opportunists rather than terrorists so clearly buying such weapons is not a problem and what in these EU proposals would have stopped this happing? Nothing I would say.

 

Then we have shop a gun owner phone line coming back thanks mr marsh.

 

end game no privately owned guns only then will the do gooders stop.

Edited March 15, 2016 by rbrowning2

[The Mighty Prawn]

To be fair to David I thought exactly the same, a disingenuous interpretation by the author of the article, what the Justice chap said was 'high powered semi automatic weapons' which is a wonderfully ambiguous term which certainly isn't talking about banning all guns - I would take that to mean centre fires which are already off the table here

[paulnix]

It's too ambiguous though, if there isn't any fuss made it will mean .22's are high powered, if there is fuss then will mean CF's and if there is a lot of fuss just the highest calibre CF's, then it will be changed over a few years to mean all semi auto's.

[old man]

David the bottom line is that any addition ban even just one is one ban to many as somebody who suffered due to hungerford and then dunblane I for one am fed up with the policy of bashing private gun owners. Nothing will ever stop a terrorist obtaining a weapon but ban by ban they will stop sports men and women owning guns if this continues.

 

Look at the large number of illegal guns that recently came in to the country via the river Medway they looked to be acquired by gangsters or opportunists rather than terrorists so clearly buying such weapons is not a problem and what in these EU proposals would have stopped this happing? Nothing I would say.

 

Then we have shop a gun owner phone line coming back thanks mr marsh.

 

end game no privately owned guns only then will the do gooders stop.

 

And, sadly NO, as usual the bad guys will carry on in the same way, untouchable?

While again, as usual the good guys have more restrictions to our way of life?

[mossberg-operator]

Basically they wanna banish ALL private gun ownership in the long term. UK or EU, the same on this aspect. It is called the salami tactic. Never easing the legistlation... Wondering: why?

[Dannyboy220]

I'm confused with this unsurprisingly ! It says it may affect some .22 semis that resemble machine guns. I've got a 10/22 it doesn't look like a machine gun but could with a few bits from eBay. Will the guns be banned or the aftermarket parts? Reply from the meps was pretty much he same here in Medway. They all support the move it seems! But couldn't specify which weapons it would affect.

[Scully]

What I can't get my head around is the logic behind the idea of banning something because of its appearance. I find it totally bewildering and nonsensical.

[mossberg-operator]

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/the-shop-a-gun-owner-hotline-may-return/

What I can't get my head around is the logic behind the idea of banning something because of its appearance. I find it totally bewildering and nonsensical.

There is no logic. Also it is only an excuse. Nothing to do with the real reason.

[Dannyboy220]

This mornings response from a Green MEP.....

 

Dear constituent,

 

Thank you for your email to Keith Taylor MEP about the Revision of the Firearms Directive (91/477/EEC). Keith has asked me to respond on his behalf. Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in responding to you - our office receives a high volume of correspondence on a daily basis and it sometimes takes us longer than we would wish to respond.

 

The revision process of the 2008 Directive is currently at its very initial stage and the Greens in the European Parliament agree that the Commission proposal needs greater clarity. As a result, Keith and his colleagues would want to assess all the details of the proposal before taking a definitive stance.

 

As you pointed out, one of the new provisions proposed by the Commission is to modify the classification regarding a specific category of semi-automatic firearms - "semi-automatic firearms which resemble weapons with automatic mechanisms". These specific weapons, currently classified as "legal weapons subject to an authorisation" under the existing Directive in category B7, would consequently be classified as prohibited weapons. The Greens recognise that at least some semi-automatic firearms pose a threat to security as they can easily be converted to automatic firearms or have the capacity to cause considerable damages due to the high number of rounds.

 

Keith believes that there is a need to clarify and standardise EU rules on dangerous weapons in order to bring real and concrete improvements to the security of citizens, but will carefully assess all the possible implications of this proposed change.

 

Many of Keith´s constituents have raised concerns that the timing of the Commission´s proposal coincides with the awful terrorist attacks we saw take place in France last year, making it seem like a knee-jerk reaction. However, it might be helpful to note that, the 2008 Directive does stipulate that the Commission should submit a Report by 2015 accompanied, if appropriate, by proposals.

 

Keith agrees that there is a clear need for additional measures to control the acquisition and possession of weapons specifically in relation to these terrorists attacks, however, he also believes that this revision would be useful, nevertheless, to better tackle the security problems posed by the trade and possession of weapons. In particular, the existing legislation contains a series of loopholes concerning the deactivation, registration and the marking of firearms, their parts, components and ammunition and the online acquisition of such products. The Greens would also like to see a better exchange of information between authorities in charge of controls.

 

Keith appreciates that many hobbyists, hunters and sport-shooters fear that their activities are at risk of being amalgamated with terrorism or may be concerned that the proposed changes could pose useless restrictions on their own legal activities. He believes that the European Parliament and the Member States in the Council as co-legislators will find suitable solutions during the legislative process to combine the peaceful pursuit of the activities of hunters and sport shooters with the measures needed to reinforce the security of all citizens.

 

You may be interested to know that the Internal Market Committee held a public hearing on the 15th March, to which a number of stakeholders, including Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation in the EU, were invited in order to ensure that the views of hunters and sport shooters are duly taken into consideration.

 

Thank you again for taking the time to write to Keith about this issue. Please do not hesitate to get back in touch if you have any further questions.

 

For more information about Keith's related work as an MEP, please see his website at:

http://www.keithtaylormep.org.uk

[brett1985]

got this from UKIP MP Julia Reid:

 

Dear Constituent,

Thank you for your letter about the EU Firearms directive.

It raises important issues.

First, may I make a practical observation?

The reality is that weapons controls are as strict in the UK as anywhere in the world that we are aware of. From routinely armed police, through ordinary shops selling items which would not be on sale in the same way in the UK, to the numbers of guns, the UK operates tight controls by comparison with many other EU countries.

That provides the backdrop for our overall approach.

We do not want the UK to be collateral damage to European bureaucratic tightening.

Our approach, therefore, is to analyse and understand practical consequences and ensure that planned legislation does not inconvenience and remove the rights of ordinary people. At the same time, we will try to ensure that the proposals offer the highest possible level of genuine security protection.

In short, the topic is one where the devil lies in the detail.

We, in the EFDD and UKIP will therefore read the small print of what is proposed and ensure it will work in the real world.

You can potentially help us achieve this.

If you identify legal non-sense which will damage ordinary people unnecessarily whilst at the same time not improving security, please do let us know?

Our goal is to scrutinise what is proposed in a manner which both protects your freedoms and keeps you secure.

I hope that helps.

Best wishes,

Julia Reid

[Danger-Mouse]

What I can't get my head around is the logic behind the idea of banning something because of its appearance. I find it totally bewildering and nonsensical.

 

This is the one that baffles me too.