On our BACKGROUND page we list all interesting informations and arguments against the EU gunban. Feel free to read our reports and answers and use the arguments when you write to your politician or talk to a journalist.
The Action Plan against gun ownership was scheduled for 2016 to 2018. We assumed that the terroristic attacks in Paris I (January 2015) and Paris II (November 2015) will be misused for more control on legal gun owners, but we did not expect that the European Commission would use outright lies.
During the last six months we learned that Commission and also Ministers of Interiors are just doing this.
They are using lies, false arguments, exageration of facts for stricter rules for legal tax-paying gun owners – but doing nothing for the combat of illicit trafficking of firearms by criminals.
According to Stirile ProTVRomania the so called gun smugglers were arrested by Romanian police. They are hunters, the guns were legally-held, and they state that they recieved money to play trafficers of arms.
Established in November 2015 following the Paris terror attacks, The “Mirabeau Institute” is the think-tank, the laboratory of law experts mobilized to promote a more pragmatic and realistic legislation against new forms of crime and terrorism. This Institue has a double purpose, using scientific studies made known to the authorities, which consists in :
– a reform of criminal and law enforcement self-defense
– a more flexible law on the ownership and bearing of lethal and
Its work on individual and collective security are based on the Swiss, Israeli and North American models. With a significant political and academic network, the Mirabeau Institute’s action on legislative lobbying is to open new fields of reflection such as carrying weapons off duty or changing the rules of engagement of the security force. Recognizing the inefficiency of anti-gun reforms until now, this group of lawyers and specialist is opposed to most restrictions against
legal gun owners. This vision is global and draws on the liberal and republican heritage of the Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789.
• Head office : 49, rue du Ranelagh, 75016 Paris XVI .
• Director: Pierre-Maxime SARRON
• Website : http://www.institut-mirabeau.org.
• Contact : firstname.lastname@example.org
Qu’est-il finalement sorti du vote de la commission IMCO ?
Comme vous l’avez peut-être remarqué, nous n’avions pas encore publié le compte-rendu du vote de l’IMCO de mercredi dernier. Il y a deux raisons à cela : tout d’abord, l’équipe de Firearms United s’est épuisée avec le stress des efforts consacrés à défendre notre position jusqu’ici. Ensuite, avant de vous les communiquer au plus vite, il a fallu prendre le temps d’en analyser les tenants et les aboutissants.
As you may have noticed, we have not yet reported the exact results of the last Wednesday’s IMCO vote. This is due to two reasons; firstly we are all quite exhausted after the stressful effort to defend our position up to this point and secondly we needed time to analyse the result before rushing in to judge the result.
Rumours of what has actually been banned, if anything, have been circulating together with justified questions about the next steps in this process. These were mainly sparked by conflicting comments made by various MEPs. It is now quite obvious that a considerable number of MEPs did not fully comprehend what they voted for and are even less aware of what the result states.
The prize for the most absurd comment goes to Finnish SnD MEP Liisa Jaakonsaari who immediately declared in the Finnish national news: “It was an excellent compromise. The best parts were the ban of semiautomatic weapons and restricting access to firearms.” This article was understandably swiftly edited and the comment was changed to “It was an excellent compromise. The most important change was restricting access to firearms”. (Source: Yle News of 7th of July 2016 )
These hasty statements highlight the complexity of the voting list and the compromise amendments. Indeed some MEPs expressed their view that this was the most complex voting list that they had ever seen.
Below you will find a short summary of the IMCO opinion based on the notes compiled by Firearms United members and experts who attended the voting session on Wednesday 13th July.
Article in FR : Qu’est-il finalement sorti du vote de la commission IMCO ?
In my last article, I explained cultural differences between Western and Eastern Europeans in regard of firearm ownership. In that article, I used small excerpt of MEP Marlene Mizzi’s email, and certain rhetorical questions which, unfortunately, were mistakenly also taken by many as Mrs. Mizzi’s quotes.
After publication of the article, I was notified by several people that Mrs. Mizzi opposed to many unreasonable demands of the Commission to limit legal firearms ownership, and was one of reasonable voices in the IMCO committee. I wasn’t aware of that while writing my article. My Maltese colleagues also confirmed that Mrs. Mizzi worked with them in good will and listened carefully to their expert opinions.
After such notification, I made some research on my own through IMCO documents and found out that in legislative process, Mrs. Mizzi actually tabled several amendments in favor of protection of legal firearms owners.
After these findings, I realised that it was most undeserved and unfair to pick Mrs. Marlene Mizzi as example of an anti-gun politician, and that I owe her sincere apology and thanks for all the work she has done on behalf of defence of rights of legitimate firearms owners.
Spokesman of Czech firearms rights association LEX
I read your circular email which repeatedly asks presents a question: What you need it for? My name is David Karasek, a spokesman of Czech firearms rights association, and I am answering your question from an Eastern Europe perspective.
To be honest, your reply angered me at first, but then I thought about it more deeply and I saw that it needs more detailed explanation.
When we had been asked to “buy” a printed opinion by the Parliament Magazine we first thought this could be wasted money. But when we heard that Vicky Ford will write an article, too – we agreed to spend money from our Fighting Fund for this advertising. And we choose Stephen to speak for us. Stephen is chairman of FESAC, the European umbrella of 300.000 authorised collectors. We are very pleased that PM placed us directly to Vicky’s article.