Sorry, this entry is only available in French. For the sake of viewer convenience, the content is shown below in the alternative language. You may click the link to switch the active language.
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.
Why did the stance of Swedish MEPs soften during the last weeks regarding Firearms Directive? Why did Sweden approve the Compromise of the European Council? Again strings lead to the Swedish Police, to Peter Thorsell, his former collegues Hänniger and Tonnemann and others, like Doris Högne Rydheim, Rector of the Police Academy, and Liberals and Greens.
We are killing sport shooting. But we do not think it needs to be done tomorrow. They have licenses for five years now. And we think that we let them a little longer transitional period, perhaps five-year transition period for changing interest, to find a new sport. But we are killing the sport, she says.
Our special thank goes today to Mikael from Sweden
Mikael invented chamberflags and sold them for 150 SEK (15€) and spent 100 SEK (10€) of each sale to our fighting fund. He distributes them only on matches, not online. But he offers design and contacts for all who want to copy this action – as long as 2/3 is donated to FIREARMS UNITED. So if you wanna copy this action, contact your national chapter or partner.