Author Archives: David Karasek

About proposed change of Czech Constitutional law

Since there’s much misunderstanding, especially in foreign media, about meaning and purpose of recently proposed change of our Constitutional law to introduce citizens’ right to acquire, possess and carry firearms, I feel appropriate to correct these misinterpretations.

LEX answers the following questions:

  • Is it a “terrorist hunting permit”?
  • Is it a proposal for unlimited possession and carrying of firearms?
  • Are Czechs going to substitute their armed forces with armed citizens?
  • Do Czech people want to establish private armies?

Continue reading

EUROPEAN COMMISSION: BLACKMAILING THE PARLIAMENT, ENDANGERING CITIZENS

As untransparent trialogue proceeds and European Commission is demanding more and more restriction, it uses more and more pressuring rhetorics. According to them, the Parliament should “get out of its blockade mentality” and “not compromise on security of citizens”. Of course, anyone who knows more that what the Commission says knows that it is the Commission who uses this mess for its political purposes, and moreover, that it’s the Commission who is responsible for endangering citizens for many years.

TWO KIND OF MEASURES

There are two kind of measures, packed together as one deal – which is exactly what Commission wants.

Continue reading

An addendum to to POLITICO article

We thank POLITICO magazine to include link to our pages in its article, thereby allowing us to address their readers. It is a great example of free press.

Commission threatens to derail gun law deal

Gun lobby accuses the Commission of being ‘totalitarian.’

(If you don’t want to read whole article, just go to the last sentence, please: Link.)

At first, we must agree with Mr. King in his claim that “The single market was not built for the free circulation of Kalashnikovs.” That’s true. And that’s why KALASHNIKOVS ARE ALREADY BANNED FOR 25 YEARS, along with all other machine guns. We wonder that the Commission does not know that, since it was them who wrote it into the law.

We also note that one of mandatory steps in legislative process is to prepare impact assessment, an expert study that gives Council and Parliament information about problem and about consequences of proposed changes. It is duty of the Commission to prepare this study. However, Commission didn’t present any impact assessment in this case. Instead, they use political pressure on both legislative bodies to accept COM proposal without impact assessment.

It must be also noted that current Firearms Directive from year 2008 assigns the Commission duty to issue common rules for deactivation of firearms, which would prevent illegal reactivation, and to overlook following of these rules. However, the Commission didn’t fullfill this legaly binding duty until Nov. 18. 2015 – four days after Paris terror attacks. In those seven years, hundreds, perhaps thousands of people were killed by poorly deactivated and illegally reactivated firearms.

The Commission loves to call us “aggressive gun lobby”. Bad smell of that word helps them to smear us. In reality, we are just ordinary citizens, who united and organised to defend our rights against bureaucratic colossus of the Commission. We fight it in our free time and on our own hard-earned dime. Compare us with the Commission: if anybody of us would neglect his legal duties for seven years, and caused hundreds of innocent dead during that time, he would never get out of prison. And by the way, the Commission wants to avoid this situation in the future – in current negotiations about Firearms Directive, they simply refuse to have any duties from the Directive.

We ask you to stand with us against this shameless bureaucracy. We are not an evil lobby; we are citizens like you, whom the Commission picked up as easy target, which they could punish for their own failures.

 

They need to hear YOU

As the first round of trialogue is over, the final form of new Firearms Directive is becoming more clear. Much of its nonsense, such as registration of harmless replicas or destruction of valuable and historically significant firearms in collections, was removed. This is especially thanks to the diligent work of many MEPs in the IMCO committee, and also to many experts in the field in addition to many countless individuals petitioning their representatives.

Recent tragedies highlighted the real problems, like insufficient rules for alarm weapons or security of distance trade with firearms, and these same people reworked knee-jerk bans proposed by the European Commission into reasonable and workable rules.

However, there’s still certain major infringement on rights of law-abiding firearms owners. Even when legal owners of semi-automatic firearms followed all laws and are at no fault in regard to causes of terrorism and crime, anti-rights powers-that-be within the EU still demand their demonstrative punishment for crimes caused by terrorists and criminals. Continue reading

Apology to Mrs. Marlene Mizzi

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.

David Karasek
Spokesman of Czech firearms rights association LEX

How the European Council works on gun bans

As you might be aware, the European Parliament is not the only EU institution where the fate of legitimate firearm owners is being decided in the wake of the unelected and increasingly autocratic EU Commission’s unjustified attack against our well-regulated community.

The other is the European Council, currently presided by the Netherlands, where the governments of all Member States are represented.

There are three levels within Council that are dealing with the revision of the Firearms Directive:

Continue reading

#MEP: How to communicate with politicians

From David Karásek , speaker of LEX – Czech firearms rights association

I wrote this because of reactions of many MEPs who – especially in December – complained to me that they got many impolite and even threatening messages. I decided to write this short explanation why politeness pays: take it as advice from who fights for firearms rights for long time and collected some experience. As leading member of LEX gun rights association, I often deal with people who actually write gun laws and I talk with legislators on national and european level. I have this opportunity because I represent great numbers of people; I can reach so high only because I stand on top of pyramid.

Continue reading