Désolé, cet article est seulement disponible en Anglais Américain et Allemand. Pour le confort de l’utilisateur, le contenu est affiché ci-dessous dans la langue par défaut du site. Vous pouvez cliquer l’un des liens pour changer la langue du site en une autre langue disponible.

This just in: Czech Republic Legal Action confirmed!

Now it is official – The misguided firearms directive will be challenged in the ECJ (European Court of Justice) [1]

The Czech ministry of Interior has filed a suit 9th of August to prevent the implementation of the EU Firearms Directive, which would help the national authorities of the Member States to not implement the already faulty directive on national level.

The Czech are requesting both suspension of national implementation for the duration of the legal action (which might take months, best case years) and complete dismissal of the firearms directive.

According to Czech Interior Minister Milan Chovanec « Such a massive punishment of decent arms holders is unacceptable, because banning legally-held weapons has no connection with the fight against terrorism. This is not only a nonsensical decision once again undermining people’s trust in the EU, but implementing the directive could also have a negative impact on the internal security of the Czech Republic, because a large number of weapons could move to the black market. »

Firearms United completely and totally agrees with the statement above.

The Czech Republic quotes a total of four grounds for repeal of the Directive: [2]

• The Union legislature has exceeded its powers by adopting the directive. Although the Directive has been adopted to remove obstacles to the internal market, its real aim is to combat terrorism and other serious crime exclusively. However, the EU legislator does not have the power to adopt harmonization measures in this area.
• By adopting the Directive, the Union legislature breached the principle of proportionality , since it did not address the question of the proportionality of the measures implemented and did not carry out an impact assessment. This subsequently led to the adoption of measures manifestly inadequate and disproportionate to the objective pursued – for example, the directive prohibits broadly the types of weapons that are not used in Europe for the purpose of committing terrorism or other crimes.
• The Directive is contrary to the principle of legal certainty. A number of the provisions of the contested directive are not sufficiently clear and precise to enable the persons concerned to unequivocally recognize their rights and obligations.
• The directive has a discriminatory nature – it allows for an exception to the ban on possession of weapons, but it can only fall on the Swiss system of keeping military weapons on termination of military service without the same exceptions being used by other states.

In addition to this, in June Czech parliament approved a bill which puts the right to keep and bear arms in the Czech constitution as a first European nation.

( If someone from Czech Republic is reading this – is your country full already, or do you still have need for IT-engineers who seek asylum and are willing to pay taxes and work for a living? )

Sources: