Tag Archives: European Commission

The Czech Have Challenged the Faulty Firearms Directive in Court!

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]

Continue reading

Firearms United is going to Supreme Court – In Sweden!

The Swedish authorities have been very active when it comes to making life hard for citizens practising IPSC-shooting or other dynamic shooting disciplines that require semiautomatic modern sporting rifles. [1][2]

Several Swedish authorities have been running a campaign for quite some time to ban and restrict the ownership of semiautomatic firearms and for example the previous EU Gunban of 2013 [3] was orchestrated and driven by Swedish Commisioner Cecilia Malmström, supported by shady authorities making up the rules and ”facts” on the fly. Firerams United was originally founded to counter this outrageous and unjustified attack on civil liberties.

We have also heard that Swedish authorities have already denied at least three permits for sport shooters on grounds of the EU Firearms directive – which had not been even finished at the time, let alone in effect.

One common practice is also the misuse of tax payers funds by taking things to court – most of the time the sport shooters win the case and get their permits, and case is conveniently forgotten, but when authorities win a case, it comes a precedent which is used by the authorities to deny permits in the future. [1]

When the latest round of firearms directive was discussed, Sweden sent their best experts in banning firearms to offer their ideologically coloured expertise and push for a stricter firearms directive. In other words, their agenda is now pushed over the Swedish borders and we have had enough of this now.

Firearms United is supporting financially the Swedish shooters to take things to supreme court and put an end to this nonsense.

Continue reading

Czech to approve “2nd Amendment” as a first Country in Europe?

The campaign of the Czech is moving forward.

In the Czech Republic the Czech Parliament was discussing before a final vote about constitutional right to keep and bear arms on Wednesday.

The experts expected a that the result would be too close to call, but fortunately the proposal was passed with rather clear numbers:

139 Yes,

9 No,

20 empty.

The change in legislation required 120 votes, so the proposal was passed with 19 votes to spare. [1] Next step is to get the proposal through the senate, but the odds are stacked considerably better to favour civil liberties than in the parliament.

This proposal and the potential impacts of the EU firearms directive were discussed extensively in a conference organized in the Cevro Institute in Prague by LEX (Czech office of the Firearms United), where the best experts were present to answer the questions of the concerned Czech citizens. [2]

What does all this mean then?

The EU law overrides the constitution of a member state when there is conflict between European law and the law of Member States, European law prevails; the norms of national law have to be set aside. According to EU at least. Many of the member states do not see this as black-and-white as the EU, and reserve the right to interpret legislation when there is a conflict. However, we have observed during a last year and half that passing an EU directive gets that much more complicated when it is in violation of the national law. For example many member states (France excluded!) have constitution that reserves a right a right to have private property, and seizing it without compensation gets really challenging legally – as it should, because it would be called theft if anyone but the government would be doing it.

This means that due to the campaign by the Czech, come the next review of the firearms directive, scheduled 5 years from now, the European commission has one more hurdle to overcome before confiscating your private property without compensation.

The campaign for the RKBA in Czech is a shining example on how the national legislation and civil liberties can be enhanced when the officials and the firearms enthusiasts who are subject matter experts work together.

Stay tuned!

[1] https://www.novinky.cz/domaci/442097-lide-budou-mit-pravo-pouzit-zbran-k-obrane-statu-rozhodla-snemovna.html

[2] http://cevroinstitut.cz/en/action/czech-republic-as-a-central-european-texas/

 

The Voting Day is approaching!

Situation update:

As we have indicated earlier the European Parliament will vote on the firearms directive on 14th of March.

Firearms United staff has worked overtime to provide you with the summary of the current situation:

The voting will work with the following principle if it follows the standard protocol: First there is a majority vote on whether the current compromise (with all the magazine restrictions etc) is approved or not, and if not, then the voting will proceed with the proposed amendments, which there are 166 (!!!)

You can find all the amendments from here:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/report-details.html?reference=A8-0251-2016

Continue reading

“Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made”

The EU-decision making process is a complex one. Firearms United has been following the EU legislation process up close and personal since the day ill-conceived proposal from the commission saw the light of day, and based on what we have seen, Otto von Bismarck was right when he (allegedly) said: Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.

The “Trilogue” is still ongoing and we are now in the phase called: “First Reading”

That is where in a nutshell The European Parliament examines the Commission’s proposal and may:

  • adopt it or
  • introduce amendments to it

After that the Council may:

  • decide to accept the Parliament’s position: in such a case the legislative act is adopted
  • amend the Parliament’s position: the proposal is returned to the Parliament for a second reading

What ACTUALLY really happened so far was that in council France, Germany, Italy and Spain did some shady dealing in backstage and sent a veiled threat in the letter and thus heavily dictated the Council position to which some improvements were pushed in by some countries (FI, CZ, etc).

During that time, the parliament examined the proposal, noticed that it was “unworkable” (We have to agree with the rapporteurs on this one!). Some 900 or so amendmends were made, some voted in – some left out – but in the end we had parliament position. In the trilogue meetings during autumn, a compromise – which we described and published earlier – was reached.

This brings us to present day – The key parts of the proposal are still unfinished (the ones that got this mess started in the first place – deactivation rules) and the parliament is due to vote on the proposal in March – over month before the new deactivation rule proposal is even returning from comments round.

Now two things may happen – either proposal is approved or amended, which brings us to

Continue reading

“EU WON’T DEFEAT US” – video

The goal is to disarm Europe and make it defenseless – at least that is what the European Commission tries to do for the last 18 months. Fortunately, this action is being pushed back by the law abiding firearms owners. Why the Eurocrats try do so? Isn’t it that making a terrorists’ life easier should be considered a treason? For whom the European Commission works? Does the MEPs DO UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THEY VOTE UPON AND DO THEY CREATE LAWS CONSCIOUSLY? See for yourself in this shocking material on incompetence of modern Europe.

Dita Charanzova

EU Gun Ban: Dita Charanzová speaks out to Firearms United

The Firearms United network – one of the main voices of oppositions to the EU Gun Ban representing gun owners from all around Europe – interviewed Czech MEP Dita Charanzová, shadow rapporteur for ALDE and herself one of the staunchest opponents to the European Commission’s restrictive proposals

Read the whole article with the interview at Gunsweek ( EN | IT )
Read the whole interview in DE | FI | CZ | FR

FIREARMS UNITED (FU): Mrs. Charanzová, how did you live the entire process as a Shadow Rapporteur?

MEP Dita Charanzová (DC): I must say that in my whole presence and work in Brussels – first as an official for Permanent Representation of the Czech Republic, and later as MEP – I never met a proposal that would be this much politicised, especially as the end of negotiations closed in; and I found that very disappointing.

The Commission exerted enormous amounts of pressure to adopt a text that would contain as severe restrictions as possible, and to adopt it as soon as possible, without being able to give any real reason for these restrictions.

Continue reading

Intense lobbying by FIREARMS UNITED?

EU Observer publishes the most biased article about the EU Gunban that we have read in the last week: EU reaches deal on contested gun laws by  (20/12/2016)

You are invited to read our point-by-point reply to this diatribe:

Much of the debate has been overshadowed by intense lobbying from pro-gun groups. They argue that current rules are good enough and that the problem is that some EU states are not applying them.

Pro-gun groups get not paid by the “gun lobby”. They work unsalaried for their own interest.

The choice of words is purposely intended to project us a “sinister and wealthy gun lobby” with the financial power to influence law makers. In realty FIREARMS UNITED and its partners are non-profit making organisations and their administrators are volunteers who contribute their time and energy to campaign for the interests of their members. This process is a vital process in a democracy:  

Lobbying is an integral part of a healthy democracy, closely related to universal values such as freedom of speech and the right to petition of government. It allows for various interest groups to present their views on public decisions that may come to affect them. It also has the potential to enhance the quality of decision-making by providing channels for the input of expertise on increasingly technical issues to legislators and decisionmakers.”  (Burson Marsteller, A Guide to Effective Lobbying in Europe: The View of Policymakers, 2013).

FR | IT

Continue reading

Trilogue ends on the EU Gun Ban

From our partner GUNSWEEK.com by Pierangelo Tendas – 21.12.2016

  • Press release of the European Commission
  • European Parliament and “aggressive gun lobby” watered down the proposal
  • Update 25.01.2017: Trilogue’s outcome now published: LINK 
  • Next steps by EU in February and March
  • Letter of FIREARMS UNITED to Frans Timmermans, First Vice President of COM
  • Next steps by FIREARMS UNITED

A press release of the European Commission announced the end of the trilogue concerning the amendment proposal to the European firearms directive – now infamously known as the “EU Gun Ban”

The final outcome of the dossier will be decided at the European Parliament in February and March

The final outcome of the dossier will be decided at the European Parliament in February and March

With a press release launched yesterday, December 20th, the European Commission announced the conclusion of the trilogue concerning the amendment proposals to the European firearms directive – a dossier now infamously known, and aptly so, as the EU Gun Ban.

First introduced by the European Commission in November 2015, after the bloody terror attacks in Paris, the dossier originally included draconian restrictions aimed at law-abiding, legal gun owners, which included a full ban on high capacity fixed or detachable magazines for all firearms, a total ban on private ownership of modern hunting and sporting guns aesthetically and only partially technically patterned after modern military firearms, and many more.

DE | FR | IT

Continue reading

Impact Assessment – Delivered!

Impact Assessment is sent by letter post to all MEPs

Because of the “urgency of the situation”, the commission decided to – against all principles of good administration – to skip an essential part of the process called impact assessment.

It is just what it sounds like – a study on how the proposed directive will impact various stakeholders like hunters, reservists, sport shooters, recreational shooters, firearms collectors to name a few. Despite requests of the MEPs and rapporteurs, commission has failed – to this date – deliver a proper impact assessment to justify the directive proposal.

I think we all know why.

One of the reasons of the conference was to provide a voice to all shooting enthusiasts and an opportunity for each stakeholder group to voice their opinion on the directive. One could characterize it as a live version of the impact assessment.

After the conference, everything was put together by Firearms United team of volunteers and now we have two versions:

The short version of our impact assessment: http://bit.ly/2fIAFru

The full version of our impact assessment: http://bit.ly/2fzOESO

Our letter to the MEPs

Thanks to efforts of the volunteers, there was also a hard copy of the shorter version printed out and mailed to each of the MEPs with this letter: Continue reading