It has been stated many times, that in trilogues the Council and the Parliament try to find a common tune and reach a compromise, a firearms directive proposal accepted by both parties. It means, for both sides, some compromises but what are the current positions for the Council and the Parliament?
Since trilogue is a closed process, we can not provide a list of talking points during trilogue, but if we could, it would look like something we have listed below – and from the points below you can – if nothing changes – create your own prediction of the possible outcome:
- Will the directive apply to military reserve and voluntary defense organizations?
- Markings on firearms
- Authorization and medical review
- Collectors and museums
- Firearms passport
- Transitional period
- Annex-1 (Categorization)
- Demilitarized firearms (converted to semiautomatic)
- Long firearms that can be shortened to less than 600 mm with telescoping or folding stock
- Semiautomatic firearms that resemble automatic weapons
- Possession of magazines
Read more for details Continue reading
Are we now in fashion business?
First of all – thank you for you generous donations, it made this whole campaign possible.
And no, we are not in fashion business.
Firearms United has now successfully concluded a campaign, the goal of which was to inform Members of the European Parliament about the flaws in the current firearms directive proposal. We have essentially, assembled an information package, filled with facts, statistics, introductionary letter and Firearms United key fob/chamber flag. The graphical design for the key fob was borrowed from Swedish enthusiast. Keeping people informed is still the name of our game. That being said, the information package included 28 reasons why the magazine ban is unworkable from both legal and enthusiasts perspective.
Vote on opening the Interinstitutional Negotiations on the Control of Accquisition and Possession of Weapons at IMCO meeting on 5th of September 2016
Original videolink can be found from here: Link
[Timestamps: 1:35:10 – 1:39:45]
[Skipping the administrative matters and going straight to the interesting part.]
MEP Vicky Ford, Chairman (Conservatives and Reformists):
Before we vote, I’m going to give the floor to Dita Charanzová who’s asked for the floor.
MEP Dita Charanzová (Liberals and Democrats) :
Thank you Madame Chair. Before we proceed to the vote, I just would like to reiterate my concerns I already raised regarding the forthcoming Interinstitutional Negotiations. Czech gun holders and many others keep sending to me worried messages about the impact of this proposal – and I think we should not neglect them. To address their concerns, we need to make sure that our discussions are truly fact-based, and well informed. So, that’s why I would like to urge the Commission to provide us as much relevant information from ALL Member States as soon as possible, but definitely before any talks on categorization of firearms start.
Our aim, I think, has to be to reach an outcome of the negotiations which will not punish ordinary citizens. Thank you.
Reliable sources have warned us that several important amendments from the original 847 proposed by IMCO MEPs are likely to end up in badly-drafted Compromise Amendments.
It would appear that the positive stand originally taken by EPP, ECR and ALDE has been watered down to garner the support of S&D and the Greens as well as to align the final IMCO report with the General Approach approved by Council.
FIREARMS UNITED has worked ceaselessly over the past weeks to analyse the Amendments and to inform its supporters. Two summaries are provided which are the result of the views of our working team and partners. Being work in progress we may at this stage still have differing views.
Expert Opinion of Firearms United
Text proposed to be deleted from the 1991 version is highlighted in red as is text that the Commission wants to add to introduce disproportionate measures affecting legal gun owners that have no benefit to improving public security. Text which in our opinion represents a sensible solution is marked in blue as is our opinion and justification,
You may share this one and attach it to your emails if you wish to circulate.
Conservative MEP Christofer Fjellner from Sweden found the right words.
Snippets of his speech:
- Instead of getting to the real problem with illegal guns all of the proposal hits the legal guns and has no impact on terrorists or criminals at all.
- 5-years-licenses, medical exams, hindering distance trade and banning certain semi-automatics won’t stop terrorists but hit hard the law abiding gunowners
- How many crimes could be linked to legally-held firearms? How big is the problem?
- How many firearms were affected by the ban? How many will be banned?
- If Commission cannot answer these both simple question, we should reject proposal.
- You missed the target (illicit trafficking) by miles!
Read more of Commissioner’s speech: FACE: Commissioner Bieńkowska’s 100.000 deaths unfounded
The next MEP – after Christofer Fjellner (SE) – rejects the proposal: Jussi Halla-aho (FI)
Snippets of his speech:
- The large number of ammendments is encouraging as many of them address the most excessive and disproportional details in the proposal. The rapporteur has also generally done a good job.
- We should reject not only the proposed and unjustified ban on semi-automatic sporting rifles that are subcategorized A6 and A7, but also the proposed recategorisation of legal firearms as a whole.
This rejection has already been done by LIBE.
- We also should reject the nearly total ban of category A firearms which would lead to destruction of valuable historical collections. These weapons are not used in crime and are already strictly controlled.
This ban was also rejected by LIBE.
- We should reject mandatory time limits for licenses and medical checks because they only lead to more bureaucrazy and inconveniece without impact on crime.
These were rejected by LIBE.
- I support to reject the whole proposal as it violates all principles of good regulation.
- The Commission tried to took advantage of the tragic event in Paris last November to push through a largely ideological anti-firearm proposal.
This has greatly damaged the image and credibility of the EU.
- The attitude of the Commission in the Committee hearings has been incredible.
It is now up to the Parliament to try and undo that damage.
The Committee JURI votes on 24th May on “Subsidarity of Firearms Directive 91/477/EEC”
The Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) votes on “Proposal for a recommendation on subsidiarity on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons” on 24 May. See point 24 in this link.
Update: Vote has been postponed.
Because most National Parliaments failed to reject the Proposal regarding subsidarity our hope lies now in JURI and the European Parliament.
Only Poland and Sweden made a complaint in time.
Please inform the members of JURI, especially the ones of your own nation about this vote.