-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 114578)
Message
Captcha
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 300x300 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 565 unique user posts.

  • Blotter updated: 2017-02-04 Show/Hide Show All

Deagle Boltface Patches On Sale Now!



File 148240716993.jpg - (1.18MB , 3072x2048 , EU.jpg )
114578 No. 114578 ID: 454a4b
As you no doubt will have heard, IMCO and the EU commission are trying to reform the firearms regulations within the EU. This change has been spearheaded by the british. Who will be brexiting, but still want to ruin everything for the rest of us while they still can.

The IMCO & EU commission have now reached a draft text which they believe will be able to pass the EU parliament. The proposal will be presented to parliament in March 2017.

The proposed changes to the current laws can be found here: https://www.docdroid.net/JCvID2y/directive-91-477-compromis-16122016.docx.html

Some of the things that our american friends will find revolting are extensive central registration (for up to decades after destruction of a firearm), medical & psychological tests, suitability checks at least every 5 years,...

It's interesting to note that some member states are already looking for work arounds. Most notably the Czech, who are planning to declare that all citizens are necessary for security of state and therefor excempt of the proposed EU rules. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out.

Below I'll go over some of the stuff that would change for me as a Belgian:
Expand all images
>> No. 114579 ID: 454a4b
File 148240746460.png - (54.23KB , 737x1123 , capacity-excemption.png )
114579
Overall magazine capacity will be restricted to 20 rounds for handguns and 10 rounds for rifles. Going over this causes your firearm to be "prohibited".

There are excemptions to this however:
If you are a sport shooter who:
- Is member of a club & sport shooting federation.
AND
- Regularly practises target shooting and have been for over 12 months.
AND
- Fulfill the specifications required for a sport shooting discipline which is internationally established and officially recognised by the local sport federation. (here they don't seem to require actual competing?)

OR

You are a sportshooter actively competing a sport shooting discipline which is internationally established and officially recognised by the local sport federation.

OR

You are basically Swiss. ;)
>> No. 114580 ID: 454a4b
File 148240767111.png - (37.80KB , 825x794 , prohibited.png )
114580
Short barreled rifles which are less than 60cm and capable of firing with the stock folded, retracted or removed (without tools) are considered "prohibited".
This prohibited status can be overruled by the member states, but I sincerely doubt it.

Many EU countries did not have SBR laws up til now. There are UZIs, MP5s, Steyr TMP/B&T MP9s all over the place around here. These will become prohibited.
>> No. 114581 ID: 454a4b
File 14824077917.png - (22.79KB , 808x381 , deact-demil.png )
114581
Deact/demil guns have no much stricker requirements. Where once upon a time, you could use deact guns to show disassembly and function, it seems like pretty much everything will need to be welded in place and/or drilled through.

Old deact/demil guns are excempt of the new rules, until they are offered for sale, sold or they are transferred over a border to a different member state.
>> No. 114582 ID: 454a4b
Another thing to watch in the future is how the full auto to semi auto conversions will be handled as the text is entirely unclear about what can "easily be converted to full auto". Such guns will become prohibited.

I'd say all guns are easily converted to full auto, it's keeping them controllable that's the hard part. ;)
>> No. 114584 ID: 454a4b
Goddamn it, should've proof read this shite... Excuse my suckage, I just rolled out of bed.

>>114581
>Deact/demil guns have no much stricker requirements.
now

>other posts
therefore
exempt
fulfil
barrelled
>> No. 114585 ID: b70387
>>114584
*stricter
>> No. 114587 ID: 454a4b
Firearms United is claiming that the texts above are an unrevised draft, not the current final text.
>> No. 114588 ID: e59f1a
It is of course absurd if you insert a mag you are breaking the law.

Rare are the pistols with more than 20 round mags, while they absolutely kill the rifle part with more bureaucracy.

Fuck the EU, the sooner it falls apart the better.
>> No. 114622 ID: 9723b1
Not like we needed more evidence that EU is utter shit, and globalism in general is shit.

Although I'm interested in how they're going to enforce this law. Sew a camera onto everyones forehead?

Half the households in Italy, Spain and East Europe have grenades and submachine guns in their attics and basements.
>> No. 115619 ID: 9dc901
  Interview/statement by FU.
>> No. 115623 ID: 206ed5
>>114622
>Not like we needed more evidence that EU is utter shit,

2 serfs getting fucked up the ass by their elites http://www.operatorchan.org/n/res/115542.html and what do the serfs do? Argue over who gets fucked harder with a bigger dick. This is why we can't have nice things.

>Although I'm interested in how they're going to enforce this law. Sew a camera onto everyones forehead?

No, they just show up to check your guns and their storage and if they find contraband mags you loose your guns.

>Half the households in Italy, Spain and East Europe have grenades and submachine guns in their attics and basements.

Get fucked.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
(How about "That's ridiculous"?)
>> No. 115922 ID: 9dc901
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+AMD+A8-2016-0251+107-107+DOC+WORD+V0//EN

So this is the most pertinent I think;

Member States shall ensure that an authorisation to acquire and an authorisation to possess a firearm classified in category B shall be withdrawn if the person who was granted that authorisation is found to be in possession of a loading device apt to be fitted to centre-fire semi-automatic firearms or repeating firearms, which:
(a) can hold more than 20 rounds; or
(b)in the case of long firearms, can hold more than 10 rounds,
unless that person has been granted an authorisation under Article 6 or an authorisation which has been confirmed, renewed or prolonged under Article 7(4a).


6.Member States may authorise target shooters to acquire and possess semi-automatic firearms classified in point 6 or 7 of category A, subject to the following conditions:
(a) a satisfactory assessment of relevant information arising from the application of Article 5(2);
(b)provision of proof that the target shooter concerned is actively practising for or participating in shooting competitions recognised by an officially recognised shooting sports organisation of the Member State concerned or by an internationally established and officially recognised shooting sport federation; and
(c)provision of a certificate from an officially recognised shooting sports organisation confirming that:
(i)the target shooter is a member of a shooting club and has been regularly practising target shooting in it for at least 12 months, and
(ii)the firearm in question fulfils the specifications required for a shooting discipline recognised by an internationally established and officially recognised shooting sport federation.
As regards firearms classified in point 6 of category A, Member States applying a military system based on general conscription and having in place over the last 50 years a system of transfer of military firearms to persons leaving the army after fulfilling their military duties may grant to those persons, in their capacity as a target shooter, an authorisation to keep one firearm used during the mandatory military period. The relevant public authority shall transform those firearms into semi-automatic firearms and shall periodically check that the persons using such firearms do not represent a risk to public security. The provisions set out in points (a), (b) and (c) of the first subparagraph shall apply.

7.Authorisations granted under this Article shall be reviewed periodically at intervals not exceeding five years.";

Article 7 is amended as follows:
(a)in paragraph 4, the following subparagraph is added:
"Authorisations for possession of firearms shall be reviewed periodically, at intervals not exceeding five years. An authorisation may be renewed or prolonged if the conditions on the basis of which it was granted are still fulfilled.";
(b)the following paragraph is inserted:
"4a.Member States may decide to confirm, renew or prolong authorisations for semi-automatic firearms classified in point 6, 7 or 8 of category A in respect of a firearm which was classified in category B, and lawfully acquired and registered, before ... [date of entry into force of this Amending Directive], subject to the other conditions laid down in this Directive. Furthermore, Member States may allow such firearms to be acquired by other persons authorised by Member States in accordance with this Directive, as amended by Directive 2017/...+ of the European Parliament and of the Council*.

So not only do you have to go through the hoops and spend extra money in order to get an ebil assault baby-cop killing boomstick, the supposed "grandfathering" clause is reviewed every 5 years and can be rescinded at leisure if I read this correctly.

So, time to ante up and get a place to stash your guns in case they come for them one day.
>> No. 115923 ID: 813f6b
>>115922
>So not only do you have to go through the hoops and spend extra money in order to get an ebil assault baby-cop killing boomstick, the supposed "grandfathering" clause is reviewed every 5 years and can be rescinded at leisure if I read this correctly.

Except this is nothing new for many member states? Belgium has had this since our last firearms reform (7 years ago or so?).

The bulk of this isn't "too bad", but what worries me most is how the nation states can choose to grandfather stuff, or not. And how guns are only allowed if you can prove they are used "for a shooting discipline recognised by an internationally established and officially recognised shooting sport federation". That's just a load of fucking bull. I own a firearm under "recreative and sporting purposes". If it's purely for recognized sporting purposes, where did the recreative clause go? If someone wants to plink with an FN Baby .25ACP, now you probably can't if implemented that way.

Member states are rather unlikely to go for the broad inclusive interpretation when implementing this and we're about to get fucked over... Again.
So we're in for another year to three years of fighting local politicians to minimize impact.
>> No. 115925 ID: 9dc901
>>115923

>Except this is nothing new for many member states?

Not for us. Especially the retarded mag limits and 12 months of competing before approval. And if this doesn't sound too bad, maybe you'd like to go to the lowest denominator of the UK. Straight pull 22. ARs galore!

I would hope the EU falls apart before implementation of this shit starts, but it's unlikely.

You on the other hand keep supporting this institution that brings you so much.
>> No. 115928 ID: 9dc901
>>115925

Correction
>.22
>> No. 115960 ID: 813f6b
>>115925

How exactly am I supporting the EU (other than by paying my taxes)?
>> No. 115963 ID: 9dc901
>>115960

You stated in the past you support it.
>> No. 115964 ID: 813f6b
File 148982974614.png - (254.62KB , 958x717 , European organizations.png )
115964
>>115963
>You stated in the past you support it.

I've stated in the past that Europe needs a supranational organization like the EU, because member states are fucking tiny on a world scale and these member states have largely the same goals. It makes sense to move some responsibilities to a higher organization (protection of human rights, foreign policy & customs, trade & labour laws, defense cooperation, criminal law, etc) and move some responsibilities to a more local level, away from the national level.
This would give Basques, Scots, Flemish, Bretons, etc all more independence from national level while also creating a framework of cooperation on a higher level and ensure that their best interests are protected in negociations with external actors.

There are many problems with the EU, and I believe it's in part visible in the very origins of the EU. While part of its stated goals is to protect human rights, it in no way truly protects freedom in a broader sense. The way laws tend to be implemented is in a restrictive way, not a tolerant way.
Example (though unrelated to the EU, it's an illustration of both approaches): In Belgium you are forced to wear a helmet, long jacket, long pants, gloves and ankle high boots when riding a motorcycle. (Ironically, those could be dish washing gloves and gummi boots, since it's not stipulated what kind you need to wear) This is to lower people getting hurt (and partially lower cost on social security & healthcare).
My approach would be to state that the rider is free to chose what he wears (within the confines of decency laws), as long as he is able to find a insurer which provides him with insurance against bodily harm and unemployment during revalidation etc. You can stipulate that insurers need to provide basic insurance packages for people riding in full battle gear as a "standard", while allowing the market's discretion in providing insurance for people who ride without gloves, boots, helmets, etc as long as people doing so does not put strain on social security or state healtcare.

Sadly, as much as you might hate the elite, it's the voters (and thus citizens) which are mostly to blame for allowing the current state of things to drag on. The politicians realized that they can regulate whatever they want with almost impunity since they'll just get re-elected next time even if there was a short public outcry against a certain decision previously. This is perhaps because european voters are often forced by law to vote and tend to vote for the least bad candidate (and blank votes are irrelevant in the system).

But yes, I support something like the EU, but not its specific current implementation. Maybe the EU can be salvaged somehow, but it's rather unlikely.
>> No. 115965 ID: 13f512
>>115964

The need for a "federal" layer is similar to the US. It makes sense to have one, but the longer it persists the more power it absorbs from the states it was supposed to be supporting and supplementing. Unfortunately, governments suck at self-limiting. Once you get one running it only takes on more power and roles.
>> No. 115966 ID: 9dc901
  >>115964

>I've stated in the past that Europe needs a supranational organization like the EU

And you have it. Such a great organisation it turned out to be, didn't it?

And precisely because of what >>115965 says. With one addendum. The situation is similar, but not like the US, simply because these are nation states with their own history and outlook on things. A fag parade is met differently in London than in Zagreb for instance.

What the EU as a project is inevitably trying to do, is dissolve nations and ethnicities for obvious reasons.
And the longer European nations take to wake up to that fact, the worse it's going to be in the end run.

>But yes, I support something like the EU, but not its specific current implementation.

So you are the enemy, whether you consider yourself one or not.
>> No. 115970 ID: 813f6b
File 14899136987.jpg - (193.59KB , 964x720 , article-2408591-1B95A350000005DC-125_964x720.jpg )
115970
>>115966
>So you are the enemy, whether you consider yourself one or not.

Do you oppose the US federal government as well? Cuz they're in a lot of ways more restrictive to the states than the EU is to its memberstates.

>The situation is similar, but not like the US, simply because these are nation states with their own history and outlook on things.

Oh yes, the US is so homogenous. :)
>> No. 115976 ID: 9dc901
>>115970

>Do you oppose the US federal government as well? Cuz they're in a lot of ways more restrictive to the states than the EU is to its memberstates.

I don't give a fuck about the US federal government. That's their internal busineses, not ours. And you're again doing that thing where you say "oh it's not so bad, could be worse", just like with the firearms directive.
And that is why you deserve Molenbeek type ghettos and firearms laws on par with the UK.

>Oh yes, the US is so homogenous. :)

I don't care about your multi-culti bullshit. Not that I'd expect you to understand what a national history means, since you're just Dutch under an assumed name.
>> No. 115978 ID: 813f6b
>>115976

Well, what solution do you propose then?
>> No. 115980 ID: 206ed5
>>115978
>Well, what solution do you propose then?

We'll just throw you of a helicopter.
>> No. 115981 ID: 9dc901
  >>115978
>> No. 115982 ID: 9377c6
One of our incompetent politicians is praising that they have banned machine guns that day......
Pretty sure 50% didn´t know what they are signing up for. They must have just read "VERBOTEN" and thought "Yes"
>> No. 116810 ID: bd9907
File 149866257215.jpg - (102.30KB , 800x477 , p-01_01.jpg )
116810
Constitutional Amendment Specifying a Right to Keep and Bear Arms Passes Czech Chamber of Deputies, Moves to Senate
http://zpravy.idnes.cz/snemovna-ustavni-pravo-drzet-zbran-kvuli-obrane-statu-pgd-/domaci.aspx?c=A170628_074636_domaci_kop
Translation: https://www.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/6jzqqx/czech_mps_approved_constitutional_right_to/dji6mal/

>Citizens of the Czech Republic will have the right to acquire, possess and carry firearms by a constitutional law. The change will give the owners of legally-held weapons the possibility to intervene if necessary to ensure the security of the Czech Republic. There were 139 deputies for the constitutional law, 120 were required. Only 9 deputies were against it. The law still has to be approved by the Senate.
>"Show me a single terrorist act in Europe that would have been committed by a legally-held weapon. We do not want to disarm citizens at a time when security in Europe is worsening, "Interior Minister Milan Chovanec was advocating the draft constitutional act in the Chamber of Deputies.
...
>"Citizens of the Czech Republic have the right to acquire, possess and carry arms and ammunition in order to fulfill the tasks set in subsection 2. This right may be limited by law and law may set further conditions for its exercise in case that it is necessary for protection of rights and freedoms of others, of public order and safety, lives and health or in order to prevent criminality." the draft law MEPs approved.
>"We expect it to increase the security of the citizens of the Czech Republic. We will be able to stand against the absurd European directive, even if the law does not solve everything on its own," Váňa also said. Minister Chovanec is preparing a lawsuit against the directive for the European Court, which has gained support from the government.

Their amendment specifically allows infringements, which seems like a bad move.

Would be interesting to see how the EU would react to a member nation flat out ignoring their directive. What enforcement mechanism do they even have?
>> No. 116811 ID: bf333d
>>116810
>Would be interesting to see how the EU would react to a member nation flat out ignoring their directive. What enforcement mechanism do they even have?

The enforcement mechanism is fines & sanctions. But the EU's founding charter states that the EU cannot intervene in matters of national security.
This is why the Czechs added the "to ensure the security of the Czech Republic" clause to their law. It basically means the EU can do fuckall.
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason