EU Gun Control Proposals

As a new lad with this lashup, I hesitated to throw my sixpence in-being a colonial. But now that it is a receding thread, I shall jump in. I do regret any further
gun control affecting citizens, directly or indirectly,-but particularly with respect to military aircraft. It seems a bit jaded and MPs just “doing something” in the wake of an incident.
As we in the U.S. are fast learning, its best to attend to the human end first. As to placing firearms “control” in perspective, in 1939-40-Lend Lease was in effect and many American
weapons were sent to Britain for home defense use by the Home Guard and Army. With all due respect, it would seem that the modern law makers have convinced themselves that the citizenry need protection from themselves. Additionally, that future history does not portend another Hitler whereby weapons might be needed again; or that today’s citizens in the UK,trained and armed-might deter the average violent criminal or above-average terrorist. Remarkable.

I am sure that criminals and terrorists alike are quaking in their boots with these new regulations,,,,,

Hmm, this is perhaps the pertinent bit under ‘scope’:

So you can keep your deacts but they become worthless and an issue when you want to sell them on…

I have to be careful what I say here for fear of being mogged again.:rolleyes:

Yes this is a typical ploy to avoid paying compensation. Placing on the market is an expression that has been argued in every directive and its meaning is inconsistent.

The lack of differentiation between an AK47 and a Vickers or a Browning (SMGs ,LMGs and HMGs) is a big issue since it is quite over the top to weld the latter two solid destroying all technical interest when there is no evidence whatsoever of their criminal reactivation.

This is only the technical bit – and that is bad enough but I suspect that there will be further announcements to follow to bring it up to speed with the hype in the initial Press release (my emphasis).

“Further restrictions to the use and circulation of deactivated firearms. National registries should keep records of deactivated firearms and their owners. Under no circumstances will civilians be authorised to own any of the most dangerous firearms falling under Category A (e.g. a Kalashnikov), which is currently possible if they have been deactivated. The enforcement of the ban is a national responsibility, and Member States have all necessary tools at their disposal including the destruction of illegally held deactivated arms;

I have just checked my facts with the Daily Telegraph article quoted above and found the following
“UPDATE: Since this article was first published, the European Commission has contacted us to make clear that the proposed changes to EU gun laws set out in this article do not affect museums administered by public authorities. We are happy to set the record straight. “

Clearly the commission spin machine is fully engaged, although this will be little comfort to private collectors.

The commission is clearly on the run, make the effort to write your letters! – do not just wait to see what happens

Hmm, this is perhaps the pertinent bit under ‘scope’:

This Regulation shall not apply to firearms deactivated prior to the date of its application, unless those firearms
are transferred to another Member State or placed on the market.

So you can keep your deacts but they become worthless and an issue when you want to sell them on…

Deac Regulations

Here are the regulations

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:JOL_2015_333_R_0007&qid=1450637621527&from=EN

I have an interesting array of replies from many MEPs. Most have concentrated on firearm owners and not deact owners. The poorest response was from Nigel Farages representative which the gist was….we will complain and lobby against it but it will likely get thru anyway! No bulldog spirit there. None said I could not publish the responses, so will post if interest.
My conservative MP Kit Malthouse was disappointing with wishwashy stuff, so disappointed. Best response was from Julie Girling MEP which grasped the issues and was practical.

Rocket, you have propelled me into action and I have just sent out letters. There is also a facility to send comments to the European Commission (I know), you can find the link on www.nra.org.uk (not nra.org that is quite a different thing!).

It is worth remembering that it was presumably the weight of public objections that induced the Blair government to retreat from similar nonsense in 2005.

I have an interesting array of replies from many MEPs. Most have concentrated on firearm owners and not deact owners. The poorest response was from Nigel Farages representative which the gist was….we will complain and lobby against it but it will likely get thru anyway! No bulldog spirit there. None said I could not publish the responses, so will post if interest.
My conservative MP Kit Malthouse was disappointing with wishwashy stuff, so disappointed. Best response was from Julie Girling MEP which grasped the issues and was practical.

I can see that they would exempt museums, most other member states must have similar establishments, the issue though of historic destruction also extends to the many in private hands, both live and those already deactivated, also could include AK47’s privately owned also of some historical value.

Next letter is to those MP’s mentioned to highlight this, if this is pointed out more it may highlight how complex an issue it is, which has stopped previous attempts in this country. Anyway the biggest failing is how will they retrieve all those held privately, do they expect queues of collectors at Police stations eager to hand them in.

If anyone still has any doubts about the potential implications of the guidance – this Telegraph article should remove them

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/12056281/Thousands-of-guns-in-British-museums-could-be-mutilated-under-new-law-from-Brussels.html

As I said before, I don’t see that this new legislation is much more than a headache for aircraft/turret restorers wishing to fit de-act weapons to them.
With all the modern weaponry most of it computerized I find it difficult to believe that terrorists or any such organizations would borrow a Spitfire or Mustang or even a Lancaster and use it as a weapon, or its weapons, because the weapons are fast becoming obsolete, admittedly there have been shootings in recent years but none have been carried out with a Browning .303 or any aircraft mounted gun, they are just too cumbersome.

Legislation doesn’t care about such distinctions. There is not going to be specific piece of legislation – “all AK-47’s are banned” (well there could, but it would be impossible to implement “so AK-47’s are banned, that does not affect AKM’s or AK-74’s then?”). No, they are looking to categorically ban all such items. In fact, almost certainly they will look to ban hunting weapons too, after all, difference is usually only cosmetic.

Anyhow, as said, Finnish ministers have already recorded serious reservations about the proposals, concerning not only shooting sports and reservists, but also gun collectors, live and deactivated weapons alike. There are tens of thousands of deactivated firearms possessed by Finnish civilians (mostly submachine guns), they are completely unregistered and if people don’t want to give them up, enforcing such a ban would be impossible because nobody knows who has them.
Only danger here I see is that to preserve most important items (reservist guns, IPSC and firearms collectors), some lesser items might be thrown under the bus ‘to reach a compromise’ and easiest thing to give up, politically, are deactivated firearms. It would be completely bass-ackwards but that’s politics for you.

I bet that all this proposed “new” legislation has been sitting on a shelf somewhere waiting for a convenient “crisis” to come along to bring it into the light. The bureaucrats will be well prepared for whatever resistance that anyone with a vested interest in the collecting of these pieces will put up.

I really don’t see how you read some sort of superiority complex in my post, the bit that I am concerned with in particular, I have only highlighted that part on here, the possible question of historical significance of a firearm can cover a broad spectrum of types.

The letters I have sent so far, have raised the issues that affect all collectors of deactivated weapons. I cannot add much re live firearms, not because I look down on them in some way either, I think those specific concerns are best in the hands of the various associations, I haven’t been involved in that area for many years, but I will be contacting them as well, to try and support the concerns as a whole.

I am not concerned personally about AK47’s etc, but the dug up remains of say a Browning or a Hispano, just are not comparable and their destruction will not make a jot of difference to affect the activities of Terrorists

JC, you seem to be attempting to draw a distinction between the AK47 and the dug up Browning. Clearly in the live state the AK47 is more of a potential terrorist threat, however when both are deactivated the sitiuation is reversed in that one could be clubbed to death more readily with the Browning.

In my friendly opinion this is doomed to failure – and has failed in the past.

For one thing there are very few collectors of deactivated Brownings and many collectors of deactivated AK47s and for another thing the government and the likes of our friend trackduster do not make the distinction if indeed there is any.

There is no problem with me and I am sure most on here in dealing with the apparent sloppy standards in Europe that I previously was not aware of, but not with rushed and flawed regulations that could affect those who have sought to abide by the law to a much higher standard, and are just not part of the problem, imposing regulation because of how things look is not sensible, that is an issue though for live firearms owners though.

Once historical items are destroyed that is it, I am not concerned personally about AK47’s etc, but the dug up remains of say a Browning or a Hispano, just are not comparable and their destruction will not make a jot of difference to affect the activities of Terrorists, who if you deprive them of guns, will just make bombs, so then what ?.

The security problem they are tackling has other issues like border controls that must be encompassed, but the EU are already resistant despite the current climate to ditching the Schengen treaty, which could make all this fruitless, not EU bashing but that is just how it is now.

If they proposed some sort of historic category with some form of registration I would be more accepting.

As I said before, I don’t see that this new legislation is much more than a headache for aircraft/turret restorers wishing to fit de-act weapons to them.
With all the modern weaponry most of it computerized I find it difficult to believe that terrorists or any such organizations would borrow a Spitfire or Mustang or even a Lancaster and use it as a weapon, or its weapons, because the weapons are fast becoming obsolete, admittedly there have been shootings in recent years but none have been carried out with a Browning .303 or any aircraft mounted gun, they are just too cumbersome.

Sixty three posts have been laboriously removed and we now have something resembling a discussion on what could become an immensely important issue for aircraft preservation and museums in the near future. There were some insightful and knowledgeable comments on deactivation and other matters that had to go. I apologise to their originators that these were swept-up in the general clearout.

Moggy
Moderator

Since almost all of my comments, some of which did comment directly on the OP, have been removed can I say again, on topic, that I am content for this EU legislation to continue as I am not convinced of the arguments against so far put forward. It is my opinion of course, others clearly disagree.

Thanks for that

Sixty three posts have been laboriously removed and we now have something resembling a discussion on what could become an immensely important issue for aircraft preservation and museums in the near future. There were some insightful and knowledgeable comments on deactivation and other matters that had to go. I apologise to their originators that these were swept-up in the general clearout.

Moggy
Moderator

As a private individual in the UK you have already lost that freedom under the Violent Crime reduction Act 2006.

Not necessarily.

– even if the Vickers Ks would have been just external replicas.

As a private individual in the UK you have already lost that freedom under the Violent Crime reduction Act 2006.