https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com...-ban-proposal/
Printable View
Because the existing ban on automatic weapons did so much for them this week ...
Haha, sure!! I'm sure terrorist would be happy to follow the rules!
"Hey guys! Let's disarm as much as possible for the Middle East invasion!"
How can they have so much history and be so blind? I'm truly stumped.
The Trans Atlantic Stoopid Pipeline is intact.
Well, that's that, then . . . terrorism is defeated in Europe. That was easy.
They can write whatever feel good laws they'd like. AKs can still be had for anyone with a modest amount of Euro.
Perhaps they should consider banning Cell Phones. Denying people access minimizes the potential of terrorist to organize and proceed with attacks against non-military targets.
This would actually save more lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
Can't- there Obammaphones.....[facepalm]Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
Well seeing how eyesis is contained, yup.....thatll do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramsker
Hello? Did you guys actually read the document? I did, and it has nothing to do with a ban.... just saying. Plus: it wont pass. The german, belge, poles have strong gun ownership and will vote against it.
This would achieve the same result as pissing into the wind.
I read through it, and it looks like it is talking about banning semi-auto rifles that look like military rifles, among a ton of other new restrictions.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthabagah
The People no matter how strong they feel, rarely trump their Leaders. As we in CO have witnessed more than 1 - 2 times. I know CO HAS Strong GUN OWNERSHIP and the D's / politicians flushed us down the shitter like a kids diaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthabagah
ETA:
I STAND CORRECTED. THE Article mentions BAN numerous times. Yet they reference the Actual BAN in paragraph 6
HELLO............................................. ........ Yes i read it. Clearly you glazed over the 1st paragraph. In fact ( see my ETA above) you MISSED the word BAN, 7 TIMES.
. As expected, the proposal amounts to a constructive ban on virtually all semi-auto rifles and will have little or no effect on terrorists and other criminals
PARAGRAPH 3
The EU wants to ban all semi-auto rifles that look like military firearms.
PARAGRAPH 6 SUBSECTION A.(or what ever it's called)????? (here's the actual wording of the BAN)
Key wording of the ban, at clause 13(a)(i):“Semi-automatic firearms for civilian use which resemble weapons with automatic mechanisms”PARAGRAPH 8
PARAGRAPH 7
This is surprisingly clear language from the EU. It is a straight attempt to ban firearms because of their form, not function. As worded, the ban would also cover semi-auto pistols, particularly the long barrel versions popular in the UK
EU member states will be required to tell the EU Commission how they have implemented the ban once it is rubber-stamped by the EU “parliament”
Least i forget How about the HEADLINE HELLO
Breaking – EU publishes semi-auto firearm ban proposal
Sorry but i dont think you read it. The only ban will be for category A weapon which are already banned anyway... it will be a total ban this time, so not even a dealer can own one. These are active military full or semi auto. The rest of the directive talk about deactivated military weapon. Useless anyway except if you know how to reactivate them.... this will become harder.
Finally: its only a directive, and will need to be implemented... it will take forever to implement if ever.
Again: just saying. Its fine if you disagree, but i used to live over there and still have some registered firearm under my name so i keep myself appraised of what could affect me.
Sincerely.
Boy, they threw a 19-page amendment directive (plus multiple translations) together very quickly. I suppose someone would accuse me of tin foil hattism to think someone had this waiting in the wings so they could take advantage of any tragedy that might pop up ...Quote:
The main elements of the proposed revision are:
- Stricter rules to ban certain semi-automatic firearms, which will not, under any circumstance, be allowed to be held by private persons, even if they have been permanently deactivated;
- Tighter rules on the online acquisition of firearms, to avoid the acquisition of firearms, key parts or ammunition through the Internet;
- EU common rules on marking of firearms to improve the traceability of weapons;
- Better exchange of information between Member States, for example on any refusal of authorisation to own a firearm decided by another national authority, and obligation to interconnect national registers of weapons;
- Common criteria concerning alarm weapons (e.g. distress flares and starter pistols)in order to prevent their transformation into fully functioning firearms;
- Stricter conditions for the circulation of deactivated firearms;
- Stricter conditions for collectors to limit the risk of sale to criminals.
As I understand it, Categoy A are fully automatic weapons. This is the section ruthabagah is referring to but next is the one that is attracting attention (my red emphasis):Quote:
Recent attacks have been conducted with badly deactivated firearms (or firearms assembled with badly deactivated components).
The proposal to introduce shortly, through an implementing regulation, stringent minimum common guidelines regarding the deactivation of firearms will render reactivation much more difficult. It cannot be excluded that deactivated arms will be reactivated despite stringent rules. Consequently, for the most dangerous firearms (category A) stricter rules have been introduced – even if they are deactivated. This means that deactivated firearms from Category A will not be allowed to be owned nor traded (except for museums)
So what's Category B7? I can't find B7 specifically but the following are Category B under the existing directive. I suppose ruthabagah doesn't have any of the following since he's confident the proposed directive won't affect him:Quote:
the evaluation study concludes that some semi-automatic arms can be easily converted to automatic arms, and the existing Directive does not provide any technical criteria to prevent such conversion. However, even in the absence of conversion to category 'A', certain semi-automatic firearms can be very dangerous when their capacity regarding the number of rounds is high. The proposal bans the semi-automatic weapons which are included in the current category 'B7'.
Then of course, there's the anti-Internet language (because the Internet is bad unless it's used forQuote:
Category B – Subject to Authorization
- Semiautomatic or repeating short firearms
- Single-shot short firearms with center-fire percussion
- Single-shot firearms with center-fire percussion that are less than 28 cm in length
- Semiautomatic long firearms whose magazines and chambers can together hold more than three rounds
- Repeating and semiautomatic long firearms not longer than 60 cm in length
- Semiautomatic firearms for civilian use that resemble weapons with automatic mechanisms
Socialistanti-WesternGreengood purposes like warning aboutglobal warmingclimate change:
Oh yeah, you evil collectors might warp minds so we're going to lump you in with the terrorists, just because .... y'know .... Europe!Quote:
Existing Directive specifies that "Member States shall ensure that, except with respect to dealers, the acquisition of firearms and their parts and munition by means of distance communication …shall, where authorised, be strictly controlled".
The proposal considers a stricter approach: not accepting selling of arms and components by means of distance communication (notably internet), except for dealers and brokers.
Quote:
Since collectors have been identified as a possible source of traffic of firearms, they should be covered by this Directive.
I did send an email last night and got the answer overnight. The only change will be in the b7 category: "les armes chambrant les calibres suivants : 7,62 x 39 ; 5,56 x 45 ; 5,45 x 39 russe ; 12,7 x 99 ; 14,5 x 114,"
Total ban on long gun of these caliber. Which is funny, because they have already been banned in some part of europe for a long time... and also, it looks lime that at least one of the ak recovered at the bataclan was listed as "demilled" a while back....
Pure stupidity. They should be arming their people to defend themselves.
BUT, BUT, That would be Common Sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by sniper7
...and we can't have ANY of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
pas le sens commun
Yep: that's why I am here and not there....Quote:
Originally Posted by Spdu4ia
I received an email from a close friend in Vienna this morning. He stated that if the proposal passed, he does not "forecast a high level of compliance".
-his language was a good bit more colorful than that though.
Für sie gutQuote:
Originally Posted by hatidua
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...al-forces.html
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...18_634x422.jpg
The grabbers should be asked if anything on this table is currently legal. If not, then what's the point.
This clearly demonstrates their enemy doesn't have any barriers to resources or hang ups with gun control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip
Nice MP5K. One of the other pics sure show what looks like an MP5SD, not familiar with the box those come in, or if it's airsoft or 22lr. And a folding stock "AR variant"? Sig?