New EU directive on firearms

Sparks

Hmmm. So there's a new EU directive coming up on firearms, AP-0276/2007, possibly up for final vote late this year or early next year if I've read this right.

It's an interesting tradeoff - it has in it these two paragraphs. First of all, Member States can't grant licences for firearms except to people who are:

(a) are at least 18 years of age, except in relation to the acquisition and possession of firearms for hunting and target shooting, provided that in that case persons less than 18 years of age are under the supervision and guidance of an adult with a valid firearms license or are within a licensed training centre;

Which isn't great. It means that you can't get the licence at 16 anymore and you'd be reliant on the training licence from 14 to 18.

"In return", however, there's this:

(9c) The European Firearms Pass functions in a satisfactory way in the main and should be regarded as the only document needed by hunters and marksmen to transfer a firearm to another Member State.

Which would mean we'd be able to get the EFP to act as a temporary visitors permit to go to the rest of the EU - or to have the rest of the EU come here. Meaning more international matches on Irish soil.

There's also implications for PULSE:

(6) Moreover, while the Protocol provides that the period during which the registers containing information on the weapons are kept must be increased to at least ten years, it is necessary to prolong this period up to
a minimum period of 20 years in order to allow the proper tracing of firearms. It is also necessary that Member States keep a computerised and centralised data filing system in which each firearm is attributed a unique identification number and in which the name and address of every successive owner is mentioned. Access by police and judicial authorities to the information contained in the central register must be subject to compliance
with Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

So PULSE would have to be fixed (reducing resistance to changing over to the One Person One Licence approach, at least if done right), and the information in it would be a bit more private, at least in theory.

It's an interesting choice, isn't it?

I'm still reading it, but part of me is thinking that we're definitely losing something for the opportunity to gain some significant things, and that that's not a great situation; but the other half thinks that those significant things are very significant indeed...

The proposed directive itself is here:
http://www.targetshootingireland.org/Documents/IMCO_REPORT_Weapons_Directive.pdf

And the status update on where it is on the route through the EU voting procedure and so on is here:
http://www.targetshootingireland.org/Documents/KallenbachProcedures.pdf

CJhaughey

Very interesting indeed, basically it means that Ireland could/will? be dragged kicking and screaming into a modern version of firearms transferability.
I wonder what the implications are for the UK with a total handgun ban? This may make it easier for their o-l-y-m-p-i-c athletes too?

Sparks

I wonder what the implications are for the UK with a total handgun ban?

Probably none. EU directives tend to say "you can have this, this and this, so long as your local government says okay". Which the Home Office aren't about to do, too much egg for faces involved.

Sparks

CJhaughey wrote:

I wonder what the implications are for the UK with a total handgun ban?

Yeah, I thought not:

(2i) Article 12, paragraph 2 shall be amended as follows:
(a) the first subparagraph shall be replaced by the following:

"Notwithstanding paragraph 1, hunters and marksmen may without prior authorization be in possession of one or more firearms during a journey through two or more Member States with a view to engaging in their activities, provided that they are in possession of a European firearms pass listing such firearm or firearms. No other document shall be required by Member States to that end. Member States may not make acceptance of a European firearms pass conditional upon any additional registration requirement or the payment of any fee or charge.";

(b) the second subparagraph shall be replaced by the following:

"However, the derogation referred to in the first subparagraph shall not apply to journeys to a Member State which prohibits the acquisition and possession of the firearm in question; in that case, an express statement to that effect shall be entered on the European firearms pass."

So the green giveth and the blue taketh away, so far as the UK's concerned.

Later on, they reinforce the whole "your EFP is all you need" philosophy:

(bb) In Annex II, point (f), the second paragraph shall be replaced by the following:

"The prior authorisation referred to above is not necessary in order to travel with a firearm with a view to engaging in hunting or for the purpose of taking part in target shooting, on condition that the traveller is in possession of a European firearm pass."

And in the explanitory text later on:

As mentioned in the Commission's 2000 report and in view of a proper functioning of the
internal market, Member States should not be allowed to require documents or fees other
than the European Firearms Pass regarding the circulation of hunters and marksmen.

Y'know, this could be a very good thing for target shooting as a sport in this country...

rrpc

It looks to me that in the main this is exactly what we need. The negative aspects of the age limit can be overcome and seeing as we are in the process of introducung a training cert that seems to fall into line with the directive, I think that bit is covered off satisfactorily.

The under 18 thing although a little annoying, really should not be much of a problem providing that the training cert is properly implemented. It certainly removes the anomaly in the 2006 act which made a three year licence effectively a two year one in the case of training certs.

It only remains to increase the training cert to four years in order to make it less unwieldy.

It's certainly about time that the EU put its foot down regarding the Firearms Pass. It was a complete joke with so many countries effectively ignoring it.

Of course there will be the usual delay in actually implementing it.

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

Of course there will be the usual delay in actually implementing it.

True. But the DoJ is surprisingly good at implementing EU directives. Even if they hustle however, this is still not voted through at EU level yet - so we're looking at next year at the earliest.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

True. But the DoJ is surprisingly good at implementing EU directives. Even if they hustle however, this is still not voted through at EU level yet - so we're looking at next year at the earliest.

True, but it really is only half the job if we implement it. For this to be of any real benefit to shooters it needs to be implemented EU-wide.

Expect the UK to take a couple of decades :mad:

Sparks

For us going out, yes; but for others coming in, no - and the latter would mean we could not only sort out internationals like those held by Fermoy and the Midlands with a lot less effort, but that their attendances would go up, and the N.I. shooters could come here a lot more easily; all of which could drive up numbers in our own sport down here, both on the entry sheets and on the scoreboard.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

For us going out, yes; but for others coming in, no - and the latter would mean we could not only sort out internationals like those held by Fermoy and the Midlands with a lot less effort, but that their attendances would go up, and the N.I. shooters could come here a lot more easily; all of which could drive up numbers in our own sport down here, both on the entry sheets and on the scoreboard.

I realise that, which is why I said it was half the job. I understand the importance of the importing of shooters, but the problem is reciprocation with our Northern brethern who would expect us to attend their shoots with the same regularity.

I'm not complaining really, I think it would be a great improvement on the current situation.

maglite

"are at least 18 years of age, except in relation to the acquisition and possession of firearms for hunting and target shooting"

this would seem to sugest you must be 18 to have a gun for reasons other than targets/hunting

ie if you want a gun for self defence you must be 18

Sparks

Yup. And since you can't get a firearms cert for self-defence in Ireland, that doesn't affect us too much...

maglite

so we get no change in ages due to the directive

correct?

so i dont see a prob with the traning situation

Sparks

Yup, looks like a year, minimum.
Mind you, it's still good news.

SMERSH

Will the europass simply make the FAC redundant?

I asked the local gardaí for a europass the other day and they looked at me as if I had 3 heads. :eek:

Sparks

No, the Europass won't make the firearms cert redundant, the shooter still has to have paperwork from his home Member State; it'd just mean that visitors permits and temporary passes and the like would be a thing of the past.

There's other stuff in there as well, by the way, which would bugger up the restricted list draft that's been talked about in here so much because it's talking about restructuring the classification of firearms within the EU, going from classes A through D to a simpler, two class system - prohibited firearms and firearms held under authorisation (which would include firearms where no authorisation is needed). Given that the draft list included references to classes A through D, it'd make a dogs dinner out of the list.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

There's other stuff in there as well, by the way, which would bugger up the restricted list draft that's been talked about in here so much because it's talking about restructuring the classification of firearms within the EU, going from classes A through D to a simpler, two class system - prohibited firearms and firearms held under authorisation (which would include firearms where no authorisation is needed). Given that the draft list included references to classes A through D, it'd make a dogs dinner out of the list.

It might make it easier to draft though, if the prohibited ones were by and large what the Gardai thought should be restricted.

Maybe this is what's delaying the process?

Sparks

It would, but we both know the Gardai are overly conservative in this area.
I don't think it's the reason for the delay though, I think the DoJ just decided to let the dust settle after McDowell left before they proceeded. I don't think this whole CJA is the current Minister's idea of a good idea. Certainly this idea of an inter-departmental panel sounds like someone who's looking for consensus instead of driving his own ideas. Which is a good thing... but takes a lot longer.

rrpc

Sparks wrote:

I don't think it's the reason for the delay though, I think the DoJ just decided to let the dust settle after McDowell left before they proceeded.

Except there were long delays even when McDowell was still in office. And since this new directive has been around since March (if I'm reading it correctly), then it may well have influenced McDowell into a wait and see approach.

I don't think this whole CJA is the current Minister's idea of a good idea. Certainly this idea of an inter-departmental panel sounds like someone who's looking for consensus instead of driving his own ideas. Which is a good thing... but takes a lot longer.

McDowells answer to everything was to write more law. Granted, new ideas could necessitate new laws, but the starting point is new ideas

Sparks

rrpc wrote:

Except there were long delays even when McDowell was still in office. And since this new directive has been around since March (if I'm reading it correctly), then it may well have influenced McDowell into a wait and see approach.

I don't know - it could well be. But this isn't due to be voted on until late this year, so he may also have just ignored it on the basis that it'd be changed by the time it came to the vote.

McDowells answer to everything was to write more law. Granted, new ideas could necessitate new laws, but the starting point is new ideas

And preferably good new ideas

cantona

I'm no lawyer but according to this website new firearms directives were voted for on 11/06/07 and PASSED on 12/07/07.

Pay particular reference to Amendment 21, Article 1, Point 2E(New) Article 12,paragraph 2
on page 42/47.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A6-2007-0276+0+DOC+WORD+V0//EN&language=EN


Would a more legally person please comment on the above ?

Awaiting replies.

Sparks

If I've read it right cantona, the relevant committee reached agreement on the wording of the proposal. Final vote looked like 41 for, non against; I was of the impression there were more than 41 MEPs in total. The status from the report linked to above was EP decision pending, 1st reading or one reading only, so there's more to come as yet as I understand it. But don't take that as gospel if you can get an EU lawyer to comment

Sparks

Yup, there's a page on the progress of the directive here and if you look at the Forecasts part, it has:

28/11/2007 EP: probable part-session scheduled by the DG of the Presidency, 1st reading
06/12/2007 Council: debate or examination expected

So early december for the vote it seems. Then, say, six months to an SI enacting the directive in Irish law, and then it's about a thousand times easier to host an international event on Irish soil

FLAG

The attachment is the report from the European Parliament containing their proposed amendments to the original Commission proposal. The current Presidency has since drafted a compromise text which it hopes will be agreed by EP in due course thus allowing the Directive to be agreed at first reading. That's a while off yet and Member States will have two years to transpose the Directive.

Regards
Declan Keogh
FLAG

meathstevie

Just a little sideline there Sparks, that sort of thing in the EU parliament is quite often treated in committee. Every fraction in the parliament, some containing over 100 MEP's delegate a limited number of their members to a "committee" set up to deal with a certain issue and they trash out the nitty gritty.
When it comes to a full parliamentary vote on an issue the fraction in general then just follows their committee members advice. I wouldn't be surprised that in this particular one a fair few gun owners were part of the committee, hunting is still a very big deal in the likes of Austria, Germany, Spain, France, Italy and Poland. I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it yet because in the end it's the commission who decides ( virtually inaccountable civil servants ), the only thing the parliament can do is bounce the directive back to the commission a few times. One exception is the EU budget where the parliament has a de facto veto but that realy is beside the point here.. .

All in all quite similar to the way they work on Kildare Street, you hardly get any plenairy debates there either...

IRLConor

meathstevie wrote: »

in the end it's the commission who decides ( virtually inaccountable civil servants )

Worse! They're all politicians, not civil servants. Spot on about the accountability though. :-/ The commission is accountable as a whole to the parliament - the parliament can vote to force the entire commission to resign but there's no mechanism to check "trouble" commissioners.

The people who work for the commission are civil servants of course (as with all government-style bodies I know of).

Sparks

And this has been passed by the Parliment and forwarded on to the Council, with some amendments.

See here for the adopted text.

Highlights:

• Firearms ownership records must be kept for 20 years - if a firearms dealer goes out of business they're required to hand over all records to the national record-keeping body (this starts from 2014)
• The European Firearms Pass ... should be regarded as the main document needed by hunters and marksmen to transfer a firearm to another Member State. This is a change from "only document" and will probably allow the UK to keep it's "visitor's permit" system; however we could petition our lot to accept it as the only document needed for visitors, so we could run International events for target shooting here more easily.
• The EU firearms classification system is going from 4 categories to 2; Member states are not, however, required to simplify their systems if they have more than 2 categories, they're just encouraged to.
• Under-18s may not hold a firearms licence except for hunting/target shooting and with "parental consent or guidance of an adult with a valid firearms or hunting license or [...] within a licensed training or otherwise approved centre". In other words, the straight firearms cert in Ireland, as issued to anyone aged 16 or 17, will be illegal under EU directives when this comes into force, unless they get parental consent. In practise, a lot of Gardai already look for this, so it shouldn't make a huge impact.
• "hunters, in respect of categories C and D, and marksmen, in respect of category B, C and D, may without prior authorization be in possession of one or more firearms during a journey through two or more Member States with a view to engaging in their activities, provided that they are in possession of a European firearms pass listing such firearm or firearms and provided that they are able to substantiate the reasons for their journey, in particular by producing an invitation or another proof of their hunting or sport-shooting activities in the Member State of destination." In other words, if you're going to France to shoot in a competition and have your invite, you don't need any documentation other than the European Firearms Pass for the UK if you're going by car and ferry across the UK to France and back.
• Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by [24 months after the entry into force ] at the latest. And the entry into force is 20 days after publication in the "Official Journal of the European Union".

sidneyreilly

Whens best to kick off the petition?

Sparks wrote: »

In other words, if you're going to France to shoot in a competition and have your invite, you don't need any documentation other than the European Firearms Pass for the UK if you're going by car and ferry across the UK to France and back.
".[/list]

I take it that firearms prohibited in the member state in question are the exeption to this? I.e. travel through Britain with a pistol or semi-auto center fire rifle?

Will make life easier for those going hunting in Scotland via Belfast, no need for NI transit pass.

Sparks

I take it that firearms prohibited in the member state in question are the exeption to this?

Good question. The only exemption to this I saw (though I wasn't looking for one at the time and I've not much time to dig into it right now) was that you couldn't do this for stuff that the destination Member State didn't allow you to own.

les45

The principal benifit would be that the Euro Pass would be sufficent for entry into Ireland to compete in target shooting events, I would have concerns as to the NARGC reaction to any changes that would affect the issue of a Game Licence for visitors!! they may see this as a return to the days of the EU blackbird shooters! per se this may be a sticking point with the Dept Of Justice . As for travelling by car in the UK with sporting firearms , I doubt if the UK Home Office will accept such a change ! I hope I am wrong .

Sparks

I can understand the NARGC's point of view on that, but the way the directive is worded, you can satisfy both camps by saying that an EFP and an invitation to a target shooting match is sufficient, but an EFP and plans to go shoot deer is not.

I've never understood why it was necessary to wholly eliminate the idea of a visitor's permit for all forms of shooting in order to have some semblence of control over visiting hunters, to be quite honest.

sidneyreilly

Would make more sense that a "visitor hunting permit" be issued and leave the firearms to the europass.