EU Public consultation on firearms

Sparks

Received by email:

Dear All,

We have been briefed on a public consultation launched by the Home Affairs Commission of the EU concerning the possession of firearms by citizens. This commission seeks to establish a link between sporting use of firearms and criminality and from there a justification for imposing unreasonable restrictions on firearms ownership. We must urge all firearms license holders to participate in this consultation by completing the questionnaire on the consultation link in the attached brief. Please do not leave this to others to do. It is vitally important that the Home Affairs Commissioner is denied the public opinion argument to pursue this very biased and restrictive agenda.

Regards,

Des Crofton
National Director
NARGC

The relevant brief:

EU public consultation on firearms: hunters’ contribution is needed
Deadline: 17th June

There are a number of recent international and EU initiatives in relation to firearms that are likely to have a direct impact on hunters and other shooters. Those initiatives include:

• public allegations made by EU Home Affairs Commissioner Malmström and officials under her authority about the link between legal ownership of firearms and illicit trafficking in firearms;
• the adoption of an Arms Trade Treaty by the United Nations; the recent tabling of a proposal by the European Commission to ratify the United Nations Firearms Protocol;
• the setting up of a EU firearms experts group; and the launch by the Commission of a public consultation on firearms, which is the subject of this Notification.

It seems that the Commission’s main objective with this public consultation “on a common approach to reducing the harm caused by criminal use of firearms in the EU” is to obtain some legitimacy from public opinion in order to make the existing EU rules on legal acquisition and possession of civilian firearms more restrictive.

Organisations and individuals ideologically opposed to firearms and/or hunting are expected to reply to the consultation. Therefore, it is essential that all firearms owners reply to the consultation and encourage hunters (and, if possible, other stakeholders that share similar views) to do likewise. If the majority of responses to the consultation show no support for further restrictions or EU action on firearms rules, it will be difficult for the Commission to use public opinion as an excuse for re-opening the Firearms Directive.

Most of the 25 questions in the consultation are biased and have a formulation that seeks to predetermine the answer. All the questions have at least some relevance for the legal ownership of firearms and some of them could directly affect hunters and other sports shooters.

• Question C.2 insinuates that the list of prohibited firearms should be extended (it is believed that the Commission is referring to semiautomatic rifles and maybe also to semiautomatic shotguns and handguns).
• Question C.4 pursues the mandatory use of locking devices in firearms.
• Question C.7 would provide a justification to introduce compulsory mental health tests and supress the current derogation that allows people under the age of 18 to hunt and sport-shoot if they have parental permission or guidance.
• Question C.8 aims at requiring that all firearms (and ammunition) be subject to authorisation, which would have negative implications not only in countries where there is a formal distinction between authorisation and declaration of firearms but also in countries where there are flexible arrangements for certain hunting firearms.
• Question D.2 could result in a genera requirement to store firearms in an approved safe (this is already the case in Ireland).

Recommendations:

1. Go to http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=ReduceFirearmsRisk
2. Choose your language in the icon that is in the upper right part of the screen.
3. Indicate your country, whether you are an individual or an organisation and your name or the name of your organisation.
4. Answer the questions by clicking on option “1” for each one of them. For some questions, it may seem that answering option 1 is a bit extreme but it should be borne in mind that virtually all questions are biased and have been formulated precisely to compel the reader to agree that some EU action is needed. Furthermore, national legislation on all issues addressed in the questions already exists. You do not need to answer the optional questions that request additional comments (questions B.4, C.11, D.5 and E.6).
5. After having answered the questions, as a security measure to avoid computer-generated replies, you will have to type in the numbers and/or letters that will be displayed in your screen and validate them.
6. Your answers will have been submitted by then. You can view them and/or save them as a PDF.

The deadline to reply to the consultation is 17th June 2013.

And the actual EU survey itself is here: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=ReduceFirearmsRisk

If you don't want to be sitting here in five years time asking why the law has changed and how you can go about stopping it only to be told you're five years too late to be asking... well, click on that link and fill out the survey. It takes less than five minutes and it's a multiple choice format - if you don't want to type essays, you don't have to, all you'll have to type in is your name.

Conmaicne Mara

Done, and will spread it around.

Vegeta

Done too

extremetaz

Done and shared.

aaakev

Done

sfakiaman

Done

dCorbus

Spreading the word!

long range shooter

Done and have spread the word

Cass

All done.

Unlike other petitions/surveys this one relates to us all as firearm owners, and can have an impact on us if we do not give our opinion. Remember if the EU implement any changes they are the minimum standards, and each country can impose stricter controls, but not lesser controls. So if the EU tighten up things, and our government decide to go another step again (which has and does happen) we could be left with less than we have now.


So don't wait for others to do it. It takes a couple of minute, if that, for the entire survey. Fill it in, and have your say.

vapour_trail

Done and essay submitted

wexfordman2

done

graineog

done

yubabill1

ditto

OzCam

Is this survey open to those of us who don't actually own firearms, but have an interest in reasonable, and evidence-based policy?

I ask as someone who's tired of reading shouted rubbish from both sides in the US Arms Control "debate", and who has seen the same kind of biased surveys successfully fought back with facts in other social areas.

If anyone here would like to see how it's done for other topics, I highly recommend you read Dr Brooke Magnanti's blog for some useful examples.

So do you want non-owners to take the survey too?

It wasn't me!

Anyone else find the survey is constructed to achieve a certain answer? I mean, look at the EU's Role section and the first question. There's one negative option and four affirmative ones. Also, some of those questions are rather disturbing!

C.4. To what extent should the EU establish binding rules and standards on technical security features for firearms, to help ensure that only the rightful owner of a firearm may use it? O.o

Cass

@ Ozcam - It is not our survey. The first post explains the survey, and who is running it. So any "templates" of previous surveys are somewhat moot (no offence).

Also it has nothing to do with the US. It is EU based, and any mention of firearm laws in the US or the social implications have nothing to do with EU matters. It is about the control of firearms,and prevention of illegal firearms, and the trading of such within the EU.

@ It wasn't me - I noticed that my "choice(s)" were somewhat limited, and did not reflect my thoughts. I went on to explain some of my choices later in the survey. For what it might be worth.

yubabill1

OzCam wrote: »

Is this survey open to those of us who don't actually own firearms, but have an interest in reasonable, and evidence-based policy?

So do you want non-owners to take the survey too?

It's a public consultation, so it's open to everyone, OzCam.

OzCam

@Cass,

I fear you misunderstood my post.

I'm well aware how hard it it to write surveys without bias (it really, really is), and how easy it is to write something which subtly steers the reader in a direction you want them to take.

I see something similar happening here, and as someone with several friends in the shooting community I'd like to help you argue against this kind of conviction-based manipulation of opinion.

My reference to the US situation is based on the conviction that you need to fight back against these tactics with facts, solid research and evidence. Rhetoric (as in the US) sounds good to those already convinced, but it doesn't help you sway the large middle ground of public opinion who will believe the "all guns are bad" propaganda if it's fed to them often enough. Similar tactics are being used elsewhere, and other social areas may give you ideas of how to fight back.

As was said above, the democratic way to affect European policy is to get in early. Now's your chance. Use it or lose it.

Edit: I've just started reading the preamble to the survey, and already have noticed the leading phraseology. It's subtle, but it's depressingly familiar. The good news is that I've seen that kind of "survey" picked apart and demolished, so it can be done.

Edit2: I answered 2 to some of the questions, but the survey doesn't make clear who originated it, what their affiliations are, what the definition of "harm" is, what the definition of "arms traffiking" is, or it's actual extent, what timescales/quantities/impacts are involved in either of the above, what the underlying assumptions are... and there are no citations quoted or evidence provided. Very poor, and as an EU citizen I expect my taxes to be better spent.

Cass

My point is the survey was not started by any froup for or against (although the options would seem to contradict that). So anyone is free to complete it.

My fear, as you stated, is that we have the "guns are bad m'kay" attitude from a majority of uneducated people that hate firearms simply because they are firearms. Not to mention those that dislike them as they cannot distinguish between illegal firearms used for criminal purposes, and those that are legally held by law abiding people.

I am always fearful of uneducated responses, but whatever about the outcome i would hate to think members of shooting community did not get a chance to voice their opinions.

No argument intended or sought.

duckman!!

done and shared!!!

Half-cocked

Done

extremetaz

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Anyone else find the survey is constructed to achieve a certain answer? I mean, look at the EU's Role section and the first question. There's one negative option and four affirmative ones. Also, some of those questions are rather disturbing!

C.4. To what extent should the EU establish binding rules and standards on technical security features for firearms, to help ensure that only the rightful owner of a firearm may use it? O.o

That is somewhat painfully obvious alright.

Where a question was dubious in that regard I entered either that no action should be taken or that I had no opinion - in the latter case stating my reasoning in the comments box with a reference to the point in question.

For example, I believe it was the second question on the first page which required you to have full knowledge of the law throughout the EU in order for your answer to be anything other than speculation.

Pretty much the only section I was even semi-inclined to see the EU get involved in was deactivation procedures (because we don't have any) and firearms trafficing (because that MIGHT actually do something about the real problem).

wolf 999

done

juice1304

They should just ban them all like illicit drugs because that worked out so well.

Grizzly 45

Done and sent FWIW!:rolleyes:

2011

Done

German pointer

Done

mayhem#

Done and shared via Social Media.

session savage

done and shared.

meathstevie

It wasn't me! wrote: »

..........
C.4. To what extent should the EU establish binding rules and standards on technical security features for firearms, to help ensure that only the rightful owner of a firearm may use it? O.o

That's a wide open question, it could cover a fingerprint lock on your gunsafe as well as should staff at commercial claygrounds do everthing within their means to prevent a dodgy customer to walk away with a shotgun and 500 cartridges...

Completed the survey as well...

It wasn't me!

Yeah, but access and use are different, and given how carefully they've worded the rest of this you've got to wonder what sort of measures they have in mind, current and imminent future.