EU Public consultation on firearms

meathstevie

It wasn't me! wrote: »

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.

Keeping in mind that firearms legislation in other EU member states is often less restricted than in Ireland I reckon that it could well be a matter of thightening up or at least attempting to do so accross the board as there probably are hundreds of thousands of firearms accross the EU that have never been registered or otherwise accounted for in any official record.

Once the day comes that firearms legislation accross the EU would be harmonised I reckon there could be some interesting and not necessarily good times for law abiding gun owners.

What puzzled me somewhat is the use of terminology like "stockpile" and references to arms trafficking and all; they're not terms one would associate with civilian firearms ownership.

Victor

It wasn't me! wrote: »

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.

Given that it is an international survey, I suspect the author didn't have English as a mother tongue. I think parts of it weren't carefully worded.

meathstevie wrote: »

What puzzled me somewhat is the use of terminology like "stockpile" and references to arms trafficking and all; they're not terms one would associate with civilian firearms ownership.

Realise that in some places, guns can probably be bought 'over the counter' and in other places you can buy pretty much any military equipment you want. Some operators in the gun industry will have access to thousands or even hundreds of thousands of firearms. In the US, they intercepted an undeclared shipment from Romania with something like 6,000 AK-47s - I get the impression mostly junk condition, but that's enough for a medium-sized army.

Sparks

Victor wrote: »

Given that it is an international survey, I suspect the author didn't have English as a mother tongue. I think parts of it weren't carefully worded.

Perhaps not, but the EU require fluency in english or french to work there; you'd think they could have found someone who'd be fluent, given that legislation has a habit of being written in english and the wording tends to matter...

Realise that in some places, guns can probably be bought 'over the counter' and in other places you can buy pretty much any military equipment you want.

No, not in the EU. There are already basic rules in place across the EU (directive 91/477/EEC) that set a basic standard - anything "military" in the normal use of the word, is category A and needs special permission from your local government to own.

We're talking here about regulation of firearms ownership; regulation of firearms trade is something else entirely, and they're not going to be asking the public about that.

Victor

C.1 In EU law (Directive 91/477/EEC), a firearm is defined as 'any portable barrelled weapon that expels, is designed to expel or may be converted to expel a shot, bullet or projectile by the action of a combustible propellant...'

Just to pick that sentence apart. The definition is weak and open to reinterpretation in light of historic (longbow, crossbow, air rifle) and novel (electro-magnets used to propel projectiles, energy weapons, etc.) technologies.

* Once a gun is not portable, this definition doesn't apply. What if it can still fire artillery shells at the next country?

* What of weapons that don't have recognisable barrels, e.g. a sawn-off shotgun?

* Is "combustion" the correct term to use for a self-oxidising (most 'explosives') chemical reaction? "Combustion is the sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species."

* What if it uses some other mechanism as a propellent, without combustion - compressed gas, springs, electro-magnets, novel non-combustion chemical reaction, etc.

* What of modern or novel projectiles and harm-causing technologies - stun guns, chemical sprays, lasers, microwaves, etc.

Sparks wrote: »

We're talking here about regulation of firearms ownership; regulation of firearms trade is something else entirely, and they're not going to be asking the public about that.

You may be talking about the regulation of firearms ownership, but they are doing something (ambiguously) different.

To what extent should the EU establish rules controlling the sale and purchase of firearms and their components over the internet?

To what extent should the EU establish rules on arms fairs which take place in the EU?

To what extent should the EU establish common binding rules for verifying that firearms have been destroyed or that they may no longer be reused in whole or in part?

Those are very much proliferation / trade-related questions.

To what extent should the EU take further action for ensuring the secure management of all arms stockpiles in the EU?

"Stockpile" isn't a 'normal' English words and has specific connotations that extends well beyond normal personal ownership.

To what extent should the EU, in its agreements with third countries in its neighbourhood, include action to tackle trafficking in firearms?

This extends the survey beyond the EU, not only to the EEA, but to the former-USSR, former-Yugolsavia, North Africa and the Middle East.

Sparks

Victor wrote: »

Just to pick that sentence apart. The definition is weak and open to reinterpretation in light of historic (longbow, crossbow, air rifle) and novel (electro-magnets used to propel projectiles, energy weapons, etc.) technologies.

That's not the full definition. You need to read all of Annex 1 of the directive, that's where the full definition is listed.

Once a gun is not portable, this definition doesn't apply. What if it can still fire artillery shells at the next country?

(a) if you can carry it, good luck to you
(b) it'd be category A anyway:

Category A — Prohibited firearms
1. Explosive military missiles and launchers.
2. Automatic firearms.
3. Firearms disguised as other objects.
4. Ammunition with penetrating, explosive or incendiary projectiles,
and the projectiles for such ammunition.
5. Pistol and revolver ammunition with expanding projectiles and the
projectiles for such ammunition, except in the case of weapons for
hunting or for target shooting, for persons entitled to use them

(see the consolidated EU directive here).

What of weapons that don't have recognisable barrels, e.g. a sawn-off shotgun?

Still covered. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it hasn't got a barrel (see also item 3 on the category A list above)

Is "combustion" the correct term to use for a self-oxidising (most 'explosives') chemical reaction? "Combustion is the sequence of exothermic chemical reactions between a fuel and an oxidant accompanied by the production of heat and conversion of chemical species."

Yes. Oxidisation happens, even if the oxidant and the fuel are two halves of the same molecule; as opposed to explosives where oxidation does not happen, such as with flourine compounds where the energy comes from the recombination of the individual flourine atoms into a lower stable energy state.

What if it uses some other mechanism as a propellent, without combustion - compressed gas, springs, electro-magnets, novel non-combustion chemical reaction, etc.

They're not not covered (except for the last one) -- and in most of the EU (everywhere but here from what I can tell), airguns aren't firearms. Go to the UK, you can buy them like a box of cornflakes. Same in France, Germany, Finland, you name it. There's a maximum muzzle energy for those in most countries - either 7.5 joules or 16 foot-pounds in the UK - but below that, they're commodities. Above that, national legislation covers them (the EU legislation sets a lower bound; member states are free to declare potato guns to be firearms if they want (and Ireland did up until 2004).

* What of modern or novel projectiles and harm-causing technologies - stun guns, chemical sprays, lasers, microwaves, etc.

All covered by national legislation (all would be prohibited weapons in Ireland bar the lasers, for example - I don't know of many places with legislation treating lasers as firearms or even as controlled items).

You may be talking about the regulation of firearms ownership, but they are doing something (ambiguously) different.

If they want to talk about the military firearms trade, fine; but why would they ask the public about that?

"Stockpile" isn't a 'normal' English words and has specific connotations that extends well beyond normal personal ownership.

Ever seen the yard in front of the Lapua factory? "Stockpile" is definitely a word you'd use. And what about ordinary people who have (say) 100,000 rounds of ammo (which would not be beyond the bounds of normal high-level competitive preparation and practice in something like ISSF shooting)?

Given the timing, given past public statements by UN-level advocacy groups like IANSA about even Olympic shooting, it's very hard not to be very cynical about this whole thing.

Victor

Sparks wrote: »

Ever seen the yard in front of the Lapua factory? "Stockpile" is definitely a word you'd use.

But that is trade, not person use.

And what about ordinary people who have (say) 100,000 rounds of ammo (which would not be beyond the bounds of normal high-level competitive preparation and practice in something like ISSF shooting)?

Even one round every 10 seconds, 8 hours a day, if anyone could manage it, that is 35 days shooting (not counting rest days) - and worth controlling.

IRLConor

Victor wrote: »

But that is trade, not person use.

Even one round every 10 seconds, 8 hours a day, if anyone could manage it, that is 35 days shooting (not counting rest days) - and worth controlling.

I shoot about 10,000 rounds a year and I have a full time job. (To pay for the ammo!) If I trained full time, I reckon I'd go through 40,000 rounds a year pretty easily. I've had plenty of training days where I'd go through 200 rounds without too much trouble, so 1,000 rounds a week is easily done if you train full time.

Bear in mind that that's with a single shot, bolt action rifle shooting only one discipline. If I shot multiple disciplines or if I shot a semi-auto I'd be up to my knees in brass.

Sparks

Victor wrote: »

But that is trade, not person use.

A trade in non-military ammunition.

Even one round every 10 seconds, 8 hours a day, if anyone could manage it, that is 35 days shooting (not counting rest days)

You might ask the high-level ISSF smallbore shooters we have on here how long it takes them to go through 10,000 rounds of ammunition during training before an international match. I suspect the answer will be lower than you think it will be. And don't forget, of that 100,000, some will be set aside for different grades of competition because it will all be batch tested and matched to particular rifle barrels.

and worth controlling.

Sure, the day you control how many hurleys the Kilkenny team are allowed have at any one time. I mean, those things are fecking dangerous, and who needs more than one? Two, at the most in case one breaks, but there's no need to have it out where the kids can get it, so let's require them to have a hurley cabinet if they're keeping one at home. I mean, if they're real sportsmen, and not just stockpiling hurleys to use on unsuspecting burglars, they won't mind the mild imposition - after all, it's worth it not to have children get hurt by a hurl, right?

OR should we just make it illegal with serious penalties to belt someone in the face with a stick?

CJhaughey

You can already see the effects of supposedly benign legislation with regards to arms trafficking.
Try and buy a Scope from the US, is it easy? How about from another EU country like the UK?
ITAR was supposed to make it more difficult for countries that produce arms for military use to sell to 3rd world countries, instead its being used as a way of controlling civilian sports.

Victor

Sparks wrote: »

All covered by national legislation (all would be prohibited weapons in Ireland bar the lasers, for example - I don't know of many places with legislation treating lasers as firearms or even as controlled items).

There are some controls on green lasers as they are more harmful.

Sparks

Victor wrote: »

There are some controls on green lasers as they are more harmful.

Sounds terribly Irish, that - it's sortof like saying we should have stricter laws for red cars because red ones go faster...

extremetaz

Victor wrote: »

There are some controls on green lasers

....where?

Victor

Sparks wrote: »

Sounds terribly Irish, that - it's sortof like saying we should have stricter laws for red cars because red ones go faster...

For a given output, green lasers are perceived by humans to be much brighter than red ones, so there are restrictions over a certain power level.

And colour does make differences in vehicle insurance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_pointer#Green

The United States Coast Guard requires their air crews to return to base if a green laser is pointed at them, and have their eyes examined for eye damage. People have been given up to five years in jail for aiming a green laser at an aircraft.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_pointer#Malicious_use

Laser pointers, with their very long range, are often maliciously shone at people to distract or annoy them. This is considered particularly hazardous in the case of aircraft pilots, who may be dazzled or distracted at critical times. According to an MSNBC report there were over 2,836 incidents logged in the US by the FAA in 2010.[19] Illumination by handheld green lasers is particularly serious, as the wavelength (532 nm) is near peak sensitivity of the dark-adapted eye and may appear to be 35 times brighter than a red laser of identical power output.[20]

The wiki page goes into further detail.

Sparks

Victor wrote: »

For a given output, green lasers are perceived by humans to be much brighter than red ones, so there are restrictions over a certain power level.

Except that the perception is being caused by which retina cells are firing, not which retina cells are being burnt out (this is like that lovely way you can get hearing damage while shooting with active noise cancelling ear defenders despite not hearing the bang consciously)
And besides, they make blue lasers now and x-ray lasers before all this, so basing the controls off anything but the class of the laser is just reinventing the wheel, badly.

And colour does make differences in vehicle insurance.

Not at my age

Hunterbiker

Done.

pedroeibar1

Done. It seems to me that the survey was drafted by somebody who had no idea about sports shooting and gun ownership and was coming at the topic from a crime prevention / policing perspective.
Loose wording due to lack of knowledge - e.g. 'component' should be defined, so that a scope or moderater is clearly an accessory.
Sadly, more Bruxelles BS.

Grizzly 45

@Mods. Please feel free to move to appropriate thread ,I cant find the EU thread and am time pressed.
anyways,this is from a European hunting website wwww.yeswehunt.com
their take on this document

The European Commission has launched a European-wide consultation entitled "A common approach to reducing the harm caused by criminal use of firearms in the EU". The consultation involves completing an online questionnaire with multiple choice questions by 17th June.

Most of the questions/answers are biased and the results could be used to gain legitimacy from 'public opinion' in order to further restrict the legal acquisition and possession of civilian firearms. There is no link between the legal ownership of firearms and the illicit trafficking of firearms.

We encourage hunters and supporters to complete this online European-wide firearms questionnaire and suggest you answer all the questions by clicking on option "1". For some questions, it may feel like answering option 1 is a bit extreme but it should be borne in mind that virtually all the other options given to answer questions are biased and result in your agreement that some EU action is needed. You do not need to answer the optional questions that request additional comments (questions B.4, C.11, D.5 and E.6).


Best
Grizzly 45

Sparks

Jeez Grizzly, the thread's at the top of the forum and that text is in the first post :P

Grizzly 45

Cheers Sparks...I dunno why,but I couldnt for the life of me find that thread there today:o:confused...Otherwise I would have posted it there myself..

4gun

I filled out mine tonight, I would be in favour of a common firearm policy across the EU.
The questionnaire was about the trafficking of illegal firearms, In the opinion section I stated that a line should be drawn between legal firearms owners and criminals and no restrictions should be placed on licensed firearms holders to transport their firearms across borders.
How the EU proposes to tackle the Illegal trafficking of firearms is beyond me as we are all well aware that the effort involved in preventing the importation of narcotics does not stem the flow.

OzCam

If the EU are serious about harm reduction with respect to illegal firearms (& let's hope they are, and not using it as cover for something else), you may be interested to note that there will be a big international debate starting about harm reduction in the drugs/narcotics area in about 3 weeks.

Some of the ideas and/or arguments may be applicable or may spark* some useful ideas.


* See what I did there.