Eu Ban on semi auto centre fire rifles

Grizzly 45

Response today from the DOJ on this
From what I get from this is email is;

Nope,you can as a dealer or individual import semi autos alright with the right conditions and paperwork,but you mightn't get liscensed for them because of the ministers statement RE temp caps and disallowing new liscenses post Sept 2015 and setting up the Firearms Assesment And Appeals Authorithy[FAAAA].But we havent any legislation to do this,yet!

And we still have no clue whether or how this EU ban will affect Irish legislation,as the AG hasn't even looked at it yet.Depite the deadline being passed three monthsago.

IOW We the dept are just as in the dark on this as everyone else out there.:)

yubabill1

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Response today from the DOJ on this
From what I get from this is email is;

Nope,you can as a dealer or individual import semi autos alright with the right conditions and paperwork,but you mightn't get liscensed for them because of the ministers statement RE temp caps and disallowing new liscenses post Sept 2015 and setting up the Firearms Assesment And Appeals Authorithy[FAAAA].But we havent any legislation to do this,yet!

And we still have no clue whether or how this EU ban will affect Irish legislation,as the AG hasn't even looked at it yet.Depite the deadline being passed three monthsago.

IOW We the dept are just as in the dark on this as everyone else out there.:)

Probably won't move on the directive until Cz etc challenges are dealt with.

And didn't frances do a nice job of hamstringing shooters and AGS with her statement of intent to bring in a ban (which was never her intention).

HappyShooter

So is now a bad time to apply for a license for a centrefire semi auto rifle? I'd hate to spend a fortune on a rifle and then not get to hold onto it.

BattleCorp

I'm just a simple thicko so can somebody explain this situation to me please.

The Minister made a statement in the Dail stating that they intend to ban/put a cap on semi-auto centrefire rifles. They didn't draft any legislation to support doing this. So as it stands, there is absolutely nothing in law banning/placing a cap on those type of firearms, only a bit of a statement made by the Minister. Then how in the name of fcuk can they allow you to have something now but tell you that they are going to take it off you in the future if the law is changed?

Is it not akin to a Minister declaring that they intend to change the age of consent for marriage to 100 at some date in the future and that you are taking a chance if you are getting married under 100 years of age because your marriage might be invalid if the Minister changes the law in the future?

Not very eloquently put but you get my meaning.

BattleCorp

yubabill1 wrote: »

Probably won't move on the directive until Cz etc challenges are dealt with.

And didn't frances do a nice job of hamstringing shooters and AGS with her statement of intent to bring in a ban (which was never her intention).

Can't see the CZ Government backing down.

Grizzly 45

And now Sweden is going to the Swedish supreme court on some legislation that looks suspiciously like the nonsense of the 2008 act in Ireland.Plus the Sweish ballistic expert on the cops side sounds like he went to the same ballistics school as our dear departedand retired friend "Inspector Google.":rolleyes:
Firearms United homepage.
[]Underlining and emphasis mine]
Firearms United is going to Supreme Court – In Sweden!

The Swedish authorities have been very active when it comes to making life hard for citizens practising IPSC-shooting or other dynamic shooting disciplines that require semiautomatic modern sporting rifles. [1][2]

Several Swedish authorities have been running a campaign for quite some time to ban and restrict the ownership of semiautomatic firearms and for example the previous EU Gunban of 2013 [3] was orchestrated and driven by Swedish commissar Cecilia Malmström, supported by shady authorities making up the rules and ”facts” on the fly. Firerams United was originall founded to counter this outrageous unjustified attack on civil liberties.

We have also heard that Swedish authorities have already denied at least three permits for sportshooters on grounds of the EU Firearms directive – which had not been even finished at the time, let alone in effect.

One common practice is also the misuse of tax payers funds by taking things to court – most of the time the sport shooters win the case and get their permits, and case is conveniently forgotten, but when authorities win a case, it comes a precedent which is used by the authorities to deny permits in the future. [1]

When the latest round of firearms directive was discussed, Sweden sent their best experts in banning firearms to offer their ideologically coloured expertise and push for a stricter firearms directive. In other words, their agenda is now pushed over the Swedish borders and we have had enough of this now.

Firearms United is supporting financially the Swedish shooters to take things to supreme court and put an end to this nonsense.

There is a case currently ongoing, which is widely known among the shooters in Sweden. A sport shooter has applied permit for modern semiautomatic sporting rifle for a sport called ”free rifle” which was denied by the authorities because the sport is practiced on club level and does not have authorized international organization behind it. The defendant has won in court already once, and now the case is going to the supreme court.

The stakes are high:
If authorities win, they can dictate which firearms are ok to use and which are not. It is probably end of the IPSC in Sweden as we know it. Actually, if authorities win, they would have a capability to dictate which forms of sport would approved in Sweden, and which are not.

To put it simply, we do not want the future of for example IPSC in Sweden be in the hands of an person who has stated about IPSC “If they want to play war they can take up paintball” and who has stated in court that scopes of high magnification, weapon lights and picatinny rails should be only allowed for police and military use.

If the free citizens win, they will have a powerful precedent on their side.

As usual, the authorities (mis)using tax payer funds so there is no end to their war chest. Swedish shooters have been running a campaign to fund the fight which might cost as much as 20 000 €, and have collected 80% of the sum. Firearms United will provide the missing 2000 € to fill the war chest and support taking the fight back to the authorities.

Why?
a) Swedish sportshooters have been very active in Firearms United.

b) Authorities can not make rules up as they go.

c) Payback. Opportunity for payback for everything since the Firearms Directive update in 2013.

Time to fight back!

United we stand, divided we fall.

[1] https://firearms-united.com/fi/something-rotten-kingdom-sweden-spreading-part-1/

[2] https://firearms-united.com/fi/something-rotten-kingdom-sweden-part-2/

Grizzly 45

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm just a simple thicko so can somebody explain this situation to me please.

The Minister made a statement in the Dail stating that they intend to ban/put a cap on semi-auto centrefire rifles. They didn't draft any legislation to support doing this. So as it stands, there is absolutely nothing in law banning/placing a cap on those type of firearms, only a bit of a statement made by the Minister. Then how in the name of fcuk can they allow you to have something now but tell you that they are going to take it off you in the future if the law is changed?

Is it not akin to a Minister declaring that they intend to change the age of consent for marriage to 100 at some date in the future and that you are taking a chance if you are getting married under 100 years of age because your marriage might be invalid if the Minister changes the law in the future?

Not very eloquently put but you get my meaning.

" Exactomundo" As The Fonz used to say. It's obviously now in the "firearms things to do" See "Can kicking and hot political potatoe master file" list Same place the file is for sorting out the TCO of 1972 proably,[being used as a door stopper or for propping up the dodgy leg of the ministerial desk:rolleyes:]..

It's a game to see who will blink first now. We push for it,no doubt within a year a Aherne type will be mouthing off in the Dail about the availability of "assault rifles on our streets and owned by gu nuts where they might be stolen" and the next shooting in the Dublin drug gang scene will be used to coat peg new legislation banning new stuff ala the handgun saga. The intresting thing is however,if we push and gain liscenses via the judical route,and the govt pushes for legislation to enforce this ban,we trump it with EUCHR articles 5 and 7...IOW we have a legislative "Mexican standoff." So now in best Trantino tradition who is going to go for it first?:eek:

Walter Mittys Brother

Beat the law they simply change it

Grizzly 45

Except they cant change the constitutional rights of the EU.;)However,it is in the importance list rank around the bottom 500 things of any Irish govt.

yubabill1

sweden is an absolute basket case. A senior police official there is getting lambasted in the neoliberal Swedish media for blaspheming that there are 61 no-go areas there, many of which are at risk of radicalisation. They have let in innumerous "refugees" and the chickens are coming home to roost, but anyone who says this openly is treated as beneath contempt.

And the neoliberal philosophy only extends to things they like, such as sex and drugs, but not alcohol, firearms or tobacco, which are the spawn of Satan. Of course, if x% of the citizens are spaced out on drugs, you can hardly expect them to be responsible y% of the time, so don't let them have guns.....

It's a bit like prison, where the screws know that prisoners are much easier to deal with when they are spaced out of their heads.

The idea of personal responsibility died with government surveillance "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" except that the idea of privacy went out the window with that one - I mean there's a reason we have doors on toilets, for instance.

there's very little point arguing with these people, as they pay a lot of money to specialists to come up with emotive arguments and soundbites (remember John "Zero Tolerance" O'Donoghue, anyone?).

The first and last bastion of common sense is in the court of law (for now).

Grizzly 45

And the funy thing was,Sweden 60 to 75 years ago was an arch conservative,orthodox Lutheran society that would have made holy Catholic 1950's Ireland look like an open tolerant, swinging hedonistic den of vice!:eek:
It was only in the 1960s that Socialism and liberalism of the Swedish model kicked off and has gone full tilt to the opposite extreme.:(

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

gunny123 wrote: »

Take your blood pressure pills before watching this scutter from our friends "The council of the eu".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmEUDHFkC9w

That stance at 0:27, cringe worthy. Why? Like, can't people psychics anymore?

gunny123

yubabill1 wrote: »

sweden is an absolute basket case. A senior police official there is getting lambasted in the neoliberal Swedish media for blaspheming that there are 61 no-go areas there, many of which are at risk of radicalisation. They have let in innumerous "refugees" and the chickens are coming home to roost, but anyone who says this openly is treated as beneath contempt.

And the neoliberal philosophy only extends to things they like, such as sex and drugs, but not alcohol, firearms or tobacco, which are the spawn of Satan. Of course, if x% of the citizens are spaced out on drugs, you can hardly expect them to be responsible y% of the time, so don't let them have guns.....

It's a bit like prison, where the screws know that prisoners are much easier to deal with when they are spaced out of their heads.

The idea of personal responsibility died with government surveillance "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" except that the idea of privacy went out the window with that one - I mean there's a reason we have doors on toilets, for instance.

there's very little point arguing with these people, as they pay a lot of money to specialists to come up with emotive arguments and soundbites (remember John "Zero Tolerance" O'Donoghue, anyone?).

The first and last bastion of common sense is in the court of law (for now).

The problem is we get the likes of George Soros and our own unelected, bilderberger, goldman sacks carpetbagger and FG backer, Peter Sutherland pulling strings in the background of the EU. Its a pet project for them, and if it all goes horribly wrong (which looks likely), they can move to and live in a very expensive gated community in Switzerland complete with armed security 24/7.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVmg37snifI

yubabill1

It's unlikely that Soros or Suds would personally be in town shopping like the 12 year-old girl split in half by the truck in Sweden;

"After Akilov became another militant in Europe to use a truck as a weapon, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven made it clear that "no means no" for those whose asylum bids are rejected. Akilov, whose lawyer said he had admitted to committing the crime, had been in hiding after his asylum request was denied. "

Above from Reuters; http://www.reuters.com/article/us-sweden-immigration-crackdown-idUSKBN19Y0G8

Of course, the Social Democrat/Green coalition governing Sweden see no link between open doors and children squashed in two under a truck, they would rather ban Swedes access to semi auto rifles, in case someone ever/maybe gets killed in the future.

gunny123

But according to their warped logic, the terrorists are not the problem, they are just unfortunate misguided people. The problem is firearms, inanimate objects that are evil. Also i suspect that the sudden and dramatic appearance of parties in Europe like AFD etc and the prospect of vigilantism, is whats really driving this proposed ban.

Sparks

yubabill1 wrote: »

sweden is an absolute basket case. A senior police official there is getting lambasted in the neoliberal Swedish media for blaspheming that there are 61 no-go areas there, many of which are at risk of radicalisation.

You realise that's a Breitbart piece, right? You might as well print it on a swastika for all it's worth. Even Russia Today is leading with it ffs.

Meanwhile, a whole host of swedish residents on twitter have been pointing out that they live in those "no-go areas" and they have less crime than parts of the UK and almost all of the US.

I mean, come on, at least google a fact check.

http://www.snopes.com/sweden-crime-no-go-zone-police/
http://www.snopes.com/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/
http://www.snopes.com/crime-sweden-part-ii-refugee-men-overrepresented-swedish-crime/
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/trump-exaggerates-swedish-crime/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/feb/20/what-statistics-say-about-immigration-and-sweden/

This story has been going on for a while now as well : https://www.buzzfeed.com/ishmaeldaro/no-go-zone-myth?utm_term=.ymw0Xxm8r#.ka4e2Nq6D

gunny123

Not complete "no-go" zones, that would imply the state had completely lost control of those areas. But there are area's where the police do not regularly go in case they spark an incident. The problem is some of the refugees and migrants want to escape the hellholes they came from, including the culture and religion, but it seems an awful lot more are happy to try turn their new home into Ethopia or Somalia.

Sparks

Oh come off it. That's right up there with the claims of no-go areas in the UK that some of the US loopy brigade were making a few years ago, where Birmingham was running under Sharia Law and the police were afraid to go out on the streets.

The residents living in those areas in sweden say this is not happening, the statistics say it's not happening, the police say it's not happening. The only ones who say it is happening are some gobdahs on the far side of the planet writing nonsense for a racist pile of muck like Breitbart who would probably have trouble picking Sweden out of a map.

Seriously gunny, this is the same crowd who've been cheerleading for Breivic for pete's sakes.

gunny123

I don't pay the slightest attention to Breitbart, never visit it, no interest in it. As for the police saying its not happening, so what ? They are hardly going to hold a press conference and admit to the world they have failed. The Irish police have come out with some beaut's over the years "There is no organised crime in Ireland" being one particularly unfunny one.

Also if everything is sweetness and light in Sweden, why have they suddenly started deporting large amounts of people ?

Sparks

Because they've started refusing asylum claims in large amounts. If you refuse an asylum claim, the claimant gets deported, that's the process. It's not a case of them deciding "well, you've been a citizen here for a while but now we're kicking you out".

(edit: BTW, "large amounts" here means "almost 50%". Ireland refuses asylum to over 90% of claimants. So if refusing claims is linked to no-go areas, then we should have whole counties that are no-go areas. And I don't mean like Cork. That's don't-want-to-go, not no-go :P )

And I'm not sure I'd compare our police to anyone elses. I don't dislike anyone elses enough for that. Well. Maybe the US's, but they're woefully undertrained and shoot everyone.

gunny123

The bottom line is Mama Merkel unilaterally decided to throw open the borders and allowed over 1 million people into Europe from the middle east and Africa. Then the crap started like the cologne sexual assaults, the shootings, bombings, trucks plowing people down, and the EU are now desperate to be seen to be doing something. Thats where this idiotic semi-auto ban comes in. Will it stop any future atrocities ? Doubtful, just discommode and alienate the shooting communities.

Thats the way i see it anyway.

Sparks

So when you say crap, you're correct.

First off, the spike isn't in migrants, it's in refugees. And we (the EU) caused that spike by backing Assad in the Syrian civil war it the name of fighting ISIS. You wade into a civil war like that, this is the kind of consequence you get. We gave him aid and arms; he used them to bomb civilians. The people fleeing that mess are refugees and under UN treaties we signed up to and EU law and basic ****ing humanity, we have a duty to render aid.

All the UKIP-level "oh no, THE OTHER IS COMING" crap we've seen since is exactly that. Crap. Playing to the basest lowest part of people. And ISIS were in there like a terrier on a rat the minute they saw that. Any looper goes nuts these days, and ISIS are on the internet claiming him as one of their own even before the police shoot him. Doesn't matter if he was munching a bacon sandwich and waving a rainbow flag from a crozier at the time. And then the Daily Mail and the rest of the tabloids swallow the "he's ISIS" story because it's easy to sell papers that way.

Next thing you know, an entire population is being stressed out by boogeymen and we're letting children drown in front of us rather than helping. We've literally stuck them in tents and watched as neonazis burn the tents down.

And all that fear? That's why they can ram through things like the semi-auto ban. And the snoopers charter. And brexit. And our current laws in the dail allowing the Gardai to tap just about every communications line going (despite that being illegal under EU law). And a dozen other things that nobody would dare suggest when people are calm, but the minute you get them worried about some nebulous undefined threat, they're willing to tolerate for the sake of a quiet life. Go down that road and you wind up in the UK with a CCTV camera covering every orifice and wondering how long you have till you hear "Prime Minister Boris Johnson" somewhere outside of a comedy sketch.

Honestly, go look at what the Kurds are doing in the face of the same refugee problem. It'd shame anyone on this side of Syria when you compare what they've done to what we've done.

gunny123

Helping people and basic humanity ? Absolutely, Fine, why do people have to sell everything they own to pay some scummy pirate to get them on an inflatable deathtrap, to cross the med ? Help them in their homeland, god knows it would probably cost less and solve all sorts of problems.

How many refugees have Saudi Arabia and other arab countries taken in ? Very few if any.

As for the boogeyman, but the boogeyman exists you see, there have been enough atrocities at this stage to make that plain, and even before they started, there were enough extremist preachers, especially in the UK, Captain hook and all that mob in finsbury park for instance.

Its not the jews or sikhs or buddists blowing up kiddie pop concerts or driving through christmas shopping crowds in lorries.

Sparks

I've heard that line before. We all did. "It's not the Welsh or the Scots bombing pubs. I'm sure there are some good Irish, but let's face it, if they weren't really on the IRA's side, the IRA would all have been caught by now. And the Guilford Four and Birmingham Six were guilty as sin, but those liberal whiners let them go to be politically correct".

And yes, I've heard all of those, to my face and not so long ago that I'd forget it.

Grizzly 45

Snopes as a fact checker...?A leftist  web site run by two democrats and their cat ,that had been outed as well as a fake news website.It is about as creditble as Fox news.

yubabill1

Sparks wrote: »

You realise that's a Breitbart piece, right? You might as well print it on a swastika for all it's worth. Even Russia Today is leading with it ffs.

Meanwhile, a whole host of swedish residents on twitter have been pointing out that they live in those "no-go areas" and they have less crime than parts of the UK and almost all of the US.

I mean, come on, at least google a fact check.

http://www.snopes.com/sweden-crime-no-go-zone-police/
http://www.snopes.com/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/
http://www.snopes.com/crime-sweden-part-ii-refugee-men-overrepresented-swedish-crime/
http://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/trump-exaggerates-swedish-crime/
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/feb/20/what-statistics-say-about-immigration-and-sweden/

This story has been going on for a while now as well : https://www.buzzfeed.com/ishmaeldaro/no-go-zone-myth?utm_term=.ymw0Xxm8r#.ka4e2Nq6D

Article I saw was in newsweek; http://www.newsweek.com/sweden-police-vulnerable-areas-no-go-zones-628029

Would not trust Breitbart and disappointed you think I would.

Cass

Folks, while i've not been following this thread i have gotten complaints about it.

Reading, quickly, through it i see no relevance to either the topic of the thread or shooting sports in general. There is an off topic thread if you want to discuss such things.

All threads vary to some extent but the recent topic is better suited in Off Topic so can we please get back onto the topic of the thread.

Thanks.