Lead ban

Grizzly 45

So next thing I guess is a constitutional challenge in Europe,on the basis of the presumption of innocence as per the FACE video.Not much reporting going on about this on anyones webpages ...Will be be smarter tomrrow?

Grizzly 45

GooseB wrote: »

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=search.documentdetail&Dos_ID=19885&DS_ID=64660&Version=6

If you follow the link above and then click on the word "Annex" at the bottom of that page you'll download a Word document with some details.

In short, it relates to shot as opposed to bullets (for the moment) and says:

"If at least 20 % in total of the territory, excluding the territorial waters, of a Member State are wetlands, that Member State may, in place of the restriction laid down in the first subparagraph of paragraph [20], prohibit the following acts throughout the whole of its territory from [Publications office - please fill in the date that is 36 months from entry into force of this amending Regulation]:
(a) the placing on the market of gunshot containing a concentration of lead (expressed as metal) equal to or greater than 1% by weight;
(b) the discharging of any such gunshot;
(c) carrying any such gunshot while out shooting or as part of going shooting."

Part prove it? Persumption of innocence,or has the EUSSR dispensed with this too? which also includes [c].Unless NPWS are going to be given the powers of stop and frisk of hunters,[I'd suggest investing in Kevlar in that case too for them as well!]How will they prove this legally??? UN Work able in reality.

GooseB

...on the basis of the presumption of innocence as per the FACE video

This is from a document I downloaded from somewhere in relation to the above (it's hard to find this stuff, then when you do it's hard to find it again!)

"(19) Given the practical difficulties in proving the particular type of shooting that a person found carrying lead gunshot is intending to do, it is appropriate to establish a legal presumption that anyone found in or around wetlands carrying lead gunshot while out shooting, or as part of going shooting, is presumed to be carrying that gunshot while out wetland shooting, or as part of going wetland shooting. In other words, it would be for that person to show that he or she was actually intending to go shooting elsewhere and was merely passing through the wetland area in order to go shooting elsewhere."

This all relates to lead shot and wetlands. If the total lead ban comes in then things get worse and it no longer matters what you are shooting or where, you won't have the option of saying that you were going to shoot the lead elsewhere, eg: a clay shoot, and not on the wetlands - you won't be allowed to shoot lead anywhere.

keith s

Thin edge of the wedge.

keith s

@GooseB, Thanks for the link.
I think there's an issue with the Web page, I also couldn't find the word "Annex" on the page.

Jasus, it loaded correctly just after I posted that ^^. I found the doc now cheers!

Grizzly 45

GooseB wrote: »

This is from a document I downloaded from somewhere in relation to the above (it's hard to find this stuff, then when you do it's hard to find it again!)

"(19) Given the practical difficulties in proving the particular type of shooting that a person found carrying lead gunshot is intending to do, it is appropriate to establish a legal presumption that anyone found in or around wetlands carrying lead gunshot while out shooting, or as part of going shooting, is presumed to be carrying that gunshot while out wetland shooting, or as part of going wetland shooting. In other words, it would be for that person to show that he or she was actually intending to go shooting elsewhere and was merely passing through the wetland area in order to go shooting elsewhere."

This all relates to lead shot and wetlands. If the total lead ban comes in then things get worse and it no longer matters what you are shooting or where, you won't have the option of saying that you were going to shoot the lead elsewhere, eg: a clay shoot, and not on the wetlands - you won't be allowed to shoot lead anywhere.

I think what you have there is a proposal to the directive? IOW its a suggestion,now you have to see the final directive and see is that point included in it ?? Because that will not fly in many European countries where there is still a presumption of innocence. Nor is it practial in Ireland,you walk past a flooded field[now a wetland under this directive] to go pheasent hunting in a local wood,you could be done for having lead ammo near a wetland. See how stupid this is?

Whats happened today is this directive has passed....BUT it is not a full blown bit of enforceable EU law yet.
Been here,seen it,done it,bought the T shirt with the assault rifle and mag ban in Europe. The bigger danger is once again,our lot deciding to "gold plate" the EU legislation with some add on or ignoring any sort of proper consultation like the stunt they pulled last year with the mag bans.

Picture it like this,the planning permission has been granted and the building will go ahead,but what the final building will look like in its complete state isnt known yet. So we have to be contrary bollixes and object to the shape of the doors and how many windows and what sort of outside it will have. IOW We now have to be seriously on the ball and make sure we object to anythingthat affects our firearms and the wetlands definitions for Ireland.Otherwise as it stands every bit of a damp field is a wetland if they get it thru with proposals like this.

keith s

Like saying if you drive to the shops to do your weekly shopping, you pick up some beer and on the way home stopped at a check point.
Then having to prove you didn't intend to drink the beer before you got home!

Hopefully all firearm holders can band together, with the one objective and not focus on just their own sport and how this will affect (effect? I'm never sure of the correct one to use) them individually.

We need big numbers to be taken seriously and fight it. If we branch / split, it will be easier to ignore the smaller groups individually, rather that one large group.

I know that there are governing bodies and even fractions of national groups for many of the different disciplines, maybe they could join forces to create a single group, with just this one objective. I mean keep their individual groups going as is, but also create one mega group, just focusing on this one thing.

I understand that some groups may not want to do this or may feel they are risking something, but if they really care about their members and the sport, they will look for a way past any concerns and work together for everyone.

GooseB

A way to go around objections though is to take the next step - total lead ban altogether. "Shooting deer with your .243? Silhouettes with your .22LR? Rabbits with your 17HMR? Clays with your shotgun? Classic shooting with your .303 SMLE? Paper with your 4.5mm air pistol? Sure, go right ahead, we're not stopping you. Just that ya can't use lead, that's all." That's the end game.

Remember, straight from the ammo manufacturer - "Our main problem, the ban of lead in all civil ammunition and all terrain (also called “full ban”) is currently under construction. It’s planned to be finalised on the 10th of October 2020"

Grizzly 45

That is indeed the end game ...BUT..[there is always one] There are people out there with alot more money and legal acumen than you and me, who will be looking at forcing compensation for their fine collections of old guns that now cannot be used, as there is no way in Hell they can be proofed for steel, and are technically wall hangers or scrap value. So compo, please...By 80 million other gun owners in the Union!
This hits also into Fudd country big time,and it certainly will worry the SXS and tweedy types who are the movers and shakers in the political scenes around Europe when they discover their 30 grand Purdey or Ferlach isnt proofable to steel because of its age.It will get even more fun with combination guns and the BP crowd...No the battle might be lost,but not the war by a long shot.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Nor is it practial in Ireland,you walk past a flooded field[now a wetland under this directive] to go pheasent hunting in a local wood,you could be done for having lead ammo near a wetland. See how stupid this is?

This whole wetland thing is making my blood boil. Surely whats defined as wetland is a bit more scientific than if there a bit of water lying on it occassionally ? If so my back yard is a wetland when we have heavy rain and i haven't cleaned out the drains ? Wetland should be bog, fen, marsh, tidal and non-tidal etc, not pasture or arable land that has a few puddles after heavy rain ? Thats what proves it to me that this is about gun control rather than an environmental or wildlife crusade. "Anything we say is wetland, is now wetland, even when it really isn't, and you cannot shoot on it or near it".

From this eu bumf, their own definition, https://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/documents/wetlands.pdf ;

Despite the range of definitions, the
most widely accepted definition is
the one set out in the text of the
Convention on Wetlands, signed
in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, the first
international effort made to protect
these important habitats. According to Article 1.1 of the convention,
wetlands are:
“areas of marsh, fen, peatland or
water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with
water that is static or flowing, fresh,
brackish or salt, including areas of
marine water the depth of which
at low tide does not exceed six
metres”.

tudderone

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

That is indeed the end game ...BUT..[there is always one] There are people out there with alot more money and legal acumen than you and me, who will be looking at forcing compensation for their fine collections of old guns that now cannot be used, as there is no way in Hell they can be proofed for steel, and are technically wall hangers or scrap value. So compo, please...By 80 million other gun owners in the Union!
This hits also into Fudd country big time,and it certainly will worry the SXS and tweedy types who are the movers and shakers in the political scenes around Europe when they discover their 30 grand Purdey or Ferlach isnt proofable to steel because of its age.It will get even more fun with combination guns and the BP crowd...No the battle might be lost,but not the war by a long shot.

OI, I resemble that remark ! I have a Dublin made shotgun that was made, at the latest just before 1910, so its been through two world wars, an uprising, the foundation of the state, the rise and fall of communism, the cold war and its now unusable because some pencil neck pen pusher greens want it gone, :mad:. I'll take a leaf out of the french attitude book, hear something from brussels i don't like, i'll ignore it.

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

OI, I resemble that remark ! I have a Dublin made shotgun that was made, at the latest just before 1910, so its been through two world wars, an uprising, the foundation of the state, the rise and fall of communism, the cold war and its now unusable because some pencil neck pen pusher greens want it gone, :mad:. I'll take a leaf out of the french attitude book, hear something from brussels i don't like, i'll ignore it.

So long as you dont wear tweed,plus fours and a shirt&tie and a silly hat and espouse that anyone using a semi auto is some wannabe Rambo and because were in the officer corps so that makes you an expert...Then it doesnt apply to you.;)

Grizzly 45

GooseB wrote: »

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomitology/index.cfm?do=search.documentdetail&Dos_ID=19885&DS_ID=64660&Version=6

If you follow the link above and then click on the word "Annex" at the bottom of that page you'll download a Word document with some details.

In short, it relates to shot as opposed to bullets (for the moment) and says:

"If at least 20 % in total of the territory, excluding the territorial waters, of a Member State are wetlands, that Member State may, in place of the restriction laid down in the first subparagraph of paragraph [20], prohibit the following acts throughout the whole of its territory from [Publications office - please fill in the date that is 36 months from entry into force of this amending Regulation]:
(a) the placing on the market of gunshot containing a concentration of lead (expressed as metal) equal to or greater than 1% by weight;
(b) the discharging of any such gunshot;
(c) carrying any such gunshot while out shooting or as part of going shooting."

Its a draft document as I thought.A lot of that can and will be chucked in the coming weeks and months,if enough pressure is kept on our MEPs.Or should I say ALL Eu MEPS.As our lot,even if they voted with both hands up and weren't water melons,wouldnt make much of difference.

dto001

Either way the various shooting groups now have to get their thumbs out and unite to fight this tooth and nail instead of bickering and "working behind the scenes" at least start to be vocal about it and let every politician know that there are x amount of shooting people in Ireland who can all vote in the next election!!

You could probably get the fishing associations involve as well which would probably quadruple the amount.

Grizzly 45

Dto
Its looong past that here lad!This is now in Brussels.
The time for all that unity stuff was years ago.All we can do now is put pessure on all EU MEPs irrespective of countries to object to all and everything in the proposals.As half our Irish lot are Greens and the other half indifferent to shooting.All we can object to here locally is any gold plating put on by national govt when this directive is law here.

GooseB

Either way the various shooting groups now have to get their thumbs out and unite to fight this..

I wouldn't hold my breath. A quick check around on the outcome of this vote shows the shooting media still being quiet on the matter, news that I've gathered has come from the bird watcher and nature websites.

"the decision still needs to be rubberstamped by the European Parliament (considered a formality)"

"All EU members states will need to adhere to the ban. Somewhat disappointingly, nine member states voted against the ban, despite the hard evidence that lead is poisonous to both humans and wildlife, although the 18 that did mean that months of dispute will end. Unless a member state contests Thursday's decision for formal reasons, the ban can come into force after a transition period of two years.

Campaigners hope that banning lead shot in wetlands is only the first step on the road to a comprehensive lead ban in hunting. Another prohibition procedure is currently in preparation and, if it gets through, lead-containing bullet ammunition (which is mainly used when hunting larger animals such as deer) and lead shot in habitats other than wetlands will be prohibited."

Grizzly 45

Jumping the gun abit that lot.It mightnt be all what they hope too.As now the proposals and counter proposals start to fly.The greatest danger for us is when this ends up in Trilougein Brussels and we arent at the table there.
Trilouges BTW are the dirty secret of the EU,their version of the smokey backroom Dail meeting and deal.No accounts or transcripts,no press allowed,no accountability but thats where the real EU law is made ,not in the parliment.They can go on for hours and are literally bullying sessions of the bigger countries on the smaller.Your democratic EU at work.
So our shooting supporting Meps need to beat these meets and will deffo earn their money at these.

GooseB

Never heard of it before. Checked Wikipedia-

"A formal trilogue meeting, more commonly known as a trilogue, is a type of meeting used in the European Union (EU) legislative process. It takes its name from a literary form, the trilogue, which means a conversation with three parties.

Trilogue negotiations are provided for in EU treaties. They are used if the Council of the European Union does not agree to the amendments proposed by the European Parliament at the second reading. In this case, formal trilogue negotiations are carried out within the framework of a conciliation committee. A trilogue is understood as an equally composite tripartite meeting between those involved in the legislative process of the EU institutions. These bodies are the European Commission (EC), the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament. The European Commission takes on the mediating function.

Critics argue that the use of trilogues is detrimental to transparency in the legislative process. They believe the EC uses this process to bypass public transparency and the supposed opposition the proposed legislation would cause.[1] Once the Conciliation committee agrees on a text, neither the Parliament nor Council are able to change it, although in their respective final vote (third reading) they can reject the whole text."

tudderone

Bottom line, is what the eu commission wants, they gets. Nigel Farage said as much after his group in the eu parliament defeated something they wanted, he was told by a commissioner, "You may have won this time, but we have 50 different ways of getting what we want".

How can you deal with people who have that attitude ?

Grizzly 45

Google Vicky Ford MEP,Dita Cherskinova[?] MEP ,Sir Peter King MEP assault rifle ban trilouge to see how this looks in real life.

As Churchill said" Two things the general public should not view , is the making of laws that affect them and the making of sausages. Neither are a pretty sight."

Grizzly 45

Forgive them for they know not what they do...



As presumed, the problematic ban on lead in wetlands was adopted by the REACH committee by majority. The EU Parliament and the European Council must not make any changes to the text, only accept or reject within three months.

Translation: >>The agenda of the REACH committee (here) today, the new and fourth revision of the restriction of the use of lead in shots over wetlands was discussed and voted by the national delegations sitting in committee today. After a long discussion, the draft motion was adopted by qualified majority of the voting seats.

The REACH committee meeting was held via Webex and the national delegates, who are one of the ministries responsible, joined the discussion on the morning. National Representatives once again participated in a dynamic discussion in which some important Member States decided to vote.

The content of the restriction of voting rights shows once again the following problems
-> The use of the RAMSAR Convention for the purpose of defining the term ′′ wetland ";
-> 100 meter buffer zones around the wetland;
-> 24 months transitional period;
-> Prohibition on the use and ′′ carrying "/" possession ′′ of shots in or around wetlands (with the reversal of burden of proof).

The forthcoming steps of the comitology procedure provide that the approved draft restriction should be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council for consideration, which have three months to either approve or reject the restriction in the form adopted by the committee. They are therefore unable to suggest changes to the text.

If the text is not rejected within the 3-month period, the restriction will be published in the Official Journal as an amendment to Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation and will enter into force. << <<

https://mailchi.mp/d3d3def38478/wetlands-4302277?e=9838a6a804
#EUAmmoBan

Grizzly 45

tudderone wrote: »

Bottom line, is what the eu commission wants, they gets. Nigel Farage said as much after his group in the eu parliament defeated something they wanted, he was told by a commissioner, "You may have won this time, but we have 50 different ways of getting what we want".

How can you deal with people who have that attitude ?

The insufferable Guy Verhoffstadt apprently. Put him back 75 years ago,he woud have been giving Adolf a run for his money in the rant and rave speech leauges.:rolleyes:
How do we deal with people like that?Become more Euro skeptic,but thats as likely to happen so long as the EU soviet keeps handing baubles to us and our "leaders" keep acting like gulliable Indian cheifs,scratching their marks on bits of paper the palefaces gave them to sign away their lands,and beliving in the white mans word.:mad:

dto001

"The forthcoming steps of the comitology procedure provide that the approved draft restriction should be submitted to the European Parliament and the Council for consideration, which have three months to either approve or reject the restriction in the form adopted by the committee. They are therefore unable to suggest changes to the text.

If the text is not rejected within the 3-month period, the restriction will be published in the Official Journal as an amendment to Annex XVII to the REACH Regulation and will enter into force."

Not that I'm up to date on the workings of the EU. But surely at this stage the shooting community can force their respective politicians to reject it until at the very least these points are sorted out?

Grizzly 45

dto001 wrote: »

"

Not that I'm up to date on the workings of the EU. But surely at this stage the shooting community can force their respective politicians to reject it until at the very least these points are sorted out?

You mean the MEP's?? Half of ours are Greens and the other half indifferent to shooting. Even if they were all pro shooting and voted for Ireland with both hands up on an issue,it is still a minority vote in EU matters.You need to lobby ALL the EU meps from countries and parties who are pro gun and hunting. You'll find those in the East blocks,like Hungary,Poland,Czch Republic especially and Slovakia Those are the people we need to lovbby as well as the pro shooting Western EU Meps,the few that there are.

dto001

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

You mean the MEP's?? Half of ours are Greens and the other half indifferent to shooting. Even if they were all pro shooting and voted for Ireland with both hands up on an issue,it is still a minority vote in EU matters.You need to lobby ALL the EU meps from countries and parties who are pro gun and hunting. You'll find those in the East blocks,like Hungary,Poland,Czch Republic especially and Slovakia Those are the people we need to lovbby as well as the pro shooting Western EU Meps,the few that there are.

Is there a list of these anywhere? so at least you can send a few emails or add them to a petition which could be put around europe to the hunting community as a whole. It might be late but as the old saying goes better late than never. we could sit back now and bitch and moan about it but at least we could go down kicking and screaming

GooseB

Might be worth it if everyone also got in touch with the European gun manufacturers, well the EU ones more specifically. There's usually a "Contact us" page or an email address to use. They're well aware of the situation but if they all got a couple of hundred emails from all across the EU with people saying "Dear Sir/Madam, I'm thinking of upgrading my current rifle to one of your model XXX's. Unfortunately I fear I may be wasting my money and in about 3 years all I will have is an expensive paper weight. What can you do to assure me I will be able to shoot it after the lead ban comes into effect for all ammunition. Or should I just keep my money in my pocket? Regards, Mr. X".

Try and get the industry to lobby the MEPs and see if they as a whole have any clout (You'd imagine they'd be doing this already anyway). Once you have the wording of your email drafted, save it and then copy/paste it off to several manufacturers. It doesn't matter what sort of shooting you do as this affects everyone from indoor air rifle shooters, to hunters to 1000 metre shooters at the midlands.

tudderone

GooseB wrote: »

Might be worth it if everyone also got in touch with the European gun manufacturers, well the EU ones more specifically. There's usually a "Contact us" page or an email address to use. They're well aware of the situation but if they all got a couple of hundred emails from all across the EU with people saying "Dear Sir/Madam, I'm thinking of upgrading my current rifle to one of your model XXX's. Unfortunately I fear I may be wasting my money and in about 3 years all I will have is an expensive paper weight. What can you do to assure me I will be able to shoot it after the lead ban comes into effect for all ammunition. Or should I just keep my money in my pocket? Regards, Mr. X".

Try and get the industry to lobby the MEPs and see if they as a whole have any clout (You'd imagine they'd be doing this already anyway). Once you have the wording of your email drafted, save it and then copy/paste it off to several manufacturers. It doesn't matter what sort of shooting you do as this affects everyone from indoor air rifle shooters, to hunters to 1000 metre shooters at the midlands.

Trouble there is the manufacturers will simply say their guns are compliant and good to go with steel shot and have been for a while now. Maybe the ammo manufacturers might be a better way to go ? But i think they are happy enough with this ban already.

GooseB

Trouble there is the manufacturers will simply say their guns are compliant and good to go with steel shot and have been for a while now. Maybe the ammo manufacturers might be a better way to go ? But i think they are happy enough with this ban already.

That's only lead shot. They want to ban all lead. Picture this, Sako rifle factory in Finland, 3 years time approximately, new rifle in development and they want to test it at the factory range. They are not allowed to use lead bullets in the EU, maybe their gun is going to have huge sales in the US and the rest of the world but they can't test it in the EU with lead cored ammunition. Now they have to test it with a lead alternative which is probably in all likeliness copper (leave the increased cost out of it for the moment). So it's either a similar sized projectile going faster than lead or a similar weight projectile as lead but much longer. So their twist rates and chamberings have to accommodate. This total ban is the next step after the lead shot in wetlands. Even if a manufacturer doesn't make shotguns, they need to campaign against the shot ban as it's the first attack on everything else. This is where everyone has to join forces.

tudderone

Well if you look at the likes of Sig Sauer, they have given up on Europe, made their staff redundant and now only produce firearms in the United States. Any manufacturer who wants to shift a lot of guns is in the states, The EU and the UN has made its feelings towards civilian firearms ownership very well known, they are going to continually clamp down on it, choke it with red tape and regulations, until its not a sport anyone would bother with. Hell they even pressured Switzerland into changing their gun laws and they are not even a member !

We had the the magazine ban last year, the lead ban this year, what will it be next year ? A calibre limit ? A limit on the number of firearms any one person can possess ? A ban on semi-auto rifles ?

tudderone

https://www.vintageguns.co.uk/magazine/europe-votes-on-lead-restrictions