“Europe is trying to make it harder for weapons to end up in the hands of terrorists,” yle.fi reports. “Hence, the European Commission’s November 18 call for a stronger coordinated European approach to control the use of weapons and fight against the trafficking of firearms.” In other words, a Europe-wide ban on all semi-automatic firearms. Finland, the Czech Republic and Sweden aren’t entirely down with the idea . . .
Two countries, Finland and the Czech Republic, oppose the stricter measures, arguing that their unique national policy would be detrimentally affected as a result.
“We support the directive, but we have a national defence-related concern that should be resolved over the course of the process,” said Finland’s Interior Minister Petteri Orpo after the November 20 meeting in Brussels.
Finland and the Czech Republic have both submitted their reservations about the proposed amendments to the EU. The Czech Republic has a long history of permissive gun control, permitting citizens to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense.
Sweden has also said it would have difficulty accepting a decision that would limit the kinds of firearms people can use for hunting, a concern Finland also shares.
And just in case you thought that only American politicians feel the need to pass legislation before knowing what’s in it . . .
EU sources contacted by the Finnish Broadcasting Company Yle did not initially understand the use of semi-automatic firearms for hunting, and were not familiar with Finland’s reservist operations.
And what do these three have in common? They bear the brunt of whatever invasion may one day take place on the continent. I wonder if Poland or the other former bloc states are also ‘a bit’ hesitant?
In the case of Finland their militia is the only reason they didn’t become part of Russia in the late 30’s
I wonder about Slovenia and the other former Yugoslavian countries. (Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, etc.) Some of them seem to have pretty decent gun laws.
The guys from Polenar Tactical on Youtube seem to have some quality firearms. It is fun to see some non-Americans doing gun review s etc.
The folks in the former Yugo region have seen some ugliness over the years as well.
Hopefully the people of Europe don’t let this stupid ban happen.
Only Slovenia and Croatia are members of EU, rest of Yugo countries are not.
Polenar may be able to get hands on nice guns and shoot pretty videos, but otherwise in Slovenia you need to be a member of a shooting club, have a “good cause” to own a gun you want, and self defence is not good enough.
That is a stark defence compared to the Czech Republic where (once you get a license) you can not only buy an AR 15 ostentatiously for self defence, but have it on your concealed carry license too. (Practicalities of CCing a semi-auto rifle are your own problem.)
That leads to a huge difference in mentality. In countries like the Czech Republic or Finland gun ownership (albeit not very widespread in CR) is considered as something sacred the same as freedom of speech. In countries like Slovenia it is just a hobby. Thus it is next to impossible for those few passionate Slovenian gun owners to have their voices heard by the political establishment.
“(Practicalities of CCing a semi-auto rifle are your own problem.)”
That is fantastic. I am still smiling and laughing. Thank you for brightening my morning.
I am figuring Czechs tend to wear VERY long trench coats….
>>I am figuring Czechs tend to wear VERY long trench coats….
Well, there’s always the guitar case option if you don’t mind off-body carry. 🙂
Actually, I know a guy who *owns* such a guitar case. Sure, he carries a pistol and a backup wheelgun, but he *could* carry the rifle as a backup instead…
Do you guys have any legal restrictions on short-barreled rifles? A rifle with barrel length under 10″, and with a folding or detachable stock, fits quite nicely in a tennis racket case…
int19h: Depends on what you’d call a restriction.
A simple SBR? Class B weapon, same as a pistol.
Any of the mods you’d have trouble adding to a pistol around here, like a silencer? Class A, which is may-issue and rarely worth the bother.
I’m not entirely clear what a “simple SBR” means – does the legal definition of pistol in Czech law not preclude it having a proper stock?
I19 – my Vz 2008 with 16″ barrel and FAB folder (same as the picture on top) fits comfortably in regular tennis racket soft case. It’s little thicker so it prints a bit though.
int19h: for this purpose, a short-barreled rifle is simply a short semi-automatic firearm; the law doesn’t care whether it has a stock or not. Some almost-SBRs (12′ barrel) might, thanks to technicalities, fall into the long semi-auto firearms category; again, the law doesn’t care about its stock. Both weapons are considered class B and, with propper CCL, can be carried concealed.
Wow, your gun laws actually read like they were written by people who understood what exactly they were doing. I thought that to be impossible in any modern democracy. ~
int19h: I would say that the reason why the law is this sensible is that its basics got put together shortly after our (bloodless) revolution some 25 years ago. Enough people still remember those days and the lessons that communism taught us.
And the law is not entirely perfect. Gun registration for all firearms except class D (which is things like muzzle loaders), hollow point ammo is not legal for self-defence… There’s still room for improvement.
But yes, I can carry into a school and yes, hardly anybody bats an eye when one walks down the street wearing chainmail or IOTV and our homicide rate is lower than that of, say, UK. I guess this explains why we’re not happy about EC’s plans to ban this and that in the name of safety 🙂
Yeah, what I meant is not that the law is perfect, but that it, well, makes sense as a whole based on how it sounds. As in, you may disagree with some things that it requires, but it’s clear what the people who wrote it intended. As opposed to our NFA and GCA, according to which a 14.5″ AR is “concealable” and hence an SBR, but a (shorter) 18″ Tavor is not. Or the insanity that was AWB.
This. I mean look at Ukraine. They sign an agreement with the US and Russia agreeing to nuclear disarmament if both guarantee Ukraine’s borders, and then Russia annexes the Crimea, a huge part of Ukraine, while the US and the rest of the world can do nothing. Why would any small European nation agree to any disarmament?
Yes, we need to look at Crimea – dispassionately.
In a deal to get the Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons stockpiled there by the Soviet Union the Russians agreed to cede Crimea, which is @ 80% ethnic Russian, to Ukraine and signed an agreement to that effect. All the while, nobody (statist much?) asked the Russians living in Crimea what they wanted or preferred. (Note: my ex-wife is Russian and lived most of 40 summers in Crimea and has many close friends who live there still, all also ethnic Russians.)
After many years of being treated poorly by the Ukraine government and then watching the collapse of any hope of honest representation in the government in Kiev they determined to secede from Ukraine, with the obvious blessing and “covert” assistance of Russia. This was NOT a takeover of Crimea by Russia, only the Russians in Crimea declaring their independence from Ukraine and calling on their only ally – Russia, to help them.
Treaties are only words on paper by diplomats seeking political solutions. America has broken more than her share of treaties – ask the Indians/Native Americans. I seem to recall something about a Treaty of Versailles and something called a Non-aggression Pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Where are those documents now? The world got the nuclear agreement they wanted based on such a document, and Ukraine is nuke-free. Why is it any of our business now if the people who live in Crimea, and their friends and family in Russia, decide they do not want to be ruled by Ukrainians with more than a little historical animus towards Russians?
Stalinist drivel. WHY are the Russian commies all over Eastern Eurup? Because Stalin conducted mass genocide (in particular in the Ukraine) then resettle his Russian Commie underlings.
EU sources contacted by the Finnish Broadcasting Company Yle did not initially understand the use of semi-automatic firearms for hunting, and were not familiar with Finland’s reservist operations EU twits were not aware that the entire continent/world is not in love with marx and the KGB. EU twits think they are the actual vanguard of KGB victory.
Oh, so the massive Russian naval installation there had nothing to do with this. BTW, the ethnic makeup of the region has f/a to do with Russian involvement there; again, it all stems from the strategic port. Russia was justified in securing it’s one warm-water port facility; Crimea was incredibly stupid in giving up its nukes based on NATO promises without first securing full membership.
As far as representation, Crimea/ex-Soviet-sympathizers had plenty; they and the nationalists traded leadership & parliament majorities back and forth almost every election over the last few decades. As I recall, the Russians poisoned to death (or nearly so) the NATO-friendly candidate in one of the recent elections, leading to the pro-Russian candidate’s ascention. That person was eventually tossed out for corruption issues if I’m remembering correctly, and the nationalists took power & began approaching NATO about closer ties or outright membership right before this invasion/civil war began. In fact, it would be interesting to see which faction was in command when the insane decision to cede nuclear weapons was made; the NATO promise makes you think it would be nationalists, but why wouldn’t sympathizers give up the one wild card that would keep the Russians in check? Because they expected something like this to eventually go down if they disarmed.
You’re a damned fool to want to cozy up to a regime that would shoot down the plane carrying your entire government if they get too unfriendly, like they did the Polish presidents’ (in light of the Malysian flight over Ukraine, and the brazen tactics of their incursion there, you’d be an even bigger fool to think they had nothing to do with that plane crash)
Cliff H. — You’ve either been duped into the post-Soviet drivel or you’re engaging in spreading misinformation.
>> In a deal to get the Ukraine to give up the nuclear weapons stockpiled there by the Soviet Union the Russians agreed to cede Crimea
Stop repeating this bullshit, it’s just plain false. Crimea was ceded by Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954, back when both were still part of the Soviet Union. By the time the Union was dissolved 45 years later, Crimea was already in Ukraine, so no, Russians didn’t agree on anything about it.
>> BTW, the ethnic makeup of the region has f/a to do with Russian involvement there; again, it all stems from the strategic port.
This isn’t true, either. Crimea was never majority Ukrainian historically, nor part of Ukraine until 1954. Back when Ukraine was an independent country briefly (on its way from Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to Muscovite Russia), Crimea in its entirety was in the Crimean Khanate, inhabited by Crimean Tatars – so they constitute the last indigenous population. It was a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire, from which the Russians – not the Ukrainians (who were by then in Russia for over a century, anyway) – conquered it. After the conquest, many Tatars left for the Ottoman Empire on account of their religion, while the Russian government have immediately initiated a massive resettlement program for the peninsula, using mainly ethnic Russians as settlers, who eventually overwhelmed the Tatars. Stalin’s mass deportations of Crimean Tatars during WW2 as a form of collective punishment for collaboration with the Axis have shifted the population further, given the present arrangement.
So basically, for the entire history of Crimea in which Russians and/or Ukrainians were involved, the peninsula was always either majority Russian or majority Tatar, never majority Ukrainian. Nor was it ever associated with Ukraine geographically or politically until the transfer from RSFSR to USSR in 1954.
Cliff, great write up of the truth. Remember people, we are subject to the same propaganda machine that is as much anti-Russia as it is anti-gun. It should never be our business to tell other people in the world how to live and what to do. That is the precise reason we are in the situation we are currently.
Where did we hear this argument before? …oh yes, Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudeten_Germans
Guess who said: “Where there are Germans there is Germany!” Of course he did not stop in Sudetenland. Appetite grows with eating.
Haha. Let’s hope some of these EU countries keep some common sense.
Ditto-central Europe sanity. Let’s disarm even further for the muslim hordes. They need more Charles Martel and less “we have flowers son”…
It started before this. Finland had a lower age to acquire firearms but the EU forced their hand to up the age after a single incident involving suicide. It’s not just firearms issues. The EU has forced a lot laws under the guise of human rights on its member countries without the ability to vote on it.
I’m waiting for a couple of countries to try and exit the EU (secede) and the other countries declining their leaving (invade) for the reason of “human rights”.
Are you thinking of 1860?
Unlikely. The treaties that define and govern the EU provide a mechanism for countries to leave if they wish. I doubt any country’s decision to leave would be opposed with force.
Unlike US, the EU treaties include mechanism for leaving. Any country is free to go at any moment.
Vice News had a show about Poland having all sorts of private militias with all sorts of neat play toys. I would think Poland and a few other EU Countries would pitch a bitch.
Those were mostly air-soft toys. Only few of those militia members have real guns.
Gun ownership in Poland is one of the lowest in Europe. It is actually 6 times lower now in free Poland than what it was in the final year of communist rule in Czechoslovakia, which is quite telling.
Convincing air soft toys.
Wait a minute. They are banning the wrong weapons. All three attacks in France used fully automatic weapons. WHT not make those illegal first. /sarc
I had my VZ58 out on the range today. I use the side mount for my aimpoint as I like the weight back over the pistol grip. I’m not sure how it would feel having a large red dot mounted that far forward. Back to the EU, I wish more countries would push back against the proposed moronic law.
Original Vz. 58 has only 14.5″ barrel. The Fab stock adds some weight to the back of the rifle too.
I’m more curious why he didn’t rise his adjustible cheek support to get up to the red dot level, instead of chin welding. I have the same folder on my Vz. and with low mounted RD at the same position I still have to go at least one click up on it.
France has all the gun laws a bloomburg could love, yet it did nothing. So naturally they want to push other places into passing the same useless gun laws. And what happens after that doesn’t work? Serious question… one that no one seems to ask these nitwits.
I’m completely in favor of the Euros abandoning all notions of self-defense. Decapitating Europeans should keep the jihadholes busy for a while, providing more time for Americans to stock up guns and ammo.
I love your cynicism!
If people want to give in, let them.
Thank you for your stupidity and cowardice, you bastard. Do you wish the same to, say, Californians?
Yeah, I’m one of those dissenting, modern semi-auto sporting rifle with 30-round capacity magazines owning Czechs. You ever noticed us wishing you stricter gun control? No? So why wish this on us?
It is enough to have to deal with politicians not knowing the difference between a semi-auto and a machinegun. With friends like you, who needs more enemies?
I believe Ralph was sarcastically trying to point out the futility of gun laws in general. In this case he was pointing out that unarmed people are more likely to be subject to oppression from domestic and foriegn tyrants and terrorists.
As for Ralph being a bastard in the US we do not recognize titles by heritage and many couples live happy lives together and have children WBOC (without benefit of clergy). The term bastard is so 80’s! Merry Christmas and good shooting.
The Phantom, some things have stopped being funny a long time ago and some kinds od sarcasm have suffered the same fate, at least in my eyes. It *is* possible that Ralph was trying to be sarcastic – but I’ve seen so many people being cynical about such things that I’m not even remotely sure of it.
Do I have to point out the fact that Czech Republic is a republic, making that remark about hereditary titles pointless? And that we’re one of the most atheistic countries in the world, which means most Czech basically ignore all clergy?
I’ll admit I might have chosen a different insult. In my defense, I’ve been trying to convey an emotion while staying relatively decent, not pick a most fitting description.
Thanks for the wish, we’ve been to a range today and while my better half got a bit angry with her own shooting, we’re both improving 🙂 So Merry Christmass and good shooting to you too.
I’m with you, man. Ralph might have been being facetious, but I don’t wish islamoterrorism on anyone of any country. I also have a soft spot for your country and people, after spending three years stationed in Bavaria and making frequent weekend trips to Prague and Plzen. Most American-friendly people outside of Sicilians, who love everyone. (Or maybe that was just because I’m of Sicilian descent.) Great food, too. Duck and venison and sausages and cabbage and dumplings… Mmm-hmmm.
Well, I wouldn’t say everyone is friendly to Americans, but I’m glad that enough of us are. You were lucky that Plzen got liberated by Americans during WW2, that helped make them more American-friendly.
As for the food, I’m afraid that the best place to search for Czech food in the USA is Chicago…
Could you possibly prevail on your countrymen to send a few more CZs our way? (Yeah, they’d have to make more than they already make.)
I would like to but the number of CCL applications has like doubled this year, meaning we probably need them more than you do because new shooters need some guns. Besides, CZUB is already making so many guns for foreign customers that it is failing to meet domestic demand for certain types of firearms, namely those semi-auto rifles that that @$%#@$# proposal would like to ban.
>> it is failing to meet domestic demand for certain types of firearms, namely those semi-auto rifles
Wait… so you have quotas on how many firearms the manufacturers must make for the civilian market?
Is it a percentage of exports, or just a fixed amount?
>>Wait… so you have quotas on how many firearms the manufacturers must make for the civilian market?
No, it is not a question of any quotas. But as far as I know, CZUB is so swamped by orders that their CZ858s are hopelessly out of stock and new ones will become available in January at best. And some gunshops already have waiting lists.for those still to be manufactured rifles.
For what it is worth, new Vz 58 imports have been out of stock for over a year in US as well, other that the 5.56 version.
(well, plenty of Century’s Vz 2008 around, but as I’m sure you’re well aware, it’s not really the same thing)
I’m going to disagree with you here, Ralph. Because I’ve studied deeply of what happened the last time the Muslims came to town in Europe, I know what is in store for the Europeans if they don’t get this situation under control and do as Hungary has done: enact their own borders, complete with walls and razor wire.
There’s a reason why a man so barbaric and cruel as Vlad Tepes, aka “Vlad the Impaler” is still regarded as a hero in his native land: he pushed the Turks (Muslims) back. Did he kill a whole bunch of his own countrymen with methods that were beyond the pale, even then? Yup. Noooo question there. He was a despot’s despot. Today’s despots use methods that are positively clinical and neat by comparison. Putting a 20′ pole up someone’s rectum as they are pulled onto said pole by a couple of horses is a level of sadistic sophistication that’s really pretty unique in history.
But Vlad pushed back the Turkish hordes, and thereby prevented (for awhile) the wholesale rape and sex slavery of women in areas of Turkish conquest, and the ransoming of young boys and men to serve as military expendables for the Turks.
Want to see the future of Europe if the elites continue to sell out western civilization? Look at Sweden, now the nation in Europe with the highest rate of rape of women, and where 90% of rapes are committed by Muslim men. Look at Rotherham, where civil servants and law enforcement turned a deliberate blind eye to the forced prostitution of over 1400 girls by Muslims (aka “Asians” in Brit political parlance).
This kind of thing causes ordinarily calm and reasonable people to become quite violent in ways they don’t when the victims are merely killed.
Of all the states in Europe I visited. I enjoyed my stay in Prague the most.
Assault weapons being used by jihadist terrorists in Europe is a problem; so…
They have a flood of people pouring into Europe from areas known for spawning these jihadists. Some of those people are bad, but the majority of them are not.
They also have thousands (millions?) of civilian owned “assault weapons” in Europe. Some of those weapons have been used for bad things, but the majority of them have not.
So, which one are they going to ban?
It’s not just those three. According to each countries statement there are atm 8 countries against the ban. Austria, Bulgaria, Czech, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Lithuania and Slowakia
Countries, that are possibly against it:
Poland, Malta, Slowenia, Denmark, Lettland, Hungary, Sweden, Belgium
Countries, that are hard to tell atm:
Netherlands, Italy, Croatia, Romania, Luxemburg
Countries, that are possible for the ban:
Greece, Spain, Cyrpus
Countries, clearly in favour of the ban:
Ireland, Portugal, “Great” Britain, France(who started the whole BS)
So you see it’s not Europeans or Europe it’s some problem children. You wouldn’t wanna thrown in the same bucket with NY would you?
What is the rifle in the picture? The magazine is clearly of the AK variety.
It is CZ Vz 58. The magazine is similar to AK-47 visually because it uses the same ammo, with the same considerable taper, making the distinctive curve a necessity. But it’s not actually compatible with AK mags (it has a different-shaped follower with a tab to engage bolt hold open, and the body of the mag is shaped around it). A very nice gun; lighter than AK, and more accurate; and believe it or not, even easier to field strip.
In short, better than an AK.
Except not as reliable where the AK still reigns king.
Yeah, reliability is a concern. There isn’t much data on this, but I’ve heard (via “guy heard from the guy he knows from …” channel) that these things overheat very quickly with full auto fire. Which is further exacerbated by not having a heat shield in the handguard in the standard configuration, so in many cases you wouldn’t even be able to overheat it before it overheats you.
Also, some people more knowledgeable about firearm actions than me have said that Vz 58 action is inherently somewhat less reliable than AK action (from which it is radically different; not only Vz is short-stroke piston and striker-fired, but its locking mechanism is not even rotating bolt; in fact, I haven’t seen any other semi-auto rifle that locks like that). I don’t know why exactly that would be the case, but perhaps someone here can watch this and tell whether it’s bullshit or not, and if not, then why:
Anyway, this is all hearsay. The fact that’s it’s lighter and more ergonomic, and just generally better made than your average AK, is definitely true, so I would prefer it for these reasons alone.
It’s also amusing that Vz 58 is one of the few (only?) assault rifles that can still be loaded from stripper clips, despite having a detachable 30-round magazine – which is fully retained in civilian semi-auto conversions. Between this and the action, it’s actually arguably closer to well-refined and well-made SKS than it is to AK.
Thanks for the info!
>> As I recall, the Russians poisoned to death (or nearly so) the NATO-friendly candidate in one of the recent elections, leading to the pro-Russian candidate’s ascention. That person was eventually tossed out for corruption issues if I’m remembering correctly
You recall incorrectly. It is rumored that Russian intelligence agencies were beyond the poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko , a pro-Western presidential candidate back in 2004, but he did become president regardless (after the Orange Revolution). However, his administration has turned out to be pretty much as corrupt as the preceding pro-Russian administrations, and so in 2010 he didn’t try to run for a second term, and the other candidate from his party, Yulia Timoshenko, was not as persuasive, and so the election was lost fair and square to pro-Russian party candidate Yanukovich – that’s the guy who was ousted in 2014. The ouster was actually originally over his decision to not submit application for Ukraine to become a EU member – other causes got tackled on later.
>> and the nationalists took power & began approaching NATO about closer ties or outright membership right before this invasion/civil war began.
The people who took power are moderates, not nationalists. The ultra-nationalist Svoboda party did really poorly in the first election after the new regime was established.
>> In fact, it would be interesting to see which faction was in command when the insane decision to cede nuclear weapons was made
Neither faction really existed in a meaningful way back then; the country was still run by ex-Soviet apparatchiks who suddenly “discovered their roots”, so to speak. The guy in charge back then, Kravchuk, was more on the nationalist side of things, but nowhere even close to the level of nationalism exhibited by such parties in Ukraine today.
>> why wouldn’t sympathizers give up the one wild card that would keep the Russians in check? Because they expected something like this to eventually go down if they disarmed.
Because none of the major powers on the world arena wanted yet another nuclear state. Not Russia, obviously, but neither did US, nor Europe, nor China. So Ukrainians were basically told very politely that they should figure out how to properly give up the arsenal in a civilized fashion, or else everyone else would just look the other way while Russia takes care of it.
It should be noted that Ukraine got a far better deal out of their nukes than any other Soviet republic (and they have been stationed all across the country, so it wasn’t just Ukraine that had it) – at least they got some guarantees; most everybody else got nothing. In any case, while they were physically in possession, the entire launch infrastructure was wired around the command and control center in Moscow, so they’d have to invest into a massive rebuild to even be able to use those things. Given the crappy economic state of all ex-Soviet republics at that point, it wasn’t really a readily available option.
This draft for a new gun law has been manipulated by the European Commission.
I wrote a report which has been spread to lots of MEPs (Member of Parliament)
Here the introduction:
European Commission wrote on 18th of November 2015:1
The recent terrorist attacks on Europe’s people and values were coordinated across borders.
We must work together to resist these threats. We are proposing stricter controls on sale
and registration of firearms, and stronger rules to irrevocably deactivate weapons. We
want to tackle the threat of weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. Organised criminals
accessing and trading military grade firearms in Europe cannot and will not be tolerated.
But this proposal with stricter control on strict rules and with restricting live-saving weapons, blank
firing guns and banning deactivated and semi-automatic rifles, which look like military ones
has no support
* by DG Home’s own expert group on firearms (chapter 5.2.)
* by Ministries of Interior and Justice (chapter 5.1.)
* by Ministries of Defense
* by the public opinion (chapter 5.3)
* by law-abiding gun owners, manufacturers and trade (chapter 7)
We assume that Fabio Marini, the Coordinator of the Anti-Firearms Trafficking Task Force, got very
frustrated with the democratic process of the last three years and his own expert group. Nobody
wanted to sign his plans, everybody wanted only new harmonized rules for deactivated firearms.
But there were rumors since the 20th of October, 3 weeks before the bloody attack in Paris, that the
EC also wants to ban internet sales and semi-automatic rifles. The gun rights advocates made
inquiries in Brussels. Fabio Marini denied these rumors. “There were no plans for it, only for
deactivated firearms”, he said. And then he presented the new proposal with drastic bans and drastic
restrictions which are a threat to national and individual security.
These now announced measures were waiting since 2013 for an opportunity to
catch the moment of pain and fear of public opinion to impose them.
This report will show you how a few people – we only know the actors Malmström and Marini, but
there may be more – misuse democracy to implement their dream into law with lies, manipulation
and ignorance. These few people were never been interested in reducing crime. They only want to
drive their own political anti-gun agenda against law abiding gun owners ignoring all transparency
and democratic means.
Read more: https://legalwaffenbesitzer.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/eu-gunban.pdf
Not to mention that the AK’s were illegally imported full auto AK’s. Even semi auto AK’s are hard to get legally in France.
How anyone can look at Paris and still call for gun control is beyond me. They already have tougher laws than New Jersey or DC, or even Canada if you ask me.
European countries have historically had low crime rate due to nice people, NOT gun laws. They had lower murder rates before passing gun control. They’re paying the price now with the influx of militant muslims, and no way to protect themselves. They’re really digging their own grave by passing even more gun control.
All the terrorists have to do is smuggle weapons from Eastern Europe. Travelling in the EU is only a little more difficult than travelling across the US. When there’s another shooting, the dumb bastards will probably call for even more gun control.
Compare and contrast: Charlie Hebdo and Garland Texas. Two terrorists with AK’s. Difference was a good guy with a gun. The only deaths in Garland were the two terrorists.
Also remember that Aussies have had 10 mass murders since 1996. One was by pistol, most of the others were arson (Are they going to ban matches???). We should tell that to the douche bag Jim Jeffries, but I digress.
These countries also had homogeneous populations with very little to no diversity or nationalities in their populations. Our country is made up of many nationalities, cultures, races, etc. that created more tension, racism, whatever you wish to call it. Europeans then decry how we are the most racist country on earth without realizing that because they have homogeneous populations they live in a bubble of how so “enlightened” they are like the typical American liberal who decries racism while living in their gentrified neighborhoods away from the minority neighborhoods. It is okay now because the Europeans are showing their own “bigotry” with the influx of immigrants coming in wiping the smug off their faces of being so tolerant of everyone.
Apparently France and Belgium are pushing hard for the semi-auto rifles ban and will do it either through EU or through national law. Their motive seems to be that there are millions of second-generation muslim immigrants living in these countries who are under current laws able to obtain these guns legally…
So using bigotry, huh? Just like what we used in this country and the basis for all gun control, period.
Hey Robert, here’s some light on what’s going on in EU and another new stupid gun control law:
– Currently all full-auto rifle with more than 30 rounds and such are already banned from civilians. All firearms and parts of firearms (this is very important detail).
– Some firearms (such AK) can be purchased with a long paperwork process, some conditions and restrictions and such (NFA like). But they can still be purchased and used legally for “sporting” reason.
– Terrorists and criminals don’t go through the long background check, paperwork and such, they just buy one of the so many illegal guns from the Balkans, East Ex-Soviet Countries and Middle-East (No big surprise here).
– Now, some non-elected EU commission guys decided they wanted to ban all firearms that could be modified to be in Full-Auto. For instance, some full-auto AK are converted to semi-auto to be sold to civilians. And they would love to ban those firearms… even thought non of them have been used by terrorist.
– They claim it’s too easy for civilians to buy from internet the “parts” to convert those firearms back to full-auto… But again, if you notice the first point. “Part” of firearms that are full-auto are already banned. So instead to go against criminals that sell already illegal parts under current gun laws, they try to ban all firearms from civilians using the reason that they could “possibly” be modified. “So, we won’t sell you a car because you could possibly drive too fast and not respect road signs…”
– And of course, since purchases happen on internet, they want to ban sell of firearms, parts, ammo and such from internet.
Of course, they say they don’t want to ban “all” semi-auto rifles… but they clearly target the AK-47 and VZ-58 rifles because they are very popular and cheap here (a VZ-58 is under $300 with four 30 rounds magazine). But we all know that the next step will be to ban all semi-auto “war weapons”… and then all “handguns”… to end with a European gun law that will be similar to the UK. Just a way to disarm European countries that are not yet disarmed such the UK.
Pure B.S., we all know it, but that’s what is actually in the new proposed EU gun laws that will be passed and voted by people that never been elected.
So far this is the tally of European countries with this stupid proposal:
We have reservations regarding the recategorization of the semi-automatic firearms. The most of the hunting and short barrel weapons are of this category of firearms and adding the semiautomatic firearms to the Category A — “Prohibited firearms” would have significant economic effect, which of its side would lead to increasing of the illegal weapons. We consider that when an effective control over this type of weapons is exercised by the competent authorities (regarding the weapon itself – marking, as well as regarding the brokers and persons who acquire and possess semi-automatic firearms) its prohibition it’s not necessary.
The proposal bans semi-automatic weapons which are included in the current category “B7”. Semi-automatic weapons represent a high share of today’s hunting and sport-shooting weapons. This change would have a significant influence on several persons who currently have the right to own that kind of weapons. Before making the decision on banning those weapons we have to analyse this issue thoroughly. At the moment we cannot support the proposal to restrict acquisition and possession of firearms that are possessed and used legally in accord with internal law of EU Member States. Currently we are hesitant whether the proposed changes will actually lead to the results that are expected.
This proposed amendment is very restrictive. The main concern for Finland is that this new categorization would have a considerable effect on Finland’s national defence.
In addition, the proposed prohibition of semi-automatic firearms will also have an effect on rifle disciplines in practical shooting and in practice makes this type of shooting sport impossible.
There should be given a more detailed description on the addition of semi-automatic firearms, which ‘resemble’ firearms with automatic mechanisms, in Category A, because there will be problems with firearms being already on the market. It has to be determined which types of weapons are mentioned here (pistols, rifles, etc.).
We can not accept the proposal to prohibit semi-automatic firearms. The implementation of
such a provision could increase the number of illegal weapons and would require resources
from the Member State.
The prohibition should not be related to the appearance but to the functioning of a firearm.
The Commission`s proposals for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Council Directive 91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons has as one of its objectives the general prohibition of possession of semi-automatic firearms, which have been converted to such and also other important restrictions. We do not think that such prohibition can solve the issue of civil population protection against the threat of using firearms similarly to some recent terrorist incidents.
ANNX I. Cat A.7. Semi-automatic firearms for civilian use which resemble weapons with
This sub-category is not clearly defined, so an explanation on the following wording is
“…which resemble weapons with automatic mechanisms”
Czech Republic AGAINST
As we already noted in our non-paper circulated on November 25 there are many doubts that
the ban of selected semi-automatic firearms will contribute to security. With respect to the current situation there are serious concerns that the ban will lead to massive outflow of these so-far legally owned weapons to illegal sphere. The concerns have further increased over the last days as the refusal to the eventual expropriation of these firearms has started to shape as a political stance. The firearms policy in the Czech Republic has been stable over the past two decades. The results are very low level of armed crime and circa 20,000 illegal firearms voluntarily given up during the so-called amnesties. The implementation of the proposed restrictions can well obliterate these results as the supply of illegal firearms will be revitalized by tens of thousands of “lost” or “stolen” modern semiautomatic firearms.
2. The interpretation of the terms used in the newly proposed indents 6 and 7 will produce a
magnitude of problems and ambiguities. Besides the problems with the specification of resemblance of weapons with automatic mechanisms (see the non-paper cited above) it can be mentioned that also a definition of a “converted semi-automatic firearm” might not be clear and thus applicable. Especially large producers of these firearms usually use a mix of parts from used firearms, new spare parts (which were never part of a fully-automatic firearm), semi-finished parts from original military production and newly produced parts manufactured exclusively for the semiautomatic variants of the firearms. To what extent is a firearm “converted” from an originally fully-automatic firearm would be thus very difficult to define.
This provision is not comprehensible in its present shape. It is not based on the fact that, for construction reasons, the weapon is more dangerous. Instead, the provision is purely based on physical appearance and therefore does not lead to greater security. The reasoning of the draft does not clarify why this is the case. Furthermore, this arrangement is too imprecise to be a suitable ground for a ban: When would a semi-automatic firearm sufficiently resemble an automatic firearm?
Categories (new Annex I part II):
The proposal i.a. aims at preventing unauthorized persons from the possession of automatic firearms. In order to reach this goal, the following provisions need to be taken:
1. All semi-automatic firearms shall be included in category B
2. If relevant parts of such semi-automatic weapons are likely to be used in automatic firearms, these semi-automatic weapons shall fall under category A.
And Sweden is against most of the suggestions but our silly minister of interior has been listening to the hoplophobes at the police and wants to ban “scary” semi automatics…
Is there a link to some document or documents containing all this that can be conveniently referenced?
There are several documents and they are online. But awful to try and find on the Eu webpages 😛
This is one such document, there may be something more recent:
Be warned that it is written mostly in EU legalese.
Thank you very much – this is perfect!
The reason why this is relevant for us here in US is that the proposed EU ban is not even as extensive as the most recent AWB proposals here (Hillary even cited Australia as a model, which would imply a complete semi-auto ban). The fact that even in Europe this is widely seen as too extreme is a powerful rebuttal, especially to those on the left side of the political spectrum (which increasingly sees Europe as a model). Doubly so as many of the comments in this document (like Germany’s point that banning guns based on look is stupid) is what we’ve been preaching here for years, but coming from “gun nuts”, it’s often just dismissed outright without any consideration. If it can now be cited and sourced to “socialist” European states, that might make at least some people actually consider it.
So this makes for excellent anti-AWB propaganda, when properly packaged and redistributed. Thanks again! And I would encourage all Americans here to reshare the document through all available channels, with a choice selection of quotes from it emphasizing the main points.
“Finland, Czech Republic and Sweden Not Entirely On Board with Proposed Ban on Semi-Automatic Firearms”
Well, yeah. That’s because FInland and Czechoslovakia (currently Czech Republic and Slovakia) are *sane*.
It’s also because both countries have been invaded and occupied by Germany, Nazi Germany, and then the Soviet Union within the living memories of some of their inhabitants.
My mom’s family is Czech. The bulk of what is left of that family emigrated to the US in the early 1900s before WWI. That’s *why* they’re what’s *left* of that side of the family – there are very few remaining members of that bloodline currently in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The Germans and then the Soviets killed most of them.
Oddly enough, both the Germans and the Soviets heavily restricted private ownership of military weapons during their stay there. Funny how that works.
Oddly enough, a number of the members of my remaining family there work at the BRNO and CZ factories, and are staunch advocates of shooting and gun ownership…
Funny how that works.
Finland has been NOT invaded/occupied by Nazi germany.Germany was our ally in WW2 against Soviet Union which wanted to invade Finland.Northern Finland was defended by german 20th Gebirgsarmee.
And after Finland made peace with Soviet Union 1944,Germans in north came our enemy for very short period in end of WW2.
Gun directive issue is national security issue in Finland.We still have conscript army,which does not have money to train 250000 reservists every year.Our nations reservist training has been organized many decades(actually since WW2) by voluntary reservist training with own semiauto guns and even ammo is paid by reservists themself.It was same thing before WW2,and it is kept one of the main reasons why Finland managed to fight Soviet Union in Winterwar 1939.Men back then could shoot,ski and live in frozen winter forests which was main thing for our success.Army equipment was so sad back those days that men used civilian clothes becouse our nation had no money to buy uniforms for all.
This thing is something that most of the Europeans wont know.But it is simple like that.
History clearly shows when gun control initiatives take hold the only ones affected are the law abiding. Clearly the liberal Weimar Regeme set the course which insured the Nazis had all the weaponry and the sheeple cattle cars. The firearms used in France by terrorists were completely illegal in the EU.
Only the Czech respect defense in public on shall issue ccw but no open carry.
For eudddsr it s an 8 world wounder that this exist.