The gun lobby is stepping up against tougher legislation (v2)

(B2 - exclusive) Holders of collectible firearms, hunters, shooters... made their voices heard from the presentation on Wednesday 18 November by the European Commission (1). Discreetly but very effectively. As soon as the measure was known, many emails flooded the offices of MEPs, especially French speakers. An email invariably containing the same argument, which is not signed by an association but by an individual. In fact, this call was found on certain shooter forums and was notably driven by the National Union of Hunting and Shooting Weapons Owners (UNPACT), born in 2011 to protest against a similar bill in France. A shipment which is probably not the most important, notes an informed observer in the European Parliament, but which is no less massive.

What arguments do they use? " Officials of the European Commission are visibly tempted to instrumentalize the dramatic events of recent days and to make yet another dubious amalgamation between the legal possession of semi-automatic weapons by law-abiding citizens and the illegal possession of automatic weapons. by terrorists. (...) This prohibition of legal weapons obviously has no chance of having the slightest impact on the risks induced by the arrival of illegal weapons across the porous borders of the Schengen area. Holders of legal weapons – hunters, shooters, collectors – count on their representation in the European Parliament to avoid becoming collateral victims of terrorism and to resist the excessive influence of unelected staff of the European Commission. »

A questionable argument.

1° This is not an anti-democratic measure. But a measure decided in consultation by all the Member States, and with their almost unanimous agreement. In addition, part of this legislation will be submitted to the European Parliament for democratic discussion.

2° Admittedly, the regulations referred to completely leave the “market” for Kalashnikov-type weapons, notably from stocks in the Balkans (2). But it responds to some problems noted by some European security experts. Disabling some weapons can easily be removed. And the situation from one member country to another differs significantly. It is not because France has rather rigorous legislation that all countries have it too.

3° There is no general prohibition but rather a tightening of the existing legislation (3). Moreover, when we talk about semi-automatic weapons, we are not referring to old Chassepots or antique flintlock rifles but more recent weapons, pistols, which can still be used, which have automatic loading even if the bullets are fired. piecemeal (4). A semi-automatic weapon is still not a cassoulet box. According to specialists, it may also be as dangerous as an automatic weapon. The tightening of European legislation therefore seems entirely justified, even if it does not respond to the broader issue of arms trafficking.

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)

(1) Read: A stricter framework on the possession of firearms proposed by the Commission

(2) A problem that will be dealt with at another level, by the Europeans. The interior ministers have just decided on Friday (November 20).

(3) The legislation aims (among other things) to introduce into category A (prohibited) three types of weapons: automatic firearms which have been converted into semi-automatic firearms); Semi-automatic firearms for civilian use which resemble weapons with automatic mechanisms; Category A weapons that have been deactivated (Firearms under points 1 to 7 after having been deactivated')

(4) According to the community definition of the 1991 directive, it is a " firearm which, after each shot fired, is automatically reloaded and which ne can, with a single pull of the trigger, release more than one shot”.

NB : this article has generated a number of comments, all turned in the same direction, some downright insulting, others very aggressive, unrelated to the tone of the article, with often questionable arguments. OUR editorial slant provides that comments are rarely published (unless they provide interesting editorial content). Given the turn of mind of all these comments, it is obvious that they do not fall within this exception. Their content does not encourage entrusting semi-automatic weapons to people who, under the pretext of "knowing well", do not translate in their writings a perfect coolness and respect for others. On the other hand, clarifications useful for understanding the subject and giving the full context of the decision have been provided.

(Updated) the argument was clarified in response to several comments complaining in particular of an "anti-democratic" procedure, carried out by "bureaucrats who know nothing about it", even "stupid" or "undermining freedoms". He detailed certain points of the directive, in particular that on semi-automatic weapons, which seems to be the one that provokes the most anger...