The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Well if he does raise it, it's well known Cameron is Proshooting so will be a good force to have against them.

Finally got a (combined) response from the 2 Labour MEP scumbags i'm 'represented' by;

Dear Blackstuff,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me concerning the proposal to strengthen the current EU Firearms Directive. The proposal was launched on November 18 and is in line with the declaration by Home Affairs Ministers on 29 August 2015, repeating the call for the revision of the Firearms Directive and for a common approach on the deactivation of firearms.
Labour MEPs have always supported tough firearms laws both at home and abroad and our support will continue as these proposals make their way through the legislative process which is hoped to be concluded swiftly.

On the 7th December the proposal was brought to the Parliament's lead committee on single market issues, the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO). The Parliament will now start to review and amend the proposal in January 2016, as soon as the MEP who will be responsible for the report from the Parliament's side, the Rapporteur, is announced.

The key changes to the existing rules in order to improve and toughen the current EU firearms law cover eight keys areas: stricter rules on on-line sales; a ban on certain automatic weapons; the inclusion in the scope of the directive of blank firing weapons which have the potential to be transformed into a firearm; greater restrictions on the use and circulation of deactivated firearms; creation of national registers of deactivated firearms; collectors and brokers will now be brought into the scope of the directive; better traceability of firearms which means an improved marking system and an enhanced information exchange on firearms between Member States.

Under the 2008 Firearms Directive firearms are not required to be on any register once deactivated. Evidence gathered by Commission studies showed this is a serious weakness in the EU legislation in terms of security. In fact, Slovakian media reported in February that the terrorists attacking Charlie Hebdo in January bought their Kalashnikovs legally in Slovakia, where they were sold as decommissioned weapons to be used as film props, but then found an expert in Belgium who was able to reactivate them.
The new proposal will introduce stringent minimum common guidelines regarding the deactivation of firearms and will in turn render reactivation much more difficult. As a consequence, for the most dangerous firearms (category A) stricter rules have been introduced - even if they are deactivated. This now means that deactivated firearms from Category A (fully automatic weapons and military weapons) will not be allowed to be owned or traded by private persons (except for museums). A new provision establishes the requirement for record keeping of deactivated firearms in national registries and any transfer (ie change of owner) of deactivated firearms will now also be registered.

For the sake of clarification, I would like to emphasise that hunters will not be affected by the proposed changes. It is true that collectors and brokers will now fall under the scope of the Directive. Collectors have been identified as a possible source of traffic of firearms by the evaluation carried out by the Commission. Therefore, in the new proposal the collectors will still have the possibility to acquire firearms but this will be subject to authorisation/declaration. Since brokers provide services similar to those of dealers, they will also be covered by this Directive.

On all of these areas of improvement Labour MEPs support reform in order to tackle criminality and terrorism across the EU more effectively. I received several e-mails stating that in any case terrorists do not acquire firearms from legal sources and the new proposal is not the right solution. However, perhaps less striking to the public eye, but not less significant - not least in quantitative terms - are the numbers of people in Europe killed by firearms in the context of gun-related crime or in domestic shootings. It is estimated that between 2000 and 2010, over 10,000 victims of murder or manslaughter were killed by firearms in the 28 EU Member States. Every year, over 4000 suicides by firearm are registered in the EU.
Terrorists aside these numbers are simply not acceptable and are a call for action, and we as Labour MEPs believe the Commission's proposal takes the right approach. The proposal only sets stringent minimum firearms laws for EU Member States and Member States may enforce stricter firearms laws in their home country should they choose to do so.

If you wound like any more information or have any more questions or comments please do get back in touch.

Kind regards,

Simon Hall
Administrator & Case Worker

Office of Jude Kirton-Darling MEP and Paul Brannen MEP
Labour Members of the European Parliament for the North East of England

Absolutely no mention of target/sport shooting, which was the backbone of my email to them Needless to say i'll be politely writing back.

EDIT: Does anyone know where they're getting that 10,000 per year firearms related death figure from? And more importantly, what it's made up of. IMO suicides shouldn't be included, so thats 40% of it reduced for a kick off!

Perhaps Mr. Hall would like to comment on the 10, 000 deaths a YEAR as a result of drink driving across europe, don't see as much concern.

People who want to commit suicide will do it anyway, it is not the firearms that cause suicide but the mental state of the suicide. If firearms are not available when the darkness descends then they will still take their own life only they will use another method. Such lack of understanding about mental health issues is frightening.

Blackstuff-write him back pls:
1-Slovakia,NO "kalashnikovs" but vz58 and no deacts but BLANKS FIRERS !!!
2-Statistics-in UK arond 60+ deaths per year when firearms used(bus drivers kill MORE!!!)
3-Last 5 years EUC done NOTHING in rules unification for deacts-but was told to do asap.In some countries deacts registration already is in place-Poland.
4-Big Correction,Labour NEVER was good with law updating for firearms-looking from shooters perspective
5-The rest is pure propaganda,YOU ARE ON BLACK LIST Mr.S.Hall....
Greetings

My latest interaction, with standard reply which came today.

Hello Mr Hall,
thank you for your disappointing if predictable reply. I have to just mention my MP, Pat Glass, replied the same night.
It is well understood that shooting is a pet hate of Labour although in my 36 yrs as a target and rough shooter, I have never shot with, or seen anyone in my clubs, who was not working class.
I would like to point out that Slovakia is one of those 3rd world eastern european countries your party was mad keen to bring in to the EU and that had you been less keen, you could have insisted that their firearms laws were brought up to scratch before.
As for a register of de-activated guns, the police in this country can't keep up with registering real guns at the moment so good luck with that...IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.. they will just nod but never do anything about it. The French have strict firearms laws that are just nodded to. My concern is also that although I have a FAC for a .22 rifle this will outlaw it because it is a copy (in . 22 RF) of a military one.
Suicides? As a paramedic I have had the unpleasant task to attend many suicides in county Durham and even though this is a rural community with lots of firearms, only 1 was a gunshot suicide. The vast majority was hanging (particularly favoured by us Brits I believe) . Is this acceptable or are we to outlaw clotheslines, electric cable, belts, dog leads and boot laces , to name a few of the things I have witnessed used? It is buffoonery.
Domestic violence? I have only heard of 1 case in county Durham of death by gun in domestic violence and that was a man with a record of violent domestic abuse who SHOULD have failed the test when applying but yet again, we pay the price for police incompetence . I have witnessed many episodes of domestic violence, nearly all were the use of fist or blunt object, and not always man abusing woman.
I would have written more to better inform you but I know for a fact that you have a closed mind and an agenda which has no room for natural justice. I would be frankly astounded if my email had actually been read by my MEP (who cannot even be named now but is part of a pick and mix), instead of being assigned to a staff member sending me (INSULTINGLY) "our standard response on this issue" .

yours sincerely

An honest law abiding man who cannot rely on the Labour party for his rights to be protected.

From: Office - North East Labour <Office@northeastlabour.eu>
Sent: 09 December 2015 10:49
To:
Subject: RE: Attention of Mr Brannen, re Natural justice

Dear Mr W,

Thank you for your email.

Please find below our standard response on this issue provided to us my a Labour MEP who has the specific knowledge in this area.

The proposal was launched on November 18 and is in line with the declaration by Home Affairs Ministers on 29 August 2015, repeating the call for the revision of the Firearms Directive and for a common approach on the deactivation of firearms.

Labour MEPs have always supported tough firearms laws both at home and abroad and our support will continue as these proposals make their way through the legislative process which is hoped to be concluded swiftly.

On the 7th December the proposal was brought to the Parliament's lead committee on single market issues, the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO). The Parliament will now start to review and amend the proposal in January 2016, as soon as the MEP who will be responsible for the report from the Parliament's side, the Rapporteur, is announced.

The key changes to the existing rules in order to improve and toughen the current EU firearms law cover eight keys areas: stricter rules on on-line sales; a ban on certain automatic weapons; the inclusion in the scope of the directive of blank firing weapons which have the potential to be transformed into a firearm; greater restrictions on the use and circulation of deactivated firearms; creation of national registers of deactivated firearms; collectors and brokers will now be brought into the scope of the directive; better traceability of firearms which means an improved marking system and an enhanced information exchange on firearms between Member States.

Under the 2008 Firearms Directive firearms are not required to be on any register once deactivated. Evidence gathered by Commission studies showed this is a serious weakness in the EU legislation in terms of security. In fact, Slovakian media reported in February that the terrorists attacking Charlie Hebdo in January bought their Kalashnikovs legally in Slovakia, where they were sold as decommissioned weapons to be used as film props, but then found an expert in Belgium who was able to reactivate them.
The new proposal will introduce stringent minimum common guidelines regarding the deactivation of firearms and will in turn render reactivation much more difficult. As a consequence, for the most dangerous firearms (category A) stricter rules have been introduced – even if they are deactivated. This now means that deactivated firearms from Category A (fully automatic weapons and military weapons) will not be allowed to be owned or traded by private persons (except for museums). A new provision establishes the requirement for record keeping of deactivated firearms in national registries and any transfer (ie change of owner) of deactivated firearms will now also be registered.

For the sake of clarification, I would like to emphasise that hunters will not be affected by the proposed changes. It is true that collectors and brokers will now fall under the scope of the Directive. Collectors have been identified as a possible source of traffic of firearms by the evaluation carried out by the Commission. Therefore, in the new proposal the collectors will still have the possibility to acquire firearms but this will be subject to authorisation/declaration. Since brokers provide services similar to those of dealers, they will also be covered by this Directive.

On all of these areas of improvement Labour MEPs support reform in order to tackle criminality and terrorism across the EU more effectively. I received several e-mails stating that in any case terrorists do not acquire firearms from legal sources and the new proposal is not the right solution. However, perhaps less striking to the public eye, but not less significant – not least in quantitative terms – are the numbers of people in Europe killed by firearms in the context of gun-related crime or in domestic shootings. It is estimated that between 2000 and 2010, over 10,000 victims of murder or manslaughter were killed by firearms in the 28 EU Member States. Every year, over 4000 suicides by firearm are registered in the EU.
Terrorists aside these numbers are simply not acceptable and are a call for action, and we as Labour MEPs believe the Commission's proposal takes the right approach. The proposal only sets stringent minimum firearms laws for EU Member States and Member States may enforce stricter firearms laws in their home country should they choose to do so.

If you wound like any more information or have any more questions or comments please do get back in touch.

Kind regards,

Simon Hall
Administrator & Case Worker

Office of Jude Kirton-Darling MEP and Paul Brannen MEP
Labour Members of the European Parliament for the North East of England

Join Jude and Paul’s BIG conversation:
Write to us: Labour Central, Kings Manor, Newcastle, NE1 6PA
Phone us: 0191 6200 105 | 07983 794 194
Join our email list: http://eepurl.com/7EpsT
North East Labour
North East Labour Email Forms
Read more...

Visit our website: www.northeastlabour.eu
Find us on Facebook: facebook.com/Jude4thenorthEast | facebook.com/paulbrannenlabour
Follow us on Twitter: @Labour4NE | @Jude_KD | @PaulBrannenNE

Promoted by Jude Kirton-Darling MEP and Paul Brannen MEP, both of Labour Central, Kings Manor, Newcastle, NE1 6PA

From:
Sent: 22 November 2015 18:49
To: Office - North East Labour <Office@northeastlabour.eu>
Subject: Attention of Mr Brannen, re Natural justice

Dear Mr Brannen,
I am a married man living in Weardale who has the hobby of target shooting. This makes me the target of every politician in this country (and now Europe) who wants to take my sport away on the spurious pretext of security.
Over the past 30 yrs I have been blamed and penalised for every shooting in this country by your fellow politicians. I have had my property confiscated and destroyed on several occasions , and been constantly vilified in the press, all without the courtesy of a trial and like my fellow shooters, was not actually involved in any of them.
I reproduce something that has come to my attention today, that some politicians in Europe (many of whom have similar rigorous firearms legislation of the UK) want to ban more legally owned firearms because of the murders in Paris last week. You cannot own fully automatic Kalashnikovs anywhere in Europe and I highly suspect that the cowardly yet godly murderers did not seek a licence from Belgian police for the guns used in this atrocity.
I am constantly seeing and hearing politicians and commentators, telling us that you cannot blame all Muslims for the acts of the few, cannot take reprisals against innocent Muslims for the acts of those disgraceful few, and I agree.
Why is it ok then, to make reprisals against the legal gun owning population of Europe and UK? Why is it ok to blame us?
Recently, the police chiefs of NPCC , twice tried to start an "inform on a firearm certificate holder", crimestoppers line (for god knows what reason since every one of them has already been rigorously vetted BY THE POLICE already) and twice withdrawn to ridicule.
I wonder what your reaction would be if the NPCC set up an " inform on a muslim" line?? What about if every muslim was put under house arrest?? Or had their cars, kitchen (ie bomb making) equipment, computers and mobile phones confiscated??
No you cannot treat people in that manner ....unless they are law abiding, legal, fire arms owning citizens apparently.
How many fat, white, C of E, middle aged blokes did we see on a murder rampage in Paris this year, how many people like me did we see blowing themselves up in the name of some god or other? NONE ! that's how many NONE!
So please have the honour and decency to help put a stop to this sick joke below.
European Commission officials are trying to instrumentalize Friday events that struck France and make a dubious and insulting amalgam, between legal ownership of semi-automatic rifles by law-abiding citizens and the illegal possession of automatic weapons by barbaric terrorists. Thus, you will be presented shortly a proposal for revision of Directive 2008 / 51 / EC on firearms contained in the MEMO - 15 - 6111, as part of the security agenda set 28 April 2015.

In this proposal, it appears in the paragraph 3, "what changes in the firearms directive" that the commission is proposing an obvious contradiction between the pretext, the use of illegal automatic war weapons, and the actual objective, prohibition of legally owned civilian semi-automatic rifles. This prohibition of legal guns, already heavily regulated & controlled, will obviously have absolutely no impact what so ever on the risks caused by the arrival across the Schengen area's borders of the illegal arsenal used by the terrorists.

Obviously, in the UK, we have already penalised our people by denying them access to full bore semi-automatic rifle and to pistols (except in northern Ireland where no one ever misused a gun ??? really), but now even .22 rifles (which many of your constituents own) will be stolen.
I am also sending this to our other MEPs and MP of course but this is another nail in the coffin of the liberties of the law abiding citizens of this country.
yours sincerely

Well done Gazoo

I was discussing this with Ovenpaa this morning. One thing that I am wondering about...where would the UK shooters be if we did not have the NRA/BASC/Insert any GNO, to fight our corner? It is bad enough as it is and I personally do not feel that they are fighting that hard on our behalf however I do wonder...is the opposition that tough that what we see from the various organisations really the best we can get?

My response to their cut n paste jobbie (Scottish meaning);

Mr Hall (Rep: Ms Kirton-Darling/Mr Brannen),

Thank you for your lengthy response. I am naturally disappointed that you have chosen not to represent my views, that of the several other people you mention who have also contacted you directly, or that of the tens of thousands of the shooters who reside in the North-East area, on this issue.

I would however note that you have not mentioned the key concerns outlined in my original email/letter, that of the proposals impact upon semi-automatic firearms (you mention "automatic firearms" in the 3rd paragraph of your response, however automatic firearms have not been legally available to civilians, without special permission from the Home Secretary, since 1937), or the impact upon target shooters/sportsmen and women, which is my primary concern.

With regard to deactivated weapons being reactivated; i would suggest that the UK already has extremely stringent requirements, which, having viewed several former firearms deactivated to the latest standard, would be next to impossible to bring back into working order. Construction of a new firearm would be easier. On that note i would suggest that rather than the draconian approach proposed by the directive of banning deactivated guns for what they may have previously been, that all EU member states look at their own standards of deactivation, and bring them up to UK spec (Or better if another country does a more rigorous job) if they are found lacking. I believe this was a key requirement of the 2008 Firearms Directive, which certain member states have failed/refused to act upon. Enforcement, rather than 'new' legislation would appear to be the most efficient path.

With regard to semi-automatic guns; the only semi-automatic type firearms which are currently legal to own in the UK are .22 rimfire rifles, and self-loading shotguns. The proposal seems to indicate that only firearms that happen to look like 'military/full-automatic' guns would be banned. I would be most interested to know, who is going to make that judgement call and on what basis, as numerous guns may look like a military rifle to someone who is unfamiliar with firearms, but they may merely have a black plastic stock for example.

Further, I would like to draw your attention to two particular firearms which would cause specific problems with this apparent approach, the Ruger 10/22 rifle, and Benelli M2 shotgun. The 10/22 is one of the, if not THE most popular semi-auto .22 rim-fire rifle in the UK, and around the world. The Benelli M2 is likewise extremely common. As such, scores of different versions of both guns are available, as well as aftermarket stocks/parts which merely change the appearance of the guns, they have absolutely no effect on either the functionality of the firearms, or their lethality. I have attached 3 pictures of each gun which show the exact same firearm, but with 3 different stocks/furniture (See Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 for the 10/22 rifle and Fig1Shot, Fig2Shot and Fig3Shot for the M2 shotgun). Presumably the Fig1s would be considered 'acceptable', where as the Fig3s would not, as they could resemble (dependent on the viewer) military/full-auto guns, and Fig2s falls somewhere between. Let me stress again that all three examples of each gun are exactly the same underneath, fire the same cartridge and operate in the same manner. Both of these guns are widely used by hunters, as well as target shooters, and both very useful for rabbit control, as well as pigeon control in the case of the M2. The statement that hunters would not be affected by the proposals is erroneous. For people who are well educated with regard to firearms this issue is most frustrating as it appears that people who don't fully understand what they are looking at are making decisions based upon appearances only, which is at best unfair, and at worst dangerous.

With regard to the numbers of people who are killed in the EU area where firearms are the means used (N.B. a person may be killed with a firearm, no one is "killed by firearms"). To include suicides in this number is misleading, European and worldwide studies have shown that if a person wishes to commit suicide, they will do so by the means available to them, be that firearms, bladed articles, poison, tall structures etc etc. The availability of a variety of different means does not affect the suicide rate of a particular area/country. It is noteworthy that Japan, which has a virtual complete ban of all types of firearm to the public has a suicide rate of 18.5 per 100,000, where as the UKs rate is 6.2 per 100,000. Even in countries such as the USA, Greenland and Switzerland which have far greater access to firearms than the UK populace, suicide rates are lower than countries such as Japan and Korea. There is no apparent correlation between the suicide rate and accessibility of firearms. Further, without wanting to dwell on the practicalities of suicide using a firearm, surely it only takes one shot to commit the act, therefore, even if there was a link between firearms accessibility and suicide, which the doesn't appear to be, how would banning semi-automatic guns have any impact upon it at all? 40% of the 10,000 figure should be disregarded, in this context. Perhaps the vast quantities of money which would be required to implement this directive would be better spent on investment in mental health care?

The remaining 6000, which will also includes deaths relating to the use of illegally owned firearms (gangs, criminals etc), police/military 'justifiable homicide', legitimate self-defence by civilians and other groups irrelevant to the context of this directive, could be conservatively reduce the number to 2000 (although i suspect the first group mentioned attributes much more). While 2000 deaths individually is a terrible loss of life, and I in no way wish to trivialise them, when viewed in comparison to virtually any other means of death, taking into account the total population of the EU, are statistically low. EU road deaths alone account for more than 25,000 deaths per year, many of which are preventable though far less draconian methods than banning certain types of vehicles. 195,000 deaths are attributed to European consumption of alcohol, yet no one is proposing a directive to ban certain types of strong alcohol such as spirits and wine.

The proposal as it stands will be harmful to hunters/pest controllers, utterly devastating to target shooting sports and a direct threat to the livelihood of countless individuals and businesses, while at the same time having little to no effect on either criminal/terrorist access to guns, or suicide prevention.

As with any other sensible person, I welcome any and all methods that would lead to less people being murdered/killed, whether with firearms, or any other means, however i simply do not see any evidence that the directive would achieve this, aside from perhaps bringing other countries deactivation methods up to UK standards.

I would welcome you comments on the above.

Kind regards

I may be following Gazoos more 'direct' template if i get another cut n paste reply

nice one Blackstuff

FYI it's not 10,000 gun deaths a year, there have been 13,200 gun homicides in the EU from 2000 to 2012.
So a shy over 1,000 gun related murders per year, in a population of 508 million (skewed slightly by expansion in 2004, 2007 and 2013).
Even so, in terms of cause of death in the EU, gun murders are actually a statistical anomaly.
Also Gun related murders constitute a shy under 20% of all forms of murder in Europe (not the EU), which is below the world average of 41%.
Further, the number of homicides on the whole is decreasing (inc. gun related).