Propunere modificare lg.295

[Sly_Fox]

Problema tinde sa fie din ce in ce mai complicata cu fiecare zi ce trece.
Recent, presedintele Comisiei Europene Jean-Claude Juncker, a facut afirmatia ca Uniunea Europeana trebuie reformata din temelii,sistemul trebuie regandit,deoarece nu toate statele au aceeasi viteza (a se citi nu toate statele accepta orice decizie adoptata de greii U.E-vezi de exemplu implementarea cotelor obligatorii de refugiati arabi).
Junker nu este multumit ,,de arhitectura europeana,, asa cum el insusi afirma,si doreste formarea unui nucleu dur al uniunii format din statele importante (ghiciti voi care) care vor face totul impreuna,celelalte state urmand a fi plasate ,,pe orbita,,.
O declaratie mai alarmanta ca aceasta nici ca se putea pentru cetatenii Europei, din punctul meu de vedere este o gafa de proportii a acestui important politician european. Stim noi ce ,,Mare Uniune,, mai adoptase sistemul cu state satelit, ce se invarteau pe orbita cu viteza si in pozitia dorita de marele urss (la Ursa Major ma refer bineinteles,ca tot vorbim de orbite si sateliti ).
Concluziile le trageti si voi,nu este greu de anticipat cam ce se vrea si incotro se indreapta batranul continent.

[Cristi]

Scrieti direct si aici
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdo ... anguage=en

[Cristi]

Petition update

100.000 Signatures
stijn Vandamme
Boezinge, Belgium
Nov 23, 2015 — Good evening,


I am happy to report that we reached 100.000 Signatures today.
And also that we have been getting support from several directions, including from some internet Shooting celebrities like Hickock45 and Instructor Zero. The NRA of the UK today joined the effort and posted the petition on their Facebook page for which I am very grateful indeed.
Finland and the Czech republic have already stated strong disagreement with this draft.

I want to thank all who provided translations and provided feedback on the page.

As I break down the numbers, there have been some changes, but overall Germany and Poland take the bulk of the signatures. But Poland and France have nearly doubled. I hope the UK will catch up now the NRA has backed up the initiative.

I cannot repeat this loud and often enough, we need more people to sign this.

There is NO time to lose so ask yourself, can you afford to stand by Idly?
The answer is NO, you cannot.

1 Sign, and get others to sign

Be active, do not expect this to happen automatically. Everybody has to mobilize and convince others.
We have many groups and organizations who are working hard to deal with this matter, Firearms United, All4shooters, the IPSC community, but do not expect others to do this for you.
We need everybody to put in the effort to find more signatures.

Talk to people and involve your shooting clubs and federations, regional, national.. all of them.
• If you think a certain organization needs to be contacted, contact them, as I cannot possibly contact every organization in the EU. The more people who do this, the more organization will realize this is serious.

• Explain them this is not a rumor, this is real and urgent. The EU is Fast tracking this all the way.
They want this law changed and implemented in the member states in 3 months’ time

• Do make sure they understand, that this affects everybody :
“You may not be affected now, but you will be next time around”

It does not matter if you are an ISPC shooter, Hunter, Target rifle shooter, Collector, Long Distance shooter, pistol, clay pigeon shooter or self-defense gun owner. Even if you do not have any of the guns they target now, you will be affected in the future when they repeat the exercise. We must stick together like glue or risk being blown away

2 Make sure to contact your Member of European Parliament and your national government
• Find the MEP’s for your country on the following link
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/map.html

• Also contact your national government and politicians

• Tell the committee that came up with the draft what you think of it but be civil name calling will not help us.

COM(2015)750/F1 - Send your feedback: from 18/11/2015 to 18/01/2016
Proposal 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
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdo ... anguage=en


3 inform yourself

Please make sure you are fully informed and do not spread unfounded rumors.

• Firearms United has a number of summary pages
http://www.firearms-united.com/important-links

• The Facebook page for the petition
https://www.facebook.com/StopIP156110/

• Commission Proposals to strengthen control of firearms: Q&A
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_ME ... 111_en.htm

• History of the proposal by Katjia Triebel
http://www.firearms-united.com/images/d ... marini.pdf


In closing, I want to thank you who signed it so far, I am talking to many people, getting loads of mails and suggestions, I do appreciate them all and when possible I do use the tips and suggestions I get.

But please be aware that I cannot customize the petition for each specific group. Some think it’s too soft, some think it’s too harsh, some want “this” added, some want “that” removed. I will never be exactly what everybody wants to see in it. So please sign it for its core message : NO to this new legislation.

Best regards,
Stijn Vandamm

[aghiuta]

Imi face cu ochiul chestiuta asta micuta.Parca m-as dota.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJqD2mRj-uQ

[Cristi]

http://www.chasseurdefrance.com/terrori ... -de-cible/

Vanatorii francezi au ajuns pana la presedintele Frantei pentru a-si expune punctul de vedere impotriva proiectului Comisiei Europene. AGVPS-ul ce face? Se scarpina pe spate cu IGPR-ul ?

[tomi]

https://www.facebook.com/FederatiaCineg ... 54/?type=3

[tomi]

Cine doreste, va rugam sa dati share.
De asemenea poate fi trimis de fiecare din cei care sunt de acord cu acest punct de vedere catre europarlamentarii din lista de emailuri postata de Cristi.

[OVI762]

Nu reusesc sa vad decat doua pagini din acest punct de vedere,si,in afara de vanatori si toti cetatenii in general,nu vad sa se mai adreseze cuiva,prin cuiva intelegand autoritate competenta;guvern,mai,igpr etc...nu cumva aceasta declaratie trebuie sa aiba si o tinta cu autoritate si putere de decizie?Asa parca prea suna a ''sa fie bine,sa nu fie rau''Inca o data,poate nu reusesc sa vad eu tot comunicatul,mi-e sila de feeisbuc si nu prea stiu sa ma dau pe el

[Ghinda]

Ne agitam! Bravo! Si?

[violiv]

http://www.chasseurdefrance.com/terrorisme-et-trafic-d-armes-la-commission-europeenne-se-trompe-encore-de-cible/

Vanatorii francezi au ajuns pana la presedintele Frantei pentru a-si expune punctul de vedere impotriva proiectului Comisiei Europene. AGVPS-ul ce face? Se scarpina pe spate cu IGPR-ul ?

Vaneaza Prin reprezentantii "cei mai de sus". Duminica n-avea nimeni nicio grija dinspre partea asta. Dupa cum stim deja, si-ar dori sa fie macar ca prin Ungaria unde semi cu glont nu-s permise la vanatoare.

[ventura]

Nici vanatorii nu-s prea suparati pe treaba asta.
Se conformeaza.
Deja au aparut multe semiautomate la vanzare...

[laurul]

Oh, daaa....si se vand ca painea calda!!!
Ca toate celelalte gratie accizei.

On topic

Directiva europeana face vorbire in mod clar de arme semiautomate cu aspect militar care pot fi reactivate ptr foc automat, nicidecum de Browning Bar.
Asta nu inseamna ca tre sa ne culcam pe urechea cea bleaga , ptr ca , peste o vreme , vor urma si bolturile.
Peste alta vreme si lisele in calibru mai mare de 20. Asa ca, La lupta!

Ce uita Violiv e ca ca la vecini ai voie cu ele , ba pe colectie, ba pe aparare....,
La Vanatoare Ba.

@OVI.
Ce sa mai zic de noi astia care nu avem feisbuc....nu intelegem chiar nimic.

[sean]

La cum merg treburile prin lume e posibil sa ne dea direct automate...si 7,62x51 gratis,cat poti duce...

[violiv]

Ce uita Violiv e ca ca la vecini ai voie cu ele , ba pe colectie, ba pe aparare....,
La Vanatoare Ba.

N-am uitat, inrebarea era despre vanatorii romani si ce fac ei, mai precis "conducatorii" lor.

In mai toata UE delimitarea intre tir-sportiv si vanatoare o face capacitatea magaziei nu arma in sine.

[Alin3006]

La cum merg treburile prin lume e posibil sa ne dea direct automate...si 7,62x51 gratis,cat poti duce...

Ba eu cred ça tocmai din cauza asta o sa ramanem fara.

[Sly_Fox]

Si eu cred cam la fel,la ce sistem de aparare are Romania,tot ce putem face noi este sa ducem frumos labuta la boneta si sa salutam respectos ''armata eliberatoare'',aia care o fi ea.

[Cristi]

Si eu cred cam la fel,la ce sistem de aparare are Romania,tot ce putem face noi este sa ducem frumos labuta la boneta si sa salutam respectos ''armata eliberatoare'',aia care o fi ea.

Ideea e ca nu cumva sa inveti cum se duce frumos labuta la tragaci

[Sly_Fox]

Pai asta se si vrea,ca romanul sa duca mai bine labuta la boneta si sa salute respectuos,decat sa duca labuta la tragaci si sa strice reputatia de popor ospitalier.

[laurul]

Pai asta se si vrea,ca romanul sa duca mai bine labuta la boneta si sa salute respectuos,decat sa duca labuta la tragaci si sa strice reputatia de popor ospitalier.

In vreme ce hamul roade UE de cum sa inaspreasca legea, altii investesc in turism si nu stiu cum sa fie mai ospitalieri in caz ca au musafiri nepoftiti.
https://news.vice.com/video/the-russian ... ia-trailer
Noi ... Ei

[Blue]

O postare interesanta de la @Uomu :

"Col Dave Grossman: Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs!

Cu totii muncim, ne platim impozitele la zi, ne crestem copii si incercam sa fim fericiti, sperand ca ”statul” ne va asigura cele necesare unui trai decent in conditii de securitate individuala si sociala. Dar dupa cum decurg lucrurile in ultimi 15 ani, se pare ca ”statele” isi incalca din ce in ce mai des contractele cu cetatenii sai onorabili. Vezi atentatele din World Trade Center, metrourile din Madrid si Londra, Oslo, plaja din Tunisia, Paris si alte accidente colective sau incendii controversate. Mai jos l-am citat pe Col. Grossman: ale carui metafore sunt de mare actualitate azi si care ne invata ca putem incepe sa spunem NU la ceea este contrar intereselor noastre legitime.

"Most of the people in our society are sheep, who are kind, gentle, productive. Then there are the wolves, who feed on the sheep without mercy. Then there are sheepdogs, who live to protect the flock and confront the wolf. If you have no capacity for violence, then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you are an aggressive sociopath: a wolf. But if you have a capacity for violence, and love for citizens you are a sheepdog, a warrior. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001 (or Paris), the sheeps said: Thank God I wasn’t on one of those planes (theaters and places). The sheepdogs said: Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference.

This business of being a sheep or a sheepdog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-grass sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheep hood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth."

SI MAI JOS O COLECTIE DE LINK-URI INTERESANTE :

DISTRIBUITI si SEMNATI petitita :

https://www.change.org/p/council-of-the ... custom_msg

Este si in LIMBA ROMANA !!
S-au strans 191 000 de semnaturi.

De asemenea, puteti urmari :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKiT_3j4zro

http://german-rifle-association.de/campain-eu-gun-ban/

Aici aveti si cateva indicatii catre cine puteti transmite punctele dvs. de vedere, respectiv comisarului european Cecilia Malmström.

Ar fi OPORTUN si UTIL ca la nivel de conducere a asociatiilor de colectionari si vanatori sa se ia legatura si sa se transmita de asemenea un punct de vedere alaturi de celelalte asociatii semnatare.

De asemenea, ar trebui sa transmiteti opiniile dvs. si la adresa pomenita mai jos:
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdo ... anguage=ro

Puteti sa va exprimati opiniile si aici direct la comentarii:
https://www.facebook.com/EuropeanCommis ... =2&theater

[Anndrei]

http://www.paginaeuropeana.ro/dupa-atac ... ment-78321

[Cristi]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34954048

S-a lamurit. Zastava a identificat armele folosite in atentate ca fiind arme militare automate patrunse pe piata neagra ilegala in urma razboiului din Yugoslavia. Iar comisia europeana, contrar evidentelor, vrea confiscarea armelor semiautomate de la vanatori, sportivi si colectionari? Deci guvernele noastre europene urmaresc de fapt dezarmarea civililor sub orice forma, si nu lupta impotriva terorismului, asa cum pretind.

.

[NightSirc]

203,563

[tomi]

dar au votat doar vreo 300 de romani, cand vad ca trebuie sa se identifica cu datele reale devin putin nelinistiti, se pare ca prefera sa-si dea semiautomatele la topit.

[Cristi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZklAh26uYA

[violiv]

Uite niste tipi pe care-i doare fix undeva de ce vrea UE, ba chiar si de ce vor guvernantii lor:

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/201 ... iday-2015/

Au cumparat intr-o singura zi mai multe arme decat exista in Ro in posesia "civililor" si-n 4 zile cam cate sunt in Bulgaria, Romania, Ungaria si inca ceva la un loc. Anul acesta au cumparat mai multe decat s-au vandut vreodata intr-un an in istoria lor si niciodata de cand se stiu ei nu au existat stocuri de munitie in mana "civililor" care sa le ajunga si chiar sa le depaseasca pe cele aflate la indemana autoritatilor, asa cum exista astazi.

Ba mai mult, au repurtat o noua victorie fata de "stapanii" lor - dupa multe discutii, Obama a dat verde: stocuri de M 1911 din arsenale vor fi scoase la vanzare pe piata libera. Nu toate deodata ca sa nu pice pretul - numa vreo 10.000 pe an in urmatorii zece ani sau chiar mai mult:

http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/201 ... ls-to-cmp/

[aghiuta]

In timp ce la noi,nen-tu Selaru (si cred ca nu numai el) e convins de alte chestiutze.
Dau cu citat din zicerea 'mnealui:
"Cred însă, sau mai bine spus am convingerea, că aceste asperităţi vin şi de la faptul că numărul purtătorilor de arme de vânătoare aproape s-a dublat comparativ cu anul 1989, crescând de la 38 000 de vânători până la circa 70 000 în România de azi".

[Cristi]

EU Directive on Weapons is Terrorists’ Success.

The Centre of Analysis of the Jagiellonian Club
author: Maciej Gurtowski PhD
Expert from the Centre of Analysis of the Jagiellonian Club in economic security, PhD in sociology. Professionally connected with the Institute of Sociology of the Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń.


One of the results of the terrorist assassination in Paris was announcing by the European Commission the amendment to the Directive, the aim of which is increasing control over trafficking of firearms. The problem is that the Directive is a faulty act, which hits entrepreneurs, citizens and potential victims instead of the criminals and terrorists.

On the general level, the purpose of the new Directive is inhibiting access to firearms, increasing control over its trafficking, pulling together the cooperation between the EU member states on the control over trafficking and transferring firearms and hindering the reversion of the deactivation of firearms which makes it operable again. The document introduces the following regulations:
absolute prohibition to own semi-automatic weapons, even deactivated, for private individuals;
inhibiting the acquisition of weapons, parts of weapons and ammunition via Internet;
establishing common EU standards for marking weapons;
establishing common EU standards for alarm weapons in order to reduce the risk of their conversion to firearms;
tightening the provisions on the trafficking of deactivated firearms;
tightening the provisions on the collecting of weapons, in order to reduce the risk of their acquisition by criminals.

The validity of such regulations can be a subject of discussion. The basic problem of the new Directive is, however, an erroneous assumption that there is a relation between the legal trafficking and ownership by the EU citizens certain types of firearms and the risk of the acts of terror. One may have an impression that the Directive was created in a hurry, under the influence of the nervous atmosphere accompanying the tragic events, because it lacks reliable justification of the implemented alterations and an assessment of the outcome of the regulations. Paradoxically, the authors of the analyzed documents admit it – in the point which refers to the results of the regulations they claim that “due to the urgency of the proposal in the light of recent events, it is submitted without an impact assessment”. Moreover, there is a provision in the Directive which claims that in the terrorist attacks recently performed wrongly deactivated firearms were used. It was not specified, however, which attacks were referred to and how many cases do they mean out of the total number of the cases considered.
Regardless of the poor justification, the Directive contains serious mistakes and lacks of precision. For example, the authors of the document propose introducing a ban on the ownership of “semi-automatic firearms for civilian use which resemble weapons with automatic mechanisms”. The verb “resemble” present in this sentence (which means “to look or be like”) is very imprecise: who and on the basis of which criteria could assess the resemblance of the two weapons? Is it about the construction resemblance or resemblance in appearance?

The faultiness of the Directive can be easily explained, having a look at the document containing information about the accompanying evaluation. It reveals how weak were the grounds on which the authors of the Directive relied upon, formulating bans and limitations. Referring to the sources of data used in the evaluation, its authors explain that they conducted the questionnaire study online with 83 stakeholders (MS authorities, representatives of firearms producers, dealers and brokers, associations of hunters and marksmen and other firearms users), with other 56 live interviews were conducted, whereas other 30 were interviewed for the four case studies.

Furthermore, the authors of the evaluation claim that they were not in possession of quantitative data on the trafficking of firearms in the EU. Also, they did not have detailed and comparable information on the illegal use of weapons, legally owned by the civilians.
The authors of the evaluation, not having a possibility to refer to the assessments based on quantitative data, in the final assessment use a red herring – administrative gobbledegook, which is worth to be cited more extensively:
“In order to assess if the Directive’s objectives were reached at a reasonable cost, in the absence of any quantitative data on costs, the contractor qualitatively assess whether costs related to specific provisions were considered reasonable according to stakeholders assessment. This qualitative assessment was performed using three criteria: objectives served, stakeholders’ participation, and nature of the cost. From the analysis it seems that the overall results have been achieved at a reasonable cost. Most of the times, costs are fairly shared among different stakeholders.”
In conclusion, the changes proposed are misguided and based on questionable premises. There is not enough knowledge on the usage of the weapons owned by private individuals by criminals and terrorists. It can be, of course, assumed that a terrorist which is the EU citizen, so-called “lone wolf”, can use a legally purchased gun and ammunition in the acts of terror. However, firearms do not exhaust the arsenal of measures which are responsible for terrorist attacks. Explosives, chemical or biological weapon can be used as well. A desperate person can as well drive a speeding vehicle into a crowd of people at the bus stop. Is such a possibility a premise to ban owning and driving a vehicle for the civilians?
Recent acts of terror in France for some people, especially for politicians, could be a shock. Such a state does not conduce to designing good policy, based on reliable basis. In the case of lack of time and data to plan political actions, good practices can be referred to, evolved somewhere else. It is worth to evoke countries which have rich experience in dealing with Islamic terrorism. Israel is such a country. There the citizens commonly possess national weapons in their houses. It is worth to outline, that formally it is not their property, but remains at their disposal in case of danger.
The terrorists’ objective is to impose a widespread climate of terror, the state of disintegration, in which political institutions do not operate correctly. Adopting the Directive discussed can be, in this context, perceived as the terrorists’ success. Legal market of firearms is not indispensable to the terrorist. It is indispensable to the citizen to defend against the terrorist.
The authors of the Directive made two intellectual mistakes. First of all, they justify systemic restrictions, imposed on the millions of citizens of different EU countries, with premises which are not of systemic nature. Second of all, the objective set by the Directive cannot be achieved using the limitations introduced. It is because of the fact that restrictions imposed on the legal, civil market of firearms do not have any influence on the acts of terror or motivations of people performing the acts. In only a slight degree it limits the access to some of the means of violence. The problem is that the terrorists, contrary to the law-abiding citizens, supply themselves on the black market. They also have illegal supply networks – perhaps supported by some of the legal countries. The potential victims of the acts of terror cannot support themselves with a bomb in order to protect themselves, their nearest and dearest and their possessions against the terrorists. The defensive purposes of the civilians can only be fulfilled by the legally purchased firearms, on which the restrictions are imposed by the new Directive. The restrictions proposed by commissioners Bieńkowska and Avramopoulos do not reduce the offensive potential of terrorists, they limit the possibilities of protection of the citizens.

[Cristi]

Nici nu au apucat astia de la CE sa implementeze noile masuri, si deja se gandesc la urmatoarele: plata la arme si munitii numai cu cardul, urmarirea munitiei, amprentarea balistica a tuturor armelor...

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND
THE COUNCIL Implementing the European Agenda on Security: EU action plan against illicit
trafficking in and use of firearms and explosives. COM(2015) 624 final
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/wh ... ative-docu
ments/docs/20151202_communication_firearms_and_the_security_of_the_eu_en.pdf
In accordance with the proposal for the revision of the Firearms Directive adopted on 18
November 201528, the Commission will evaluate the modalities for a system to exchange information
on the intra-EU movements of firearms taking into account relevant existing EU information systems
and instruments. This system should ensure a link between inputting and receiving Member States to
make internal transfers more secure and improve the traceability of weapons and ammunition.
28 COM(2015) 750 final of 18.11.2015. Proposal for a Directive of the EP and of the Council amending Council Directive
91/477/EEC on control of the acquisition and possession of weapons.
In order to strengthen the traceability of movements of legal firearms within a Member State and
across Member States, the Commission will explore the possibility to prohibit cash payments in
the context of sales or acquisition of firearms and ammunition by individuals.
Tracing firearms used by criminals and terrorists
Tracing firearms is an essential part of investigating firearms-related offences and learning more
about the channels for illicit firearms. It is also critical to successfully disrupting access to explosives
and precursors for explosives. The possibility to trace ammunition, which is currently limited,
would also be of assistance for investigations.
The review of the Firearms Directive proposed by the Commission foresees common rules on
marking of firearms in order to improve the traceability of legally held or imported firearms.
Enhancing the exchange of ballistic information
Most firearms have their own unique identifying features and even if the firearm has not been left at
the crime scene, key information can nevertheless be determined from the bullet, the nature of the
wound (if any) and any residue that is left around it.
(Note: Arcquebus Solution - Partner of EU EFFECT study dreams of mandatory ballistic fingerprint
for all legal guns.)
This is a complete different plan than COM(2015) 750. It even goes beyond:
prohibition of cash
tracing ammunition
ballistic fingerprint

[violiv]

Parca tot pe aici scria cineva despre primul stat american care a renuntat la amprentarea balistica a armelor .... dupa 10 ani si milioane grele cheltuite nici macar o crima cu autor necunoscut nu a fost rezolvata pe baza amprentelor luate armelor noi vandute. Si-au dat seama ca-i degeaba si-au lasat-o moarta.
Ai nostri feudali idioti nu invata nimic. Nu degeaba au fugit de ei peste ocean inaintasii americanilor de astazi.