It would appear that the positive stand originally taken by EPP, ECR and ALDE has been watered down to garner the support of S&D and the Greens<\/strong> as well as to align the final IMCO report with the General Approach approved by Council.<\/p>\n FIREARMS UNITED has worked ceaselessly over the past weeks to analyse the Amendments and to inform its supporters. Two summaries are provided which are the result of the views of our\u00a0working team and partners. Being work in progress we may at this stage still have differing views.<\/p>\n Text proposed to be deleted from the 1991 version is highlighted in red<\/span>\u00a0as is text that the Commission wants to add to introduce disproportionate measures affecting legal gun owners that have no benefit to improving public security. Text which in our opinion represents a sensible solution is\u00a0marked in blue <\/span>as is our opinion and justification,<\/p>\n You may share this one and attach it to your emails if you wish to circulate.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n This situation brings to light the fragility of citizens‘ civil rights when these are delegated to EU institutions that are detached from the realities and political reach of EU citizens.<\/p>\n In the wake of Brexit we have seen articles and reports that point towards a dangerous reaction by Brussels which wants deeper integration and delegation of national powers. Some claim that the European Parliament is losing its power and will to stand up effectively to the Commission and the Council.<\/p>\n If indeed the Rapporteur and the Shadows from the large political groups have reached consensus on these compromise amendments then the die is cast as there would be minimal opposition from MEPs who oppose the Commission proposal and the Council general approach.<\/p>\n IMCO and the EP may still be in time to reassure us that democracy prevails in Brussels. All they have to do is reject any proposals built on distrust of law-abiding citizens. It is important that they know that YOU are aware of the impact of their vote and that you expect them to vote responsibly.<\/p>\n This is a more-detailed comparison of texts from the above-mentioned documents. It also shows who are the MEPs that support or reject each\u00a0amendment.<\/p>\n The position of FIREARMS UNITED is that only those measures covered by the two impact\u00a0assessment studies published in July 2014 (rules on deactivation, marking procedures, regulation of alarm devices and options for\u00a0combating\u00a0illicit firearms trafficking) should be taken on board. <\/strong><\/p>\n All the other additional and disproportionate\u00a0 measures should be rejected outright.<\/strong><\/p>\n In the event that a majority of votes to reject the additional proposals is not achievable, the next preferred option is to support the\u00a0text which we have\u00a0highlighted in blue. \u00a0<\/span>We also added our opinion. Phrases who have to be rejected are highlighted in red.<\/span><\/p>\n We recommend that this detailed comparison be only shared with\u00a0those who are proven supporters of our cause.<\/p>\n Compromises with shadows of S&D and Greens means that the point of views of the shadows Pascal Durand (French Green) and Sergio Correati (Italian Socialist) are included.<\/p>\nExpert Opinion of Firearms United<\/strong><\/h1>\n
This is a summary comparison between the Firearms Directive 91\/477\/ECC<\/a>, its amended version 2008\/51\/EC<\/a>, Commission\u2019s Proposal 2015\/0269<\/a> and the 847 Amendments made by IMCO MEPs.<\/a><\/h3>\n
Download PDF<\/a>\u00a0(1 MB)<\/h3>\n
Does EU lacks in democracy?<\/h1>\n
Contrary to the LIBE vote which rejected most of the Commission proposals, IMCO’s may turn out to be a bitter victory for legal firearm owners on the 13th of July.<\/a><\/h3>\n
This is bad news for all EU citizens and not just for us legal firearm owners.<\/h3>\n
Amendments for the Firearms Directive<\/h1>\n
Download PDF<\/a> ( 1MB)<\/h3>\n