Following the Paris attacks, the European Commission officially announced to be seeking new restrictions on legally-held guns
Here we go again.
Rumors had been around for weeks, before last bloody Friday, but we couldn't confirm nor deny without solid evidence −
and indeed several concerned north-European citizens had sent E-Mails to Mr. Fabio Marini (head of the Firearms Task Force at DG Home) only to receive a reassuring denial:
"I can inform you that the Commission has not taken any decision about the timing for the revision of the EU legislation on firearms and its possible topics. So the news about a possible consideration of the semi-automatic weapons does not seem to be correct. The Commission will assess in due time any aspect of a possible revision of the EU legislation taking into account the position of all stakeholders."
Even the Finnish Ministry of Interior, in agreement with the Finnish Ministry of Defense, released a statement last October 27th, raising an alarm over possible restrictions on certain categories of legally-held firearms and openly declaring its opposition to them.
After the Paris tragedy, the anti-gunners at the European Commission got the cat out of the bag with a press release dated November 18th, declaring to be at work for "urgent" changes to the European directive on firearms.
According to the press release, many members of the European Commission (including the Internal Market and Industry Commissioner Elżbieta Bieńkowska and Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos) would agree on the draft − which is nothing good for law-abiding gun owners.
The only response provided by the European Commission to an attack carried on with illegal full-automatic rifles and hand grenades is to impose further limitations on legally-held firearms.
The seven points stated in the press release are more than enough to see where thety want to go.
- Moving all Category B7 firearms to Category A (under no circumstances allowed for civilian ownership)
Simply put, that would be a total ban on modern sporting guns − those who have the outline appearence of, and only some partial technical similarities with, modern military firearms. That would mean a crippling blow to the market, since these guns are the most commonly sought-after by the younger generations of sport shooters and hunters; they're also used in a plethora of sport shooting disciplines which would thus disappear overnight from Europe.
We already widely discussed in the past how this category of firearms is also the most wildly hated by bureaucrats, politicians and high-rank law enforcement officials all around Europe. Now, those self-centered, shamelessly elitist individuals are attempting to exploit the deaths of dozens, killed with illegal full-automatic firearms, to make an old dream of theirs come true and enact a sweeping ban on millions of legal semi-automatic, civilian-grade guns which have never been used on any high-profile crime in Europe but which are still refered to, with a blatant lie, as "easily converted to automatic arms" and "very dangerous when their capacity regarding the number of rounds is high".
- Tighter rules on the online acquisition of firearms.
As of today, basically all European Countries have already strict regulations in place to guarantee that only a gun license holder can receive a parcel containing arms, ammunition or components; in many EU-member Countries, On-Line trade of those articles is already banned − and of course that didn't stem the black market one bit.
It's thus adamantly clear how this norm would be meant to crack down on the legal trade of harmless, unregulated accessories such as aftermarket add-ons, detachable magazines, and non-essential components used for basic maintenance. This sounds pretty much like an expedient to ban the On-Line sale of some objects ("tactical" optical sights, gunlights, laser pointers, high-capacity magazines, and others) that many would like to see become MIL/LE only articles. Such a regulation would also cripple the custom parts market and make regular maintenance of firearms more expensive, thus resulting in a deterrent against gun ownership.
- Common EU rules on marking of firearms to improve the traceability of weapons.
Traceability of firearms is already ensured today by the CIP certification of all proofing houses in Europe. Any further regulation could thus be aimed to impose useless and expensive measures such as microstamping or ballistic fingerprinting.
Microstamping would mandate all gun manufacturers to make sure that every single firearm they produce would leave a unique mark on the bullet and the spent case; this requires expensive and complicated technologies that would make guns way more expensive for the final user and push smaller gunmakers out of business.
Ballistic fingerprinting would require law enforcement to keep data on the markings typically left on the bullet and the spent case by every single firearm in civilian hands, and has been experimented in the United States − where it proved to be useless. As a matter of fact, the State of Massachussets recently killed its mandatory ballistic fingerprinting program after it failed to help solve one single case in fifteen years!