Octopus hat geschrieben:Based on the discussion in the EP so far, and as she understands the situation in Council
, the
Rapporteur takes it that the proposal in this respect has little realistic prospect of approval.
The Rapporteur has considered the option to include all semi
-
automatics in category A unless
they are included in category B or C. However she believes
that this approach is unworkable.
Therefore, the Rapporteur would invite your views on the following alternatives:
4.1 to revert to the existing legislation,
or
4.2 to consider a package of
i.
clarifying in Art 2(2) that “armed forces” cover the defence
forces as defined under
MS law with all units and persons under their command, including, where relevant,
the home guard, reservists etc. if authorised or obliged to acquire or possess category
A firearms,
ii.
maintaining the possibility for MS to grant
authorisations also for category A in
special cases, while clarifying possibly that with examples of types of persons which
could be considered for authorisations (via an open list), and a further description in a
recital of the nature of associated string
ent requirements,
iii.
ensuring that shortening a firearm (making it more easily concealable) is considered
manufacturing, and therefore illicit unless done by an authorised dealer, and
iv.
rejecting the proposed move of category B7 to A7 (as B7 requires a
uthorisation in any
event).
Übersehe ich etwas oder ist das nicht eh super?
Wenn das die Legislation wäre, dann vielleicht schon, aber Vicky fragt hier nur ihre IMCO Leute, was sie davon halten und macht paar Vorschläge. Im März wissen wir erst, was dabei herauskommt. Und dann geht der Spaß mit Renegotiations mit MS, Council, EC erst so richtig los. Die Sch**** vom EC hab ich ja heute schon früher gepostet ... da weiß man schon, was das EC unter Amendment versteht.
Gesendet von meinem GT-I9301I mit Tapatalk
