PULVERDAMPF

DerDaniel hat geschrieben:

d-s hat geschrieben:The new directive draft was made inaccessible to public:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/register ... -2016-INIT" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bitte stellt alle die Anfrage, das Dokument zu erhalten. Die sollen sehen, dass tausende Interesse haben!

Please everyone, make the request to get the document, they shall see that thousands have a concern.


Falls noch jemand eine Anfrage gestellt hat, und das Dokument bekommt (Englisch oder Deutsch), wäre ich dankbar, falls er/sie/es mir das Dokument im Original (also ohne Notizen, umbenennen, sonstwas) schickt, damit ich checken kann, ob die jeweiligen Kopien individuelle Wasserzeichen bekommen.

Dude72 hat geschrieben:Kann man der Frau Ford auch auf deutsch schreiben?

So sattelfest sind meine Englischkünste leider nicht

Borerider hat geschrieben:Nur NEIN zu schreien wird noch viel weniger Erfolg bringen als selbst Vorschläge für Änderungen zu erstellen. Irgendwas sollte schon von Seiten der Legalwaffenbesitzer kommen.

Man kann ja mit relativ kleinen Themen wie einheitlichen Standards für Verwahrung beginnen. Zum Beispiel dass alle Schränke für KatB ein gewisses Mindestmass an Widerstand gegen unerlaubtes Öffnen erfüllen müssen.

sc70 hat geschrieben:Frage in die Runde.... in wie weit macht sich eigentlich der IWÖ als größte Interessensgemeinschaft für den ganzen EU Gunban Bullsh** stark?

yoda hat geschrieben:Ich würde einfach schreiben, dass man fortan ausschließlich die FPÖ wählen und sich gegen die EU einsetzen wird, sollte es zu irgendeiner Einschränkung kommen.

Evilcannibal79 hat geschrieben:

yoda hat geschrieben:Ich würde einfach schreiben, dass man fortan ausschließlich die FPÖ wählen und sich gegen die EU einsetzen wird, sollte es zu irgendeiner Einschränkung kommen.

also so deppert kann man doch wirklich nicht sein.

Und das Zitat das auf meinen Post bezogen war:
Die Dekos habens eh schon kastriert, also wurscht (deshalb hab ichs geschrieben)

Incite hat geschrieben:
Das ist nun mal seine Meinung. Die hat man zu akzeptieren

BigBen hat geschrieben:Ja aber der Ton macht die Musik und "also so deppert kann man doch wirklich nicht sein." ist nunmal nicht sonderlich niveauvoll...

BigBen hat geschrieben:Ja aber der Ton macht die Musik und "also so deppert kann man doch wirklich nicht sein." ist nunmal nicht sonderlich niveauvoll...

Subject: Draft Directive.... - Policy debate

Background
.... However, in view of the recent terrorist acts, certain issues in Directive 91/477/EEC need further improvement....
...
The amendments tackling risks for public safety and security focus on:
– improved control of the traffic of firearms,
– enhanced traceability of firearms,
– the measures on deactivation and reactivation or conversion of firearms,
– stricter rules for the acquisition and possession of firearms,
– ban for civilian use of the most dangerous firearms
– improving the relevant information exchange between Member States.
...
4. In the light of the Council Conclusions of 20 November 2015 and subsequent to the first round of discussion on the proposed amendments at the GENVAL Working Party on 26 November and 18 December 2015 as well as on 25 January 2016, the Presidency revised the text of the proposal, taking into account as much as possible the various concerns raised by delegations.
The GENVAL Working Party discussed the revised text at its meeting of 8 February 2016. It became clear that both the scope of the amended Directive and its key concepts require further fine-tuning. The discussion should also be continued on the proposed re-categorisation of firearms and on how to avoid overregulation as to market restrictions.
5. The Presidency noted, in particular, broad consensus concerning the suggestion that salute and acoustic weapons, which were used at the Paris attacks, stay in the category in which they would fall according to how they were originally built.
6. With a view to reaching a general approach on the proposed amendments of the Firearms Directive by June 2016, the Presidency intends to seek political guidance from the Council to the Working Party on the five issues set out below.

A. Minimum age for the possession of firearms
In view of the above, Member States are invited to state (…) whether they prefer :
a) that the rule in the current Directive which permits the acquisition, other than through purchase, and possession of firearms by persons of less than 18 years, should be maintained; or
b) that the exception for minors set out in the current Directive should be confined to the sole possession of weapons (…); or
c) that the exception for minors set out in the current Directive should be further circumscribed by setting a minimum age for the possession of firearms.

B. Medical tests for the authorisation to acquire and to possess firearms
In view of the above, Member States are invited to indicate whether they prefer:
a) a rule like in the current Directive which leaves it entirely up to national legislation how to grant or withdraw authorisation to acquire and possess firearms;
b) a requirement of a medical test for such authorisations in the Directive;
c) a (…) medical test for such authorisations with criteria for such tests to be laid down at EU level.

C. Prohibition of semi-automatic firearms for civilian use
With a view to dealing with the risk the current B.7 firearms present to public security, Member States are invited to state their preferences as to whether these weapons:
a) should be prohibited (…), limited to the most dangerous ones, to be further defined by way of technical specifications in the Directive, or
b) their possession for civilian use should continue to be authorised by Member States but under stricter conditions to be defined in the Directive.

D. Exceptional possession of prohibited firearms for cultural and historical reasons
Member States are invited to exchange views on whether they would prefer
a) a general rule such as in the current Directive which gives leeway to Member States authorising the acquisition as well as the possession of category A firearms as long as it is not contrary to public security or public order;
b) only museums [and private collectors] to be exempted from the above-mentioned general prohibition and be allowed to acquire and possess category A weapons;
c) an exception only for museums [and private collectors] allowing for only the possession of category A firearms which, furthermore, are deactivated, as provided by the Commission proposal.

The Presidency acknowledges that this discussion is without prejudice to the issue of the acquisition and/or possession of firearms by army reservists, which will be dealt with separately at a later stage.

E. On line sales
26. Member States are invited to exchange views on whether they would prefer to allow the acquisition and selling of firearms and ammunition by means of distance communication for individuals, where authorised:
a) but requiring that the actual handover is done under conditions that allow for verification of the identity and the authorisation of the buyer, for instance in the presence of a dealer or of public authorities representatives;
b) but only through authorised dealers and brokers with the transfer of weapons being an officially authorised face-to-face transaction;
c) but under the condition that the acquisition and selling of firearms and their parts and ammunition by means of distance communication is strictly controlled.