Hello vous tous,
Ci-après le petit message que j'ai envoyé aux parlementaires Européens.
J'ai encore quelques autres arguments et tirades en réserve et bien que je sois très réaliste sur "l'impact" que cela peut avoir, je ne manquerai pas d'adresser d'autres mots "doux" aux MEP de temps à autre.
You have recently received an update on the Firearms Directive from Mrs. Vicky Ford, MEP, Chairman of Internal Market Committee.
Mrs. Ford explains that "Certain weaknesses and failings of the existing Directive came to light in the aftermath of recent terrorist attacks".
However, in Mrs. Ford's paper, no word is lost about fighting terrorism (nor organized crime) and no measures are proposed in this respect.
Mrs. Ford refers to a number of associations who "have assisted with technical advice". - By no means these associations are representative for the European (and in my case the Swiss) firearms owners, shooters and collectors who are organized in thousands of international, national and local associations. As an example, Mrs. Ford ignored Firearms United.
Firearms United experts studies, including impact evaluations, clearly show (to those considering facts and figures rather than dogmatic approaches) that there is no unacceptable residual risk with legal owners, collectors and shooters of firearms to society, neither under the present EU directive, nor under the national laws presently in force.
Whatever excessive technical, administrative or medical Directive you may vote, it will not eradicate the uncompressible residual risk level already reached under the existing legislation.
Terrorists and the organized crime will lough at the Directive; they arm up on the black market.
Hence, what remains is an intolerable attempt to restrict honest and lawful citizens' rights on dogmatic reasons only.
Legal gun owners who are simply occasional range shooters to maintain their ability of safe gun handling and shooting, i.e. not training for, or participating in, shooting competition, may be deprived of their right to own guns. This directly denies citizens' right to own guns for self-defense. Self-defense using a firearm is the ultimo ratio means you may have to use in anextreme situation of a concrete and imminent threat to be tortured or slaughtered by gangsters during home attacks. As a result, you give gangsters better chances than the citizens.
A word in regards to Switzerland: anyone here has the right to acquire weapons, within the limits of law and provided an acquisition permit is granted by the cantonal police. For each permit request, Police will check the criminal records and police intelligence before granting authorization. Despite millions of weapons in the hands of Swiss citizens, our crime rate with legally owned weapons is extremely low.
The citizen of Switzerland have the obligation to serve in the army to potentially defend our armed neutrality. The Swiss confederation, i.e. we, the Swiss people, rely on, and trust in, each citizen, to whom a personal arm is handed over by the army in faith and trust. Again, the crime rate with such weapons is very low.
Intrusion into the medical secret of millions of citizens throughout the EU and Schengen associates cannot be justified by terrorism nor by the protection of the public. Did Mrs. Ford provide any evidence that under the past and present legislation there is a considerable threat to the public because of the absence of medical or psychological assessments in most of the European country ? Prevention is acceptable if there is something to prevent, however, data provided by Firearms United Experts demonstrates that there is an insignificant number of incident only with legally acquired weapons.
If you impose such measures on the law abiding and responsible citizen it throws up the question what you will do next: will you impose medical and psychological assessment on purchasers of potentially extremely dangerous and lethal devices such as chain saws, metallic bars, kitchen knives and scissors, publicly available base product for explosives, etc. ?
You will have the choice to purely abandon or to vote a more or less restrictive version of the Firearms Directive.
If the Directive was voted, against any reason and facts, the Swiss Government and Parliament would have to align its legislation to the Directive under the present Schengen rules,
Be assured that in Switzerland the Referendum against this legislation will be launched. We need only 50'000 signatures to compulsorily oblige the Government to submit the law to the vote of the Swiss people and you may take it for granted that we, the Swiss people and sovereign, as we did in past votes on similar subjects, will reject the additional restrictions as it is a frontal attack against our traditions and the rights of peaceful and law abiding citizens.
If this means to quit Schengen, we will quit Schengen.
With best regards
(Nom et adresse complete)