Serious threat to hobby

[Lynn Eades]

https://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/...comments-block

Maybe Hanno or a moderator with the skills can edit out the peripheral junk.

[maple_leaf_eh]

"While the revisions appear to grandfather in current owners of vintage military vehicles equipped with weapons, they also appear to require current owners of deactivated weapons permanently mounted to military vehicles to register their vehicles and to add identifying marks to the vehicles’ weapons. In addition, the revisions limit the buying, selling, or trading of military vehicles equipped with active or deactivated weapons within the European Union."

So how is this going to be different than red muzzle caps on Airsoft and Paintball markers? The idea there was to make a quick visual feature that showed the item was deemed a non-firearm.

I understand the pressure to standardize deactivation rules. From what I've read, there have been terrorists and criminals who have bought pieces from the least rigorous jurisdictions and restored them to firing status. No one wants that. Where the regulators lose whatever support they had in the HMV community is when they choose the most scrupulous standard and then decide it isn't tough enough. Vandalizing a precious piece for correctness is hard enough without more layers of compliance.

In Canada there have been several sets of deactivation guidelines, with the latest being plenty tough enough. The fly-in-the-ointment is the older standard pieces are cock and click versus lump of unyielding steel, and command higher prices. Why? Because they are closer to realistic.

[jdmcm]

Frightening....simply frightening....

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Lynn Eades

Maybe Hanno or a moderator with the skills can edit out the peripheral junk.

This link may work better: https://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/...itary-vehicles

I have quoted the article verbatim below:

Hemmings Daily
European collectors restricted from buying tanks, other vintage military vehicles

Daniel Strohl on Dec 22nd, 2016

Under new security measures passed this week in Europe, firearms collectors there – including collectors of tanks and other weapon-toting military vehicles – will face greater scrutiny from authorities in an attempt to crack down on terrorist activity.
The revised European Union’s Firearms Directive, which the European Commission, Parliament, and Council agreed to earlier in December, passed a majority of EU Member States earlier this week with only two countries, the Czech Republic and Luxembourg, opposing it. While the majority of the new regulations in the revised Firearms Directive dealt with tightening regulations on certain non-lethal weapons that could be made lethal, the revisions also explicitly address firearms collectors – previously exempted from the Firearms Directive – as well as deactivated weapons, such as those found on vintage military vehicles.
Specifically according to a European Commission fact sheet on the revisions, the new regulations treat collectors and museums like any other private citizen, which is to say they may not acquire military vehicles (which fall under the Directive’s Category A, the same category as fully automatic weapons) unless individually permitted by their country’s authorities. The new regulations also reclassify deactivated weapons as Category C firearms “subject to declaration to national authorities;” the Firearms Directive did not previously regulate deactivated firearms.
The EU already implemented legislation in April that specified exactly how firearms are to be deactivated.
While the revisions appear to grandfather in current owners of vintage military vehicles equipped with weapons, they also appear to require current owners of deactivated weapons permanently mounted to military vehicles to register their vehicles and to add identifying marks to the vehicles’ weapons. In addition, the revisions limit the buying, selling, or trading of military vehicles equipped with active or deactivated weapons within the European Union.
The revisions do not appear to strike any sort of distinction between vintage military vehicles and weapons and more current military vehicles and weapons. Nor do the revisions appear to require any current owners of vintage military vehicles with active weapons to deactivate those weapons.
Authorities in Europe began the process of revising the existing Firearms Directive following last year’s Paris terrorist attacks with the aim of preventing deactivated weapons from becoming reactivated and of closing loopholes that would allow firearms to fall into the hands of terrorists.
While the Fédération Internationale des Véhicules Anciens, which represents collector car interests in Europe, has yet to comment on the most recent action, FIVA officials earlier this year voiced their opposition to the revisions, noting that historic and collectible military vehicles would not make for likely candidates for use by terrorists or criminals.
FIVA instead proposed to create registries for “artifacts of cultural and historical interest” to include vintage military vehicles and thus allow collectors and museums continued access to them.
The revisions to the Firearms Directive have yet to pass the wider European Parliament or EU Council of Ministers, which are expected to vote on the revisions early next year.

[Tony Smith]

Good to see Europe finally catching up with Australia!

[Richard Farrant]

Originally Posted by Tony Smith

Good to see Europe finally catching up with Australia!

Now you can see why we want to get out of Europe

[Chris Suslowicz]

Europe is not the problem; the problem is the politicians running scared of the press "Barons" (Murdoch, Rothermere, etc.) and their relentless campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt (aimed at keeping their readership hooked and hence their advertising revenue).

I used to be cynical about the press, now I'm just disgusted.

Chris.

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Grandfathering is just a tricky way of avoiding (a) outrage if they were to confiscate without compensation or (b) cost if they were to buy you out. Regardless of which option they were to employ, the value and enjoyment of your MV (or other legally purchased and owned article, you know, articles they willing sold you as surplus and took your money for) is restricted if not outright ended.

[Lynn Eades]

Originally Posted by Richard Farrant

Now you can see why we want to get out of Europe

Is the U.N.next?

[rnixartillery]

Originally Posted by Chris Suslowicz

Europe is not the problem; the problem is the politicians running scared of the press "Barons" (Murdoch, Rothermere, etc.) and their relentless campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt (aimed at keeping their readership hooked and hence their advertising revenue).

I used to be cynical about the press, now I'm just disgusted.

Chris.

That may be your excuse !

The EU's open border policy along with an open invitation and the lack of policing who enters it has done no more than destabilise security for all EU citizen states which has allowed and encouraged the free movement of extremists and unlicensed weapons .
This is ALL thanks to a very corrupt and quite naïve European commission and their mindless policy making.
Attacking our hobby and bulldozing these laws is just another way of supressing the working law abiding citizen and will make not one Iota to the illegal arms situation or terrorism .
As Richard put it ,THAT is why we want to leave.

Rob......................rnixartillery.

[Chris Suslowicz]

Originally Posted by rnixartillery

That may be your excuse !

The EU's open border policy along with an open invitation and the lack of policing who enters it has done no more than destabilise security for all EU citizen states which has allowed and encouraged the free movement of extremists and unlicensed weapons .
This is ALL thanks to a very corrupt and quite naïve European commission and their mindless policy making.
Attacking our hobby and bulldozing these laws is just another way of supressing the working law abiding citizen and will make not one Iota to the illegal arms situation or terrorism .
As Richard put it ,THAT is why we want to leave.

Rob......................rnixartillery.

Britain still has its border controls (and there is nothing in the Schengen treaty prohibiting border controls for internal security).

The whole purpose of the referendum was to decide which member of the Bullingdon Club would be the next leader of the Conservative party - and they did not expect the Leave campaign to win (which is why they didn't have a clue as to what to do next).

The economic effects are going to be an utter [DELETED] disaster for this country, not that the self-serving idiots in power care about that.

Suppression of the law abiding citizen has been a feature of government for a very long time anyway, and in recent times law-making has been driven by newspaper headlines in a number of cases.

To drag things vaguely back in the general direction of the topic, the original laws (Firearms Act 1968) were perfectly adequate and would have prevented the two mass murders if only the required checks had been made.

1) Michael Ryan had been refused membership of the rifle club that he'd declared on his application. If (as was supposed to have been done) the checks had been made that would have been picked up and should have led to his certificate being withdrawn: making a false statement on an FAC is a criminal offence.

2) Thomas Hamilton was not considered to be a 'fit person' by the officer handling his FAC renewals, and who recommended his rejection - he was overruled by senior officer(s).

The resulting two massacres (1987 Hungerford, 14 killed) (1996 Dunblane, 17 killed) and resultant panic by the government (banning semi-automatic rifles in the 1988 act, and all pistols after the 1996 incident) only affected the law-abiding population - the Olympic pistol team has to train abroad as a result - and shut down a lot of businesses. It's done nothing to reduce the number of illegal weapons in circulation (quite possibly the reverse is true - a lot of shotguns were thought to have just "disappeared" rather than being registered) and, encouraged by their success, the "ban everything" campaigners have continued to push for ever tighter controls and bans on replicas, de-acts, et bloody cetera.

OK, rant over, I shall go and look at the stuff I won with a .22 revolver back in the 1980s and cry into my beer (except that it's too early for a beer).

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally Posted by Chris Suslowicz

To drag things vaguely back in the general direction of the topic,

Thanks Chris.

To all: let's try to keep politics off limits for this forum, please.

Regards,
Hanno
MLU Administrator

[rob love]

Originally Posted by Chris Suslowicz

........and in recent times law-making has been driven by newspaper headlines in a number of cases.

Don't exclude television and movies as influencing policy makers. During the 70s, with the TV series Kung-Fu being very popular here in North America, the Canadian Government banned throwing stars, Nunchuk sticks, and blow dart guns. Switch blade knives were already banned back in the 60s I believe, and at some point firecrackers joined the club of non-grata.

So natural progression means that with movies like James Bond, where he uses things like a battle tank to make good his escape, they too must be banned next.

We already had our military vehicle ownership threatened here when the provinces started regulating bullet proof vests and (up)armoured vehicles. This was due to the possibility of gangs using them with Arnold Schwarzenegger's Terminator effectiveness. Fortunately in our province, a certain MLU member had the foresight to talk to the policy makers and get an exemption written in for possession by the owner of historic military vehicles. It still means that technically you cannot borrow an armoured vehicle from another member unless you were to obtain the $100 permit. Fines range up to $10,000 as well as making the owner incur all costs for the towing and destruction of the vehicle.

Hanno: If the above is politics, then perhaps we need a politics section, as it is threatening our hobby.

[maple_leaf_eh]

Originally Posted by Chris Suslowicz

...
OK, rant over, I shall go and look at the stuff I won with a .22 revolver back in the 1980s and cry into my beer (except that it's too early for a beer).

It's never too early for a beer!

[Lynn Eades]

Was there a bottle in that?

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Please take a moment to read this article, written by a better-informed journalist:

http://www.militarytrader.com/jagfil...hobbyuntil-now

[Tony Smith]

Yes, and those same links were in the Hemmings article, if anyone had bothered to read them.

Hence my comments regarding Europe falling into line with Australia. Any de-activated firearm (of any type) is treated in exactly the same way for licencing, storage and registration as it's fully-functioning brother. They must have identifying marks (ie a unique serial number) and you may have to pay for a licence or permit to buy, keep or sell them. There are exemptions for "Cannons" (ie field, naval and AFV ordnance) that vary for age, calibre and purpose, but even these can be subject some restrictions, however generally there is no limitations to ownership if they have been appropriately de-milled.

But, Lynn did you know that these laws also already apply in NZ? But NZ doesn't have the exemptions for large calibres, so for example the prospective buyer of the South Island Centurion that has been for sale now for a couple of years must have a licence for the "Single shot rifle" that is the deactivated main gun !

This has apparently been a stumbling block for a couple of prospective purchasers! Despite it remaining a relatively straight forward process for most people in NZ, it still requires the applicant to prove to Police they are a "fit and Proper" person and undergo several interviews and training courses. Is this a threat to our hobby? Or does it weed out the undesirables? I personally think the asking prices for Armoured Vehicles is a much bigger threat to people entering the hobby!