EUGunBan: Push for 2A in the Czech Republic

Between Czech and Swiss model, which one do you consider better?

  • Switzerland: generally easier access to firearms, but forget concealed carry

  • Czech Republic: higher innitial hurdle - must gain license first, but shall issue concealed carry


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
What sort of shotguns are permitted? Eg: only double barrels? Or are semi-autos and pump action allowed as well? How about coach guns and the like?

Also, what are the hoops an average Greek has to jump through to get a licence or permit for a shotgun? Eg: mandatory hunting/shooting/collecting club membership, hunting licence etc.
 
What sort of shotguns are permitted? Eg: only double barrels? Or are semi-autos and pump action allowed as well? How about coach guns and the like?

Also, what are the hoops an average Greek has to jump through to get a licence or permit for a shotgun? Eg: mandatory hunting/shooting/collecting club membership, hunting licence etc.
From the blog I referenced:

To be legal, shotguns must have a minimum overall length of one meter (~39.4 inches) and a minimum barrel length of half a meter (~19.7 inches). They must have a capacity of up to 3 rounds and should not be able to accept more than 3 rounds, i.e. 2+1 for magazine-fed guns. In practice, what tends to happen is that semi-autos and pumps are deemed acceptable by police authorities if their magazines are plugged, by means of a rod inserted through the front of the magazine tube, limiting the travel of the follower.

To buy a shotgun, citizens must be at least 18 years old, have a clear criminal record and pass a brief medical test. Once they decide which gun they wish to buy (and which shop to buy it from), they need to apply for a purchase license at their local police station, with the paperwork that confirms the conditions above, plus some recent passport-size photos and proof of paying a minimal gun purchase fee (at this writing, about twenty euros, or twenty six US dollars). The license is processed at the local police station itself (an important detail, see below) and is usually approved in 2-3 working days.

Shotguns have to be re-registered every ten years. Guns whose owners fail to re-register them, become illegal. From time to time, a grace period may be declared, in which owners of such 'lapsed license' guns are allowed to re-register them and thus make them legal again, for a more substantial fee.

While the law repeatedly refers to shotguns as ‘hunting guns’, it permits the use of these guns for competition. The law even goes to such detail as to permit the use of shotguns for scaring birds away from flight paths near airports, but the use of smoothbores for defensive purposes, is prohibited. To use the guns for hunting, a separate, season-specific hunting license is required.

There are no limits to the number of shotguns that a person can buy.

No licensing or limits currently apply to the purchase of ammunition for shotguns. The purchaser can buy all the ammunition he wants at any time, from any retailer that sells it, the only requirement being an ID to verify minimum age (18 years).
I might add that, in fact, judging from news reports, shotguns are used for defensive purposes. It's just that this can't be used as justification for the original purchase of the shotgun.
 
In Malta, as the holder of a Collector Licence A and soon to be holding a Collector Licence A (Special), the EU firearms directive does not affect me. What was legal before the directive came into force is legal now, select fire weaponry included.
 
Last edited:
Do you follow what is currently happening with Greek legislation as regards the EU Gun Ban? For example the Italians used the EU Gun Ban to actually make their gun laws more permissive. Any chance of that in Greece?
I follow Greek politics and legislation closely, and I can tell you that there is absolutely nothing going on there regarding the EU gun ban. Greeks have other things to worry about, like an economy that's in the toilet. The government just barely survived a confidence vote in parliament regarding the treaty to recognize the name of neighboring Northern Macedonia, and it's heading into parliamentary elections in October. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, guns are not a political issue in Greece. Those that want guns (outside of the legal strictures) have them illegally but quietly. Actually the only group that mentions guns at all in the political arena is the Nazis (they draw about 5% of the national vote). But that is not central to their program.
 
UPDATE

According to the speaker of the Senate (pro-gun), gun rights amendment to constitution has no chances to pass in any forceeable future.

That is not due to firearms, but due to overwhelming unity of opinion of Senators that Constitution should not be amendet in any way now. They fear that any amendment passing now would encourage the current President or Prime Minister to try to force futher changes that would serve their own agenda.

Interview in Czech: https://zbrojnice.com/2019/02/15/kubera-zmena-ustavy-zakotvujici-drzeni-zbrani-neprojde/
 
A slate of constitutional amendments is being debated in the Greek parliament right now. The issues include a change in the method of electing the figurehead President, and the legalization of private universities. Guns are not on the list.
 
UPDATE

Today, President of Senate ceremoniously received petition with 100.000 physical signatures that demands adoption of gun rights into the constitution. The petition has already been signed by the President of the Republic, First Lady, Prime Minister, President of Chamber of Deputies and today also by the President of the Senate. There still might not be enough votes to reach the needed supermajority in Senate though.

If restarted, the process would probably deal with a completely new version. Instead of original proposal that would introduce gun right in a sneaky way into the Constitutional Act on Security of the Czech Republic, mainly as a way to deal with the EU Gun Ban, there are now attempts to introduce a version that would add right to be armed directly into the Czech Bill of Rights.

In any case, make no mistake, there would be no wording along the lines of "shall not be infringed". Rather something similar to the original proposal.

safe_image.php?d=AQDvhwYYnDv_ehoA&w=540&h=282&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zonerama.jpg
 
I heard, on the highly reliable source that is a Facebook post, that Czech law is changing so that you won't be able to shoot at a range without a licence. So this would stop foreigners shooting at ranges. Is there any truth to this?
 
I heard, on the highly reliable source that is a Facebook post, that Czech law is changing so that you won't be able to shoot at a range without a licence. So this would stop foreigners shooting at ranges. Is there any truth to this?

This is true only as regards full auto firearms (and any other "A" category firearms, which for all practical purposes means full auto).

The main reason is that police forces from abroad now and then send information inquiries after their persons of interest share videos of shooting full auto on Czech gun ranges on their social media.

Our Ministry of Interior feels that this is the best way to prevent some wider reaching ban being pushed through the EU.

So, yeah, blame the youtube... Apart from really stupid underlying reason, we are not really complaining though.

UK Police force is actually considered in high regard by Czech Ministry of interior. They usually send inquiries in a direct way which allows problems to be dealt with effectively (I don't mean just full auto video on Facebook, but for example salute pistols problems). Meanwhile other countries like Spain typically go crying to Brussels instead of trying to solve problems directly... which of course leads to stupid proposals by the EU beaurocrats - with the actual underlying problem never being solved.
 
Last edited:
This is true only as regards full auto firearms (and any other "A" category firearms, which for all practical purposes means full auto).

The main reason is that police forces from abroad now and then send information inquiries after their persons of interest share videos of shooting full auto on Czech gun ranges on their social media.

Our Ministry of Interior feels that this is the best way to prevent some wider reaching ban being pushed through the EU.

So, yeah, blame the youtube... Apart from really stupid underlying reason, we are not really complaining though.

UK Police force is actually considered in high regard by Czech Ministry of interior. They usually send inquiries in a direct way which allows problems to be dealt with effectively (I don't mean just full auto video on Facebook, but for example salute pistols problems). Meanwhile other countries like Spain typically go crying to Brussels instead of trying to solve problems directly... which of course leads to stupid proposals by the EU beaurocrats - with the actual underlying problem never being solved.
Interesting. When you mean "persons of interest" I guess you mean people who are already on some kind of watchlist, and not just any tourist who shoots a fullauto on camera?
 
Interesting. When you mean "persons of interest" I guess you mean people who are already on some kind of watchlist, and not just any tourist who shoots a fullauto on camera?

That is really difficult to say. We don't have a concept of police spying on people (making up lists) who are not charged with committing a crime. There might be secret service surveillance on some but then those would not just send a simple request for information via police channels.

So I cannot really say what is the basis of how foreign police forces work because that is simply too foreign a concept to us.
 
This is more food for thought than an actual comment on this exact subject. Hope someone gets something out of it.
The United State of America is the ONLY government in the world that is formed by the people "We the people". All other governments are formed to govern the people. Even democratic governments still don't have the accountability to the people as our Republic does. The government is formed to serve us not we serve the government. Our rights are documented and recorded by the Bill of Rights. I hope that countries around the world could evolve to serve their people but that might be a pipe dream.
Best of luck EU people.
 
The United State of America is the ONLY government in the world that is formed by the people "We the people". All other governments are formed to govern the people. Even democratic governments still don't have the accountability to the people as our Republic does. The government is formed to serve us not we serve the government. Our rights are documented and recorded by the Bill of Rights. I hope that countries around the world could evolve to serve their people but that might be a pipe dream.
If you study comparative governments, you realize that the U.S.is not so unique. The current constitution of Greece, for example, includes a "bill of rights" that consists of no less than 22 detailed articles. (And these provisions are taken seriously.) http://www.hri.org/docs/syntagma/artcl25.html#A4 It is true that the U.S. is about the only country that constitutionally enshrines the right to keep and bear arms. But even that is under attack on many fronts, and may not be as absolute as it appears to be on the surface.
 
The Advocate General has rendered her opinion in the case of Case C482/17 Czech Republic v Parliament & Council. While the European Court is not obliged to accept the Advocate's opinion, it nearly always does.
It recommends that the Czech Republic's case be dismissed.
However, the most concerning element is that the Advocate General disagrees with the Czech contention that the Directive interferes "with the right to property" and has countered this by saying that "there is no fundamental right in EU law to possess guns”. Up to now, one restraining element on politicians in the extent of weapons legislation has been the issue of having to pay compensation from public funds due to "the right to property". If this is accepted, it will make it much easier for those who would seek to ban everything to push through even more draconian legislation at a future point.
 
Up to now, one restraining element on politicians in the extent of weapons legislation has been the issue of having to pay compensation from public funds due to "the right to property". If this is accepted, it will make it much easier for those who would seek to ban everything to push through even more draconian legislation at a future point.
This is why the U.S. 5th Amendment is potentially more important to the RKBA than even the 2nd Amendment. Gun owners are property owners, and a future confiscation will have to compensate them. If guns are as widely held as they appear to be, full compensation would bankrupt the government, and for that reason confiscation would be impractical.
 
This is why the U.S. 5th Amendment is potentially more important to the RKBA than even the 2nd Amendment. Gun owners are property owners, and a future confiscation will have to compensate them. If guns are as widely held as they appear to be, full compensation would bankrupt the government, and for that reason confiscation would be impractical.

:uhoh: Well, good in theory, AlexanderA, but in truth I fear that if the govt. is determined to take our guns and violate the 2nd amendment, they will think little of violating the 5th (or any other) amendment.
But then, when I go cynical, I do it "whole-hog." :evil::scrutiny:
 
Supper Class Action? What would happen if each and every one of us went to court challenging confiscation. This action would also be challenging compensation. Kinda like eminent domain. Get injunctions and all that stuff. Be a real well mannered as one becomes a colossal PIA.
 
This is why the U.S. 5th Amendment is potentially more important to the RKBA than even the 2nd Amendment. Gun owners are property owners, and a future confiscation will have to compensate them. If guns are as widely held as they appear to be, full compensation would bankrupt the government, and for that reason confiscation would be impractical.
Weren't bump stocks property?
 
Weren't bump stocks property?
Yes, but they weren't confiscated. They were just made illegal, and it was up to you how to get rid of them. An actual gun confiscation, where you turn them in, would have a whole different set of issues.

Bottom line is that the bump stock ban was done more or less on the honor basis. There was no way to enforce it unless you were caught red-handed with one. Other than that, the authorities didn't know who had them.

Guns, on the other hand, have paper trails.
 
Lots of stuff could happen. I suppose one of the better outcomes would be you go home without the bumpstock.
Ignorance of the law is no defense...

But I recommend leaving that question for another time and place or we will go very far off topic here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top