Finninsch government to resist EU directive

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Finns were attacked by Russia a few years before WW2. When WW2 started and Germany attacked Russia they let Germany use their country to attack Russia. You might say they supported Germany in the war but who could blame them.
 
CoalTrain49 said:
The Finns were attacked by Russia a few years before WW2. When WW2 started and Germany attacked Russia they let Germany use their country to attack Russia. You might say they supported Germany in the war but who could blame them.
Click to expand...
World war 2 began in 1939. We didnt join it until 1941 but the invasion of Finland actually began 3 months after the beginning of the war in Europe..
 
Something tells me Brussels (located in a state rapidly being identified as a key element of the present terror campaign) is going to be holding quite a bit less sway in the near future. The ball was set rolling back when Georgia was invaded without response, accelerated by the sovereign debt fiascos, and between the Russian and Arabic aggression, pretty much every Eurozone nation has tremendous (and growing) incentive to look after #1 before their neighbors, let alone some unelected plutocratic bureaucracy. Fear over money is the only leverage the EU has for these social-policy directives, and I suspect it will be failing in short order (both because it is strategically unwise to support economic sanctions on a neighbor state you may soon require as an ally in warfare, and because physical threats trump financial ones every time).

It will be interesting if the EU comes to realize this shift, and starts trying to put together a European Self Defense Force to oppose these external threats...for now.

TCB
 
"The Finns were attacked by Russia a few years before WW2. When WW2 started and Germany attacked Russia they let Germany use their country to attack Russia. You might say they supported Germany in the war but who could blame them."

"Attacked" isn't even the half of it. They lost a tremendous amount of personnel, territory, and the financial strain that goes with them. They had fought the world's largest army to a standstill before the ceasefire, inflicting something like 20:1 casualties on the Russians. In fact, the Winter War is cited as the reason Hitler thought Germany could take on The Bear single-handedly and come out on top; if the Finns could stop them, surely the Nazi juggernaut would steamroll over them all the way to Moscow. In reality, the conflict had shown the Russians the exact tactics needed to hold Stalingrad (snipers, submachinegunners, trench warfare, block-by-block close combat). The Finns had tremendous strategic and moral reasons to let the Germans do whatever they wanted with the Russians.

If they had resisted the Nazis militarily, the Russians would have surely pounced on their flank, and Finland would have ended up the same route for the Germans anyway. If Finland had been hostile and not available as an easy invasion route, the Nazis may have abandoned Operation Barbarossa altogether to focus instead on solidifying their then near-total hold on mainland Europe. Had the Nazis delayed or not chosen to invade Russia, Normandy would (not 'might') have been delayed so long that it would probably have lost much of its strategic advantage, resulting in a debacle dwarfing Dunkirk. We'd have wrapped up North Africa, then been stopped or pushed out of Italy by German reinforcements, ending the war. The only reason we dared to invade Fortress Europe in the first place was because the Nazis were being eviscerated by the Russians, who were poised to take over where they left off in conquering the continent.

TCB
 
For those who did not take time to read the entire document, this bit is very interesting: it states that abandoning public ownership of semi-auto rifles is going to affect the ability of finland to defend itself, because they largely rely on 'everyonez' for there defence:

Based on recent studies, these restrictions might have significant impact to private ownership of
firearms and shooting sports in Finland. Depending on the proposed content, these restrictions will
impact national defense, national reserve shooting events, sports shooting, hunting and weapons
collecting. This also has a significant impact on gun manufacturers and retailers.
Cabinet proposes to pay particular attention to impact for voluntary military reserve activities.
Voluntary reserve has a significant role in maintaining both will and skill of the reserve. Finlands
defence relies on large reserve.
95% of the military personnel are reserve whose skills are maintained by Finnish Defence forces.
Voluntary activities support this activity and ensures that reserve can support authorities.
According to studies restrictions to semiautomatic assault rifles and machine pistols will have
significant impact to skills of the armed reserve. Shooting activities are mostly performed
with weapons proposed to be restricted and over time this will impact both skills and morale
of the reserve. According to cabinet restricting reserve activities sends a mixed signals outside.
According to studies, change also impacts the position of maanpuolustuskoulutusyhdistys as a
strategic partner to Finnish Defence forces specially if possession of weapons is not allowed to
public organizations.
 
Czech government will also oppose it.

Here is our gun owners' association open letter: http://gunlex.cz/en/home

Open letter to gun rights supporters across Europe

Dear colleagues,

Since I write to you from Czech Republic, allow me to introduce our country first. In our republic, ownership and carrying of firearms is truly right, guaranteed by law for any adult, legally competent and law-abiding person. Firearms license is shall-issue (anyone who fulfills requirements of the law has legal right to get it). Permit to own B - category firearm is shall-issue, as well as permit for concealed carry. We own handguns, we use them for sport shooting and carry them for personal protection. We own semiautomatic rifles of military patterns, we shoot them in various sport competitions, and we practice with them for the case that our beloved country would need its citizens to be prepared for its defense. Our hunting tradition reaches well over a millenium into our history, and our sport shooters rarely return from Olympic Games without any medals.

Our country is also 10th most safe country in the world (according to Global Peace Index), our violent crime is low (160/100 000) and our gun crime is negligible (5.8 / 100 000). Along with Switzerland, whose tradition of liberty, democracy and independence we hold in high regard, our republic stands as example that everything that is needed for a country to be armed, peaceful and free, is strong determination of its people to not let anyone to take these values away.

I'm sure that you're aware of current situation. In reaction on Paris terror attack, committed with already banned automatic guns (and definitely illegal explosives), the European Commission wants to pretend its ability to protect citizens of European states by restricting legally owned firearms.

Among proposed restrictions are:

ban on self-loading firearms which resemble automatic weapons - ban on firearms which were not used at all in Paris attack, but are important for national defense of many states
automatic firearms and semiautomatic firearms which resemble automatic weapons would be banned even after deactivation - all collections would be outlawed, only exception would be museums which would be required to irreversibly deactivate their exhibits, thereby permanently damaging its historic and cultural value
all other deactivated firearms, along with gas guns, alarm guns, paintball and airsoft replicas etc. shall be moved into category C - firearms subject to declaration
the Commission expects member states to actually enforce its order - e.g., seize, confiscate and destroy all newly prohibited firearms - yet expects no impact on the EU budget, which means that either Member states would be forced to pay all compensation for seized property, or there will be confiscation without any compensation.

I would like to have a word to hunters and Olympic discipline shooters here. In the words of the European Commission itself, “we are proposing to ban the acquisition of the most dangerous semi-automatic weapons by private persons. The remaining semi-automatic firearms used for hunting or sport shooting can still be owned by private persons subject to authorisation.” In other words, the Commission wants you to say "Phew, what a luck - they're not coming for OUR guns!"

Remember that this is exactly how current draconian gun laws in England started in 1987: ban on possession of semiautomatic rifles with military outlook, because "it's not a sporting gun, it's not a hunting gun, no one needs it". I believe that this example (and many others) illustrates precisely how those politically incorrect black rifles actually create a buffer zone before a ban of your hunting or sporting rifle and pistol - once they're gone, YOU are next. But first and foremost, I believe that hunters and sportsmen are honorable and fair people, who respect and are willing to stand for rights of others – not quislings willing to throw others to the wolves, as the Commission wants them to be.

None of above mentioned restrictions would have prevented Paris massacres. However, there actually is one loophole in the European Firearms Directive, a loophole that allowed terrorist to acquire firearms which are already banned for citizens. European Commission claims that firearms used in Paris massacres were not bought as legal automatic, or even semiautomatic firearms, nor were they smuggled from outside of the EU. According to Commission, they were bought as deactivated firearms, and due to poor deactivation standards, terrorists easily re-activated them back to original condition. This is, however, contrary to the European Firearms Directive: it states clearly that deactivated firearm must be irreversibly processed into inoperative condition. Member states were supposed to implement methods for fulfilling this condition; and to prevent exactly this situation, where a certain state decides that driving two pins through the barrel is enough - which obviously is not – the Firearms Directive ordered that common minimal guidelines for deactivating process shall be issued, that ensure that deactivated firearm will be rendered irreversibly inoperable. And the body whose responsibility was to issue these common guidelines and to oversee their implementation was ... the EUROPEAN COMMISSION.

Yes, you're reading right. Look for yourself - DIRECTIVE 2008/51/EC, Article 1/13, states: "The Commission shall, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 13a (2) of the Directive, issue common guidelines on deactivation standards and techniques to ensure that deactivated firearms are rendered irreversibly inoperable." Next paragraph states: “Member States shall, by 28 July 2010, bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive. They shall forthwith communicate to the Commission the text of those measures.” That means that the Commission knew about the problem at least for five years, and did nothing. It was last week when the Commission in hurry issued these guidelines, bragging that it will prevent another massacre – and hoping that people will overlook the fact that even Paris massacres could be prevented if the Commission didn´t knowingly neglect its legally binding duty for more than five years.

As far as we know, the Commission is determined to proceed with all of its plans at all costs, in shortest possible time. If we want to stop these plans, we need every voice. What you can do?

Contact your Minister of Interior and Minister of Justice, and ask them to file reservation about the Directive, which would be based on fact that only harmonization of deactivation standards will have some positive security impact, while the rest is just infringing on law-abiding citizens' rights.
Contact your Members of European Parliament and ask them to oppose this Directive for aforementioned reasons.
Join your national gun rights association. Remember that to support this important civil right, you don't have to actually be gun owner.
Should the Directive proposal be passed anyway, be prepared to disobey it. Yes. If the Commission wants to punish law-abiding citizens not only for terrorists' crimes, but also for its own negligence, incompetence and failure to follow its legal duties, we have every right to stop being law-abiding and say civil but firm NO. We are not criminals nor terrorists. We are honest folks who keep weapons for protection of our lives, lives of our loved ones, and for defense of our countries. We have moral right to disobey and resist this injustice. I believe that if we stand united against this bureaucratic pressure, we shall prevail in the end.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for posting guys. Very interesting and good to hear.
 
I am always very interested in the posts from our European membership. The struggle for the RKBA in Europe is so different, but so interesting. I am always glad to hear of progress in the struggle.
 
If I remember right, the Finnish military is something like....planes hidden across the country and, in time of war, crews run to the planes and they take off from local roads. Foot soldiers much the same. "Assemble on the green." Not sure how will that will serve them in a modern war, or against Islamic terrorists.
 
The Alaskan said:
If I remember right, the Finnish military is something like....planes hidden across the country and, in time of war, crews run to the planes and they take off from local roads. Foot soldiers much the same. "Assemble on the green." Not sure how will that will serve them in a modern war, or against Islamic terrorists.
Click to expand...

To a degree, yes. It's not really common to have traffic stopped by MP:s in highways, to have a couple of fully armed F/A18:s land on or take off from numerous makeshift-looking but carefully designed stretches of road during rehearsals, but it has happened to me a couple of times. It's kind of a shock to have your car shaken by a fighter jet passing 200ft above your head and no-one thinking it's anything out of the ordinary. The majority of male population has received a mandatory military training, including basics of guerrilla warfare and designated marksmanship operations. In addition to that, voluntary military reserve activities are fairly popular, to a degree that semiauto AK-type rifles are commonly marketed and sold as reservists' rifles instead of just sporting guns.

Yesterday I was at a meeting with the minister of interior of Finland, about gun policies and permits in the near future, and it almost surprised me how strongly he stressed the importance of maintaining a strong, well-trained reserve as a credible deterrent against possible threats. He's mainly pro-gun, allright, but as with all politicians you can never predict the outcome of future legislative action. EU directives are only obligatory to a degree and whenever there's a valid reason, an EU country can implement its own exceptions to national legislation.

I sincerely hope that more EU countries will follow suit with questioning the real reasons behind anti-gun movement, especially because the directive draft includes a ban on semiautomatic firearms that "resemble military rifles". The very same ignorant, cosmetic, picture book cr*p US gun grabbers have based their ridiculous claims on since the 80's.
 
Very nice.

However, one should also take away from this letter a very important fact:

Even in Finland, there is no corresponding "right to keep and bear arms".

The laws they live under "PERMIT" the citizens to own certain firearms for certain reasons...and are subject to change at the whim of those in power. Consider, for example, some of the proposed changes they DO make in that letter.

For example:

"Instead of banning private ownership permits process can be revised to control the possession of
such firearms better than today for example requiring proof of need and membership in sports
organization. In addtion permits could be re-evaluated periodically."

God bless our Finnish brothers...but the battle the same foes we do: just on a different legal playing ground.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
Very nice.

However, one should also take away from this letter a very important fact:

Even in Finland, there is no corresponding "right to keep and bear arms".
[...]
God bless our Finnish brothers...but the battle the same foes we do: just on a different legal playing ground.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Your support is much appreciated.

There's one specific curiosity in finnish legislation: constitutional right to use one's property and the right to hunt being closely tied to that. Anyone who owns land has, by default, the right to hunt and once other requirements are met (hunters' exam is pretty straightforward), there are few possibilities for the government to deny a land owner the right to keep a firearm unless the person is a convicted felon.

Admittedly it's not an equivalent of 2nd amendment but the closest thing to it in all of Europe. The great thing about it is that repealing it would require major changes to how property rights are defined in constitution, which isn't likely to happen anytime soon.
 
hq said:
In addition to that, voluntary military reserve activities are fairly popular, to a degree that semiauto AK-type rifles are commonly marketed and sold as reservists' rifles instead of just sporting guns.
Click to expand...
That would be a great thing if we could pull off that type of attitude reversal with the AR-15. :)
God bless you guys over there, hang on tight!
 
armoredman said:
That would be a great thing if we could pull off that type of attitude reversal with the AR-15. :)
God bless you guys over there, hang on tight!
Click to expand...

If you could figure out a way to stop people from shooting up schools and theaters with AR15's you probably could see some reversal, or at least toning down of attitudes and rhetoric. How many school shootings has Finland had with those "reservist" guns? (That's a serious question-I don't know the answer.)
 
My answer is thus - exactly how many people have criminally misused AR-15 rifles in the 52 years they have been commercially available? How many have been sold?
 
The Alaskan: I posted a list of some non US public shootings on THR back a few years ago. I see two in Finland. Here's part of it.


- Tours, France, October 29, 2001: four people were killed and 10 wounded when a French railway worker started shooting people at a busy intersection in the city.

- Nanterre, France, March 27, 2002: A man brings 3 pistols to a city council meeting shooting 27 people. Eight councilors are killed and another 19 are wounded. The man later commits suicide.

- Erfurt, Germany on April 26, 2002: a former student kills 18 at a secondary school with two shotguns and a pistol.

- Freising, Germany on February 19, 2002: Three people were shot and killed and one wounded when a student opened fire on his classmates and then committed suicide.

- Turin, Italy on October 15, 2002: Seven people were killed on a hillside overlooking the city when a gunman opened fire with several firearms including an automatic weapon.

- Madrid, Spain, October 1, 2006: a man shoots and kills two employees and wounds another at a company that he was fired from.

- Emsdetten, Germany, November 20, 2006: a former student murders 11 people at a high school with three firearms. The student shot himself through the mouth killing himself.

- Tuusula, Finland, November 7, 2007: Seven students and the principal were killed at a high school. The 14 year old student then committed suicide with the same pistol.

- Naples, Italy, September 18, 2008: Seven dead and two seriously wounded when a man opens fire in a public recreation hall.

- Kauhajoki, Finland, Sept. 23, 2008: A 22 year old college student kills 10 people and wounds one before turning the gun on himself at the college he was a student of.

- Winnenden, Germany, March 11, 2009: a 17 year old former student kills 15 people and wounds 9 others including nine students and three teachers before using the same gun to take his own life.

- Lyon, France, March 19, 2009: ten people injured after a man with a gun opened fire on a nursery school.

- Athens, Greece, April 10, 2009: three people killed and two people injured when a student with two pistols opens fire at a vocational college.

- Rotterdam, Netherlands, April 11, 2009: three people killed and 1 injured when a man pulled a gun and opened fire in a crowded cafe.

- Vienna, Austria, May 24, 2009: one dead and 16 wounded in a shooting at a Sikh Temple.

- Espoo, Finland, Dec. 31, 2009: 5 people shot by Ibrahim Shkupolli in a crowded shopping mall on New Year's Eve. The shooter later committed suicide with the same gun.

- Cumbria, England, June 2, 2010: a British taxi driver shot and killed 12 people and wounded 11 others with a rifle and shotgun before taking his own life.

- Oslo, Norway, July 22, 2011: Anders Behring Breivik kills 77 and wounds 242 people in a shooting massacre at a youth camp outside the nations capital.

- Alphen aan den Rijn, Netherlands, April 9, 2011: Tristan van der Vlis, 24, fired more than 100 rounds from three pistols in a suburban Dutch shopping mall, killing six people and wounding another 17 before turning one of the weapons on himself.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=690482

I'm sure there were events I missed. It's far far from exhaustive. Keep in mind the US has 330 million vs 5.5 million for Finland.

Dan
 
Meanwhile in the Czech Republic

+++ Czech Parliament rejects Proposal +++ ALL deputies voted for this statement: Parliament of the Czech republic
CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES
2015 - 7th term of office
.
PROPOSAL OF THE RESOLUTION Committee for the European Union - 40th session - December 2nd 2015
in regard to Information about the European Parliament and European
Council Proposal to amend Directive 91/477/EHS on control of the
acquisition and possession of weapons /document code 14422/15, KOM(2015)
750 final/ Committee for the European Union of the Chamber of Deputies
of the Parliament of the Czech republic, after hearing of the Deputy
Minister of Internal Affairs Mgr. Monika Pálková, after hearing of the
report of the Deputy Roman Váňa, and after debate 1. ‪#‎disagrees‬
with intent of the European Commission to restrict acquisition and
possession of firearms that are possessed and used legally in accord
with internal law of EU Member states;
2. ‪#‎rejects‬
any Commission's interference with functional system of control,
evidence, acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition that is
set in the law of the Czech republic;
3. ‪#‎claims‬
support to establishing of all functional measures that follow goal of
elimination of illegal trade, acquisition, possession and other
manipulation with firearms, ammunition and explosives;
4. ‪#‎opposes‬
European Commission's attempt to persecute Member States and their
citizens by unjustified restrictions on legal firearms ownership, as a
reaction on tragic events associated with terror attacks in Paris;
5. ‪#‎recommends‬
to Prime Minister of the Czech Republic to take all legal and
diplomatic measures to prevent passing Directive that would be
infringement on Czech law in regard to trade, control, acquisition and
possession of firearms, thereby inappropriately infringing on rights of
citizens of the Czech republic. Ondřej Benešík
certifier Head of Committee http://www.psp.cz/sqw/text/text2.sqw?idd=76883

https://www.facebook.com/FirearmsUnited/posts/913848322041176
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top