Nekaj argumentov predvsem kar se tiče deko orožja (v angleščini da bo razumljivo tudi ostalim evroposlancem):
1. Once the firearm has been properly deactivated (according to the current CIP deactivation guidelines issued by EC) it becomes a useless piece of decorative metal, regardless of it's specifications. Automatic, semi-automatic or single shot rifles – once properly deactivated, they all become as dangerous as a kitchen chair.
2. Reactivation of properly deactivated firearms as proposed in the ˝[i]establishing common guidelines on deactivation standards and techniques˝, would require machining equipment, tools and knowledge of a trained gunsmith. So reactivating those firearms would be as difficult as fabricating a new firearm from scratch. As deactivation procedures are performed on all crucial parts of the weapon (barrel, bolt and reciever), reactivation would require fabrication of new crucial parts, which are already classified as weapon and are subjected to same regulations than the firearm itself. Regarding to this, reactivating firearms would mean illegal production of firearms or their crucial parts and is already covered by EU and national legislations. [/i]
3. There are no arguments, how a ban on properly and irreversibly deactivated firearms would decrease criminal activities. In fact, such ban would emerge a completely new illegal aspect - ownership of an illegal deactivated firearms which previously weren't even regarded as a weapon and were aquired without any limitations.
4. The Slovenian Constitution states, that no law can have a retroactive effect. Many Member States may have problems enforcing proposed directive, due to their citizens constitutional rights. In that case any privately owned possession, that was legaly aquired without any restrictions, cannot be confiscated without a financial restitution. If that proposition comes into action, it would be a huge financial burden for Member States. If our legaly and unrestrictedly aquired possession is confiscated without financial restitution, owners will have to seek our justice on European Court of Human Rights.
5. Recently proposed minimal deactivation standards are welcome (proposition on establishing common guidelines on deactivation standards and techniques). Those minimal deactivation standards also cover the automatic firearms. Minimal deactivation standards of automatic firearms are much more strict compared to the other types of firearms, so concern of reactivating them is unnecessary. Regarding this, the ban on deactivated automatic firearms is unnecessary and would create many negative effects and not a single positive one.
1. Once the firearm has been properly deactivated (according to the current CIP deactivation guidelines issued by EC) it becomes a useless piece of decorative metal, regardless of it's specifications. Automatic, semi-automatic or single shot rifles – once properly deactivated, they all become as dangerous as a kitchen chair.
2. Reactivation of properly deactivated firearms as proposed in the ˝[i]establishing common guidelines on deactivation standards and techniques˝, would require machining equipment, tools and knowledge of a trained gunsmith. So reactivating those firearms would be as difficult as fabricating a new firearm from scratch. As deactivation procedures are performed on all crucial parts of the weapon (barrel, bolt and reciever), reactivation would require fabrication of new crucial parts, which are already classified as weapon and are subjected to same regulations than the firearm itself. Regarding to this, reactivating firearms would mean illegal production of firearms or their crucial parts and is already covered by EU and national legislations. [/i]
3. There are no arguments, how a ban on properly and irreversibly deactivated firearms would decrease criminal activities. In fact, such ban would emerge a completely new illegal aspect - ownership of an illegal deactivated firearms which previously weren't even regarded as a weapon and were aquired without any limitations.
4. The Slovenian Constitution states, that no law can have a retroactive effect. Many Member States may have problems enforcing proposed directive, due to their citizens constitutional rights. In that case any privately owned possession, that was legaly aquired without any restrictions, cannot be confiscated without a financial restitution. If that proposition comes into action, it would be a huge financial burden for Member States. If our legaly and unrestrictedly aquired possession is confiscated without financial restitution, owners will have to seek our justice on European Court of Human Rights.
5. Recently proposed minimal deactivation standards are welcome (proposition on establishing common guidelines on deactivation standards and techniques). Those minimal deactivation standards also cover the automatic firearms. Minimal deactivation standards of automatic firearms are much more strict compared to the other types of firearms, so concern of reactivating them is unnecessary. Regarding this, the ban on deactivated automatic firearms is unnecessary and would create many negative effects and not a single positive one.