Talk:Directive (EU) 2021/555

POV and argumentation

This article seems to be heavily skewed to the Czech Ministry of Interior's POV. Further, it seems to present arguments like a political essay rather than simply reporting facts in a neutral sequence. For comparison, I inserted the text from the Overview of gun laws by nation prior to recent edits.[1][2] The new revisions appear to skew the article substantially towards an "anti-directive" POV.

One particular issue caught my eye. The article says: absolute prohibition of possession of A category firearms (even if having been deactivated) and destroying them, which would have particular effect on museums and collectors, whose firearms related exhibition would have to be mostly destroyed. But the cited source appears to specifically include an exemption for museums: Consequently, for the most dangerous firearms (category A) stricter rules have been introduced even if they are deactivated. This means that deactivated firearms from Category A will not be allowed to be owned nor traded (except for museums).[3] How come the source says one thing but the article says the opposite? Felsic2 (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

The museums are only mentioned in the recital, however there is no exemption in the wording that is in the legal text itself.

Also, in source 39 Vicky Ford mentions that this was one of the main issues of the original Commission Proposal.

Please read this here: https://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/museum-gun-collections-do-not-face-near-destruction-under-revised-eu-gun-control-laws/

Museums such as The Royal Armouries Museum and the National Army Museum were concerned that the new rules on permanently deactivating weapons might require them to damage the antique workings of thousands of historic guns in case they fell into the wrong hands.

But the museums’ fears were misplaced. Museums run by public authorities continue to be exempt from these gun control laws. We could have told the Telegraph this if it had asked us.

In countries like the Czech Republic, most museums are private institutions / separate entities from military/police. It may be nice that museums run by military and police (which is the factual extent of exemption, not "public museums" as the author claims) could keep their inventory intact, but most heritage A category firearms would face destruction.

Then it gets even more interested in this official answer of European Parliament: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2016-000182&language=BG

The museums may continue to possess category A weapons acquired before the entry into force of the new Directive provided they are deactivated accordingly.

So, actually, even the "exempted" museums would be bound to "deactivate" their heritage inventory. The "poster boy" for this part of the Directive in the Czech Republic was the Sten machine gun used during the assassination of the butcher of Prague. In order not to make the article POV I refrained from putting that as an example, even though it is an absolute outrage.

As regards skewing towards the Czech Republic - given that Trilogue is not public and even requests for informations into Trialogues are most often rejected (which is something that the European Ombudsman - among many others - is feverishly denouncing, to the best of my knowledge there is no other source dealing with the issue in such a detailed way. All Czech steps on this issue are traceable and in public sphere.

That is also why I changed the lead in the box in Impact Assessment. They are required by Commission's own rules on law making (see here, here), however Commission refused to present any, despite having been asked to do so multiple times. So, in absence of Commission IA, the Czech one is the only one that remains.

I am not convinced that the intro "Opponents say that no such firearm..." is needed. It is a simple fact, no matter who says that.

Also CNing word "EU Gun Ban" makes no sense. Google spits 1.5 million answers to those words. I think it is justified use. But OK, would you take this as a source? http://www.politico.eu/article/europe-gun-lobby-mobilizing-against-new-firearms-guns-weapons-rules/

Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Everything we say needs to be verifiable from a source without making any novel conclusions on our own. We can't go through the text and decide that it doesn't cover X, Y, or Z, and include that in the text. Otherwise we'd be free to say that it fails to make any provision for the zombie apocalypse, or private ownership of photon torpedoes. We can't create our own "simple facts" unless they appear in reliable sources.

Nor can we decide on our own that some law or regulation hasn't been fulfilled, and then state it. Again, we need to have a source which makes that claim.

Further, there needs to be a balance of POVs, with weight according to prominence. Sure, the Czech Interior Ministry should be included, but not out of proportion. What do other countries think about this? You can't just swamp the article with one POV.

I don't want to devote a lot of time reviewing every claim in this article, but if there are other problems like this with the text then the best thing may be to revert it to the prior version. Felsic2 (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

You are failing to understand the main issue with the law making here - the Trialogue. It is a closed door legislation making process that leaves no papertrail. When everyone is silent, what you are left with is the one source that is open.

More importantly, I provided the sources above, and I added the source - Cz Ministry of Interior Impact Assessment - towards the given part.

Whether A class firearms were to be destroyed under the proposal is not an issue of point of view. This is proposed legislation, and it is factual issue.

Article 6 of the proposal states:

Member States shall take all appropriate steps to prohibit the acquisition and the possession of the fire arms and ammunition classified in category A and to destroy those firearms and ammunition held in violation of this provison and seized.

Member States may authorise bodies concerned with the cultural and historical aspects of weapons and recognised as such by the Member State in whose territory they are established to keep in their possession firearms classified in category A acquired before [the date of entry into force of this Directive] provided they have been deactivated in accordance with the provisions that implement Article 10(b).

I.e. the default is to destroy everything. An exemption may be given to some bodies, however even then they would need to "deactivate" (which, from the historical point of view, is on par with destroying) them all.

You found one sentence in the recital, which is no binding part of legislation, and tried to prove a point with it. Sorry, but it is not flying. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the bit about the lack of an exemption for museums unless you can find a source which says so explicitly. That's how Wikipedia works. The same for the claim about the lack of an impact assessment. Being "true" isn't enough. It has to have been stated in a published, reliable source. And again, I haven't even started looking at the rest of the article. If you're doing this routinely it's a real problem. You're not supposed to draw your own conclusions. See WP:NOR. Felsic2 (talk) 23:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I will probably not have time for Wiki for next couple of days, Ill do my best.

Why was this delted?

a process that has been labeled as "death of European democracy" by Harry Cooper in Politico Magazine. The process consists of closed-door meetings that leave no publicly available papertrail as regards decision making of EU legislation that usually ends in first reading legislation approval in Parliament with no public political debate.

It is well sourced and it goes into the problem you mentioned - lack of other sources.

Last but not least the Czech POV on the issue is important because the Czech Government is preparing to challenge it in front ECJ. FYI, The Czech Republic has never challenged the European Commission in front of ECJ before. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the commentary on the Trilogue because it did not concern the "European Firearms Directive", which is the topic of this article. It might be added to the Eurpean Commission article, or some other article about that topic. However, also note that it is an opinion, not a fact.

Could you please quote the text from your source which says that museums are not exempted?[4] I only see the opposite statement. We should include what the source actually says, and not try to read between the lines. Felsic2 (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, I wrote it above, but probably you missed it. The part that you are reading is recital. It is introduction. That is not the law. See, for example, page 18 here.

whilst the ECJ recognises that recitals can help to establish the purpose of a provision, it has stated on numerous occasions that recitals cannot take precedence over the relevant operative provisions of EU legislation. Therefore, if a recital is irredeemably inconsistent with the operative text then the ECJ will ignore the recital and give effect to the text of the operative provisions.

The operative part of the directive does not signle museums out, as you can see in the operative part yourself. You need not only read sources, but also need to work with them.

Following your request I have added direct line from the binding part of the proposed directive, directly source. Also, it is not my interpretation, it is sourced from Impact Assessment of the Ministry of Interior of the Czech Republic.

I whole-heartily disagree with your statement regarding description of Trialogue. Given that there is no wikipedia page on the issue of Trialogue, it deserves to be included here. The mere fact that you yourself were completely caught off guard by the fact that there is lack of relevant sources (apart from political proclamations, which are not worth much) regarding the proposed amendment serves as illustration why explanation "Trialogue is closed door meetings that don't leave any publicly available paper-trail needs to be included. I will, however, separate it through infobox, and add other sources. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Trialogue, this article also discusses guns. Should we include information about gun violence in Europe for the same reason? The answer is only if a reliable source connects them. We should not add in side issues based purely on our own interests. Especially when the added material is highly POV.

If the Czech Ministry is the one who says that museums are not excluded then we should include and attribute both views, not assert one as a fact. So you could write something like, "The proposal's recital states that museums are exempt, while the Czech Ministry state that they are not."

The link to your edit contains many snippets of text. Which part says that museums aren't exempt? Could you please do me a favor and quote it here?

Again, I am concerned about over-reliance on Czech sources and the lack of other views. One way of dealing with that would be to consolidate the Czech material in one section, such as "Czech opposition". Felsic2 (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Again: Article 6 of the proposal states:

Member States shall take all appropriate steps to prohibit the acquisition and the possession of the fire arms and ammunition classified in category A and to destroy those firearms and ammunition held in violation of this provison and seized.

Member States may authorise bodies concerned with the cultural and historical aspects of weapons and recognised as such by the Member State in whose territory they are established to keep in their possession firearms classified in category A acquired before [the date of entry into force of this Directive] provided they have been deactivated in accordance with the provisions that implement Article 10(b).

"bodies concerned with the cultural and historical aspects" Those are your museums from recital.

Impact Assessment is not opposition, it is a technical document. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see where it says that museums aren't exempt. That's a conclusion not in the document. If someone, like the Czech Ministry, makes the conclusion then cite them.

Attribute the statement as accurately as you can. Just don't say it without attribution. Felsic2 (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Again: Article 6 of the proposal states:

Member States shall take all appropriate steps to prohibit the acquisition and the possession of the fire arms and ammunition classified in category A and to destroy those firearms and ammunition held in violation of this provison and seized.

Member States may authorise bodies concerned with the cultural and historical aspects of weapons and recognised as such by the Member State in whose territory they are established to keep in their possession firearms classified in category A acquired before [the date of entry into force of this Directive] provided they have been deactivated in accordance with the provisions that implement Article 10(b).

"bodies concerned with the cultural and historical aspects" Those are your museums from recital.

"Regarding the Trialogue, this article also discusses guns. Should we include information about gun violence in Europe for the same reason? The answer is only if a reliable source connects them. We should not add in side issues based purely on our own interests. Especially when the added material is highly POV."

What is POV about stating nature of Trilogue?

The article deals with gun violence in Europe where it pertains to the issue, such as

Meanwhile, poorly deactivated firearms became, alongside smuggling from third countries, became one of major sources of black market guns used by criminals and terrorists in Europe, having been used in 2016 Munich shooting, killing spree in Charlie Hebdo, France and 2015 Thalys train attack.

I don't shy away from that issue as you can see here: Gun_laws_in_the_Czech_Republic#Incidents_and_gun_crimes.

I wanted to add similar part however I resigned when I couldnt find EU wide statistics.

Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

If the source doesn't discuss the European Firearms Directive then it shouldn't be used here. That goes for the Trialogue as well as the Hebdo attacks. This article needs to stay focused on the topic, not get into a discussion of overall gun politics or European bureaucracy. Felsic2 (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The premise is "President Juncker introduced the aim of amending the European Firearms Directive as a Commission's reaction to a previous wave of Islamist terror attacks in several EU cities."

To that point there are two issues: no firearm used in terror attack was legal, i.e. under Directive, and at the same time firearms used in the terror attacks were either smuggled (outside of scope of this article) or deactivated (within the scope of the article). This issue pertains to the amendment proposal very closely.

The same goes to the explanation of Trialogue. You are stating it is wrong to have only the Czech POV. Well, then it needs to be mentioned that Trialogue is a closed door process with no public access to underlying papers. Then it makes sense to use the Czech reservation as a source, since this is the one source that was made public. BTW I do think that it is absolute madness that the minutes and decisions of Trilogue are kept secret with the one statement of reservations being in public domain, but hey, what can I do about it?

These are both closely related to the issue at hand.

FYI, you cite an article in spectator.sme.sk that doesn't mention this topic. However here is an article that does: "French Ambassador: Slovakia is very pro-European".[5] Why not cite that instead? Felsic2 (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's another source that looks reasonable: [6] Felsic2 (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The article I cite deals with deactivated firearms and their use in terror, which is the opening statement of the whole part as introduced by Mr. Juncker.

The article you cite adds nothing that could be usefully used for the purposes of the article. The one sentence "the Slovak presidency managed to revise the Firearms Directive, in order to introduce stricter controls" has no information value (moreover Slovak presidency took place during the Trilogue).

I don't think the pictures add anything. I assume you picked them yourself. How did you choose those and not other guns that would also be banned? Felsic2 (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The BREN machine gun is one of the most recognized WW2 firearms, that is why I chose it. There are hardly any more distinctive WW2 A category firearms than this one. Following your deletion, I chose ZB.26, which is BREN predecessor (but externally they look the same, so it is still, for someone who doesn't know much, the most recognized firearm), but also, this is the one that the source I provided explicitly mentions. I did this to accommodate you. I would prefer shorter description, however I suppose then you could find a fault with it. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's another source that looks reasonable: [7]

I agree, this one is reasonable. I am not sure whether it makes much sense since UK is leaving the EU, so the Directive will never be implemented there.

If included, it should be in part dealing with Trilogue, stating that this one particular UK organization was happy with the changes that came out of Trilogue. At the same time it must be noted that the changes which for example Czech Republic assess negatively, such as magazine restrictions on center fire semi-automatic firearms, will not apply in UK, as those firearms are entirely prohibited in UK already (except semi-auto pistols in Northern Ireland). So given that the Directive sets minimum standard, use of country which won't be bound by the directive and which already has some of the toughest gun laws as an "happy example" seems a bit off.

At the same time there is a number of other British associations that don't share this view, such as this one: https://www.cpsa.co.uk/userfiles/file/BSSCPositionpaperEUDirectiveonWeaponsControlFinalJanuary2016.pdf. (BTW see point 4 therein) Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I've placed a "POV" tag on the article because it does not reflect the neutral point of view. Felsic2 (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

References

"Law abiding"

The use of the phrase "law abiding citizens" doesn't imply "this is the legal regime surrounding firearms", it is editorialising for "innocent". Which of course they might not be - the Directive doesn't guarantee that those that obtain weapons legally aren't going to later use them to commit crime, as history has proved.

The phrase doesn't add anything to the article other than pushing a particular point-of-view.

Mauls (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The point is that citizens who follow the letter of the law in their home country are subject to different rules, depending upon which country that is. It has nothing to do with their innocence. Your own biases and connotations are leading you to that conclusion. Read the sentence again and you will see this.

The neutrality disputed tag doesn't add anything to the article, other than pushing a particular point-of-view.

208.91.239.10 (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mauls: Would "which leads to differences in the extent citizens' legal access to firearms" clarify it? To your point, "law-abiding" has a bit of a flavor of "innocent" or "virtuous". But taking it out would imply that once a country had passed a law outlawing X, there would be no way for any citizens of that country to acquire X. That's also false. I think "legal access" or something to that effect gets the point across in a neutral and concise manner. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that would be vastly better! Mauls (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculous Czech-centric bias

As already suggested above, the degree to which this subject is presented from the Czech perspective means that this article is massively and unacceptably biased, possibly irredeemably so. There are 26 other countries in the EU, yet most of them don't even get a mention, in contrast to the glut of Czech sources, official or otherwise. It really needs to be pared down to just cover the facts, and the Czech-centric editorialising eliminated. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Czech Republic is the only country that has been opposing the amendment from the beginning. It is also the only country that filed suit against the amendment. You are welcome to add sources from other countries perspective, but given that this has mostly flown under the radar there, it makes sense that Czech sources will be most cited here.

There was a part that dealt with the lack of other sources but which has since been deleted for being POV:

"Trialogue is a process that has been labeled as "death of European democracy" by Harry Cooper in Politico Magazine. The process consists of closed-door meetings that leave no publicly available papertrail as regards decision making of EU legislation that usually ends in first reading legislation approval in Parliament with no public political debate.

I understand your view but the fact that the EU decided to push this through a process that leaves little to no public information available should not mean that information accessible in a country which is constitutionally based on open access to government data should be redacted from the article. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Move

Moved because article title is not found in the legislation, see similar case. Hekerui (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2021 (UTC)