From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--snip--
>The claim for loss of profits pursued in the European Court of Human
>Rights (ECHR) by MPC on behalf of the firerarms retailers and dealers
>had been declared inadmissible on the grounds that there was not a
>reasonable expectation that the firearms in question (pistols) would
>remain permitted to be legally owned by private individuals
>indefinitely.
--snip--
>Alex Hamilton
>--
>I don't know but I always thought a suit in the ECJ stood more
>chance of success than the ECHR anyway. However, I don't
>understand this ruling because there was more to the suit than
>just loss of future business. There were gun clubs that were
>not compensated for the loss of their property for one thing.
>
>I have to say this is the most bizarre ruling I have seen, of
>course there was a reasonable expectation they would stay legal,
>on that basis no-one would ever start a business if there
>was an expectation it could be illegal tomorrow.
>
>Steve.
Steve, & Alex,
Bizarre ruling? That's an understatement!
From the 'sounds' of it, the court seems to be saying
it is a foregone conclusion that the private possession of firearms
it the EU is slated for elimination.
Other than that, the courts ruling is extremely faulted by
the mere presence of those same 'pistols' elsewhere' in other EU
nations. You guys had better start asking some serious questions
in the nations where your pistols are being kept.
That ruling stinks to high blue heaven.
--
=*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*=
Liberty: Live it . . . or lose it.
=*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*=
ET
--
The ECHR is not a creature of the EU, non-EU states have signed
the ECHR and the ECHR has ruled on cases that originate in non-EU
states. However signing up to the ECHR is a pre-condition of
entry to the EU. I thought the argument Guy came up with
about the Treaty of Rome being violated made more sense to me.
That argument is that Section 5 dealers (of which there are 500)
can legally sell (and do, Weller & Duftys do it all the time)
handguns to other parts of the EU but dealers in the other
states cannot sell them here. Thus there is not free movement
of goods as required by the Treaty.
The problem I see with that argument is that dealers do
import handguns for sale deactivated and also to people in
Northern Ireland and people who have authority under one of
the exemptions in the 1997 Act, but I think it would be
interesting to see what the ECJ had to say about the disparate
levels of regulation among EU states, they might rule that
regulation could only be established with a clear showing that
it would enhance public safety or a maximum or minimum standard
that gun laws can be in terms of restrictiveness. They might
even rule the EU must establish an EU-wide system of regulation
that is wholly consistent.
The Government would surely argue that the ban on handguns
was for public safety reasons that override any trade concern,
the problem they would have is that there is no indication
of an impact on handgun-related crime so the argument of
public safety lacks evidence.
However, the reality with all these court challenges is that
judges dislike guns just as much as your average MP, so
you end up with daft rulings like the one made by the ECHR.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
