No fewer than eight major points will be discussed at the next trialogue meeting on the firearms directive to be held on Tuesday 25 October, according to a document seen by EUROPE on Thursday 13 October.
These points had all been identified at the first trialogue meeting last month (see EUROPE 11634): the marking of firearms, data sharing and the creation of European records, authorisation to possess a firearm and the medical checks required for such authorisation, deactivation of firearms, firearms categories A and B and specifications for the conversion of semi-automatic weapons, exceptions for category A firearms owned by museums or collectors, transposition of the directive, and acoustic weapons.
The Council wants every weapon and every essential component to be marked, whereas the Parliament wants only key components which are “sold separately” to be marked and proposes exemptions for deactivated arms and persons holding a licence allowing them to possess category A weapons.
Wide differences exist between the two institutions on data exchange. The Council proposes registration of all arms and each essential component; the Parliament proposes also introducing changes of category, deactivations and destructions. The Council suggests a time limit of 20 years on the storage of information; the Parliament is calling for no limit of time.
On the issue of authorisations to possess a firearm, the Parliament and Council seem to disagree on cases of inheritance. The Parliament proposes that firearms should be deactivated or, otherwise, transferred to a holder of a licence. The Parliament is proposing that a limit be placed on the number of firearms a collector may have, unless the arms are deactivated, while the Council wants only collectors whose activities are cultural and/or related to historic research to be allowed to possess firearms.
The Council remains close to the European Commission’s initial proposal on deactivation. The Parliament, however, proposes registration when a firearm is deactivated but no follow-up for later sales after deactivation.
There is disagreement between the two institutions on many points with regard to categorising firearms as A or B. It should be noted here that the Commission expressed doubts over the technical specifications on irreversible conversion of automatic firearms to semi-automatic.
The Parliament argues for a period of 12 months for transposition while the Council proposes 18 months, 36 months for certain articles devoted to dealers and data records, and 56 months for acoustic and deactivated firearms and category D weapons.
Impasse on storage and scope of directive. The last two interinstitutional meetings revealed two stumbling blocks: the scope of the directive and storage of firearms by minors. On the first of these, the Parliament and Council could not agree on a form of words on armed forces, with the Council arguing for a broader, tighter scope than Parliament. The Council proposes “armed forces” in Article 2 on exemptions, while the Parliament proposes “national defence forces”. The two have also debated where responsibility lies when firearms are stored by minors, including whether the parents should also hold firearms licences. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)