Guns: how much longer will it take ....

More guns on the streets,

And the weak laws that allow these gangs to acquire these guns.

And the weak laws that allow these gangs to acquire these guns.

uberconservative nonsense, as usual.hyperpartisan

the comment was about your post, not reps or dems.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) on Tuesday dismissed the Czech Republic's legal challenge against the ban on semi-automatic rifles for private use introduced after terrorist attacks in 2015.

The Court ruled that the measures taken by the European Parliament and the Council "in the contested directive do not entail breaches of the principles of conferral of powers, proportionality, legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations or non-discrimination as alleged by the Czech Republic in support of its action."

The EU measures against the use of semi-automatic rifles for private use are intended to curb gun violence and prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons on the black market.

Support for the new rules gained traction following several terror atrocities on European soil, including attacks in Paris, Nice and Brussels over the past several years.

Later in the judgment, the Court found that the EU legislature had at its disposal numerous analyses and recommendations covering all the issues raised in the Czech Republic’s argument and that, contrary to what that Member State claimed, the measures criticised did not appear, in the light of those analyses and recommendations, manifestly inappropriate in relation to the objectives of ensuring public safety and security for EU citizens and facilitating the functioning of the internal market in firearms for civilian use.

Consequently, the Court held that, in the case at hand, the EU institutions had not exceeded their wide discretion when called upon to conduct such complex assessments and evaluations of political, economic or social nature. Last, the Court further rejected the arguments of the Czech Republic directed more specifically against certain provisions of the contested directive which that Member State deemed to be contrary to the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations of categories of owners or holders of weapons potentially subject to a stricter regime under the contested directive and, last, non-discrimination.

Regarding that latter principle, the Court notes inter alia that the derogation enjoyed by Switzerland takes into account both the culture and traditions of that country and the fact that, owing to those traditions, it has the proven experience and ability to trace and monitor the persons and weapons concerned, which gives reason to assume that the public security and safety objectives pursued by the contested directive will, despite that derogation, be achieved. Given that no Member State of the European Union appears to be in a comparable situation to that of Switzerland, there is no discrimination.

But the best would have been, you'd sent your objections and legal interpretations to the EU prosecutor general's office and the Czech Republic - however, since the European Court of Justice followed the advice of the advocate general gave in April, it's too late to change this ruling.

Regarding that latter principle, the Court notes inter alia that the derogation enjoyed by Switzerland takes into account both the culture and traditions of that country and the fact that, owing to those traditions, it has the proven experience and ability to trace and monitor the persons and weapons concerned, which gives reason to assume that the public security and safety objectives pursued by the contested directive will, despite that derogation, be achieved. Given that no Member State of the European Union appears to be in a comparable situation to that of Switzerland, there is no discrimination.

I was not objecting to the law or the ruling though. I was only objecting to the inaccurate terminology used in the article.

Regarding that latter principle, the Court notes inter alia that the derogation enjoyed by Switzerland takes into account both the culture and traditions of that country and the fact that, owing to those traditions, it has the proven experience and ability to trace and monitor the persons and weapons concerned, which gives reason to assume that the public security and safety objectives pursued by the contested directive will, despite that derogation, be achieved. Given that no Member State of the European Union appears to be in a comparable situation to that of Switzerland, there is no discrimination.