The amendment doesn't change any current laws that regulate firearm ownership; it's more of a massive middle finger to the pinkos in Brussels that have been trying to ban private gun ownership ever since Charlie Hebdo got culturally enriched.
A little more detail into what this actually means would be great. The US doesn’t even have a second amendment, so it’s doubtful that a European nation would grant the same sort of allowances.
Since the 2015 terror attacks in France the EU has been going all out trying to ban private firearm ownership across the union. Czech laws regulating firearm ownership have been fairly permissive compared to other EU states; all gun owners must be licensed, but the license is shall-issue as long as you pass a test, and the new EU legislation would have forced us to change that.
Amending the Constitution (actually the Czech equivalent of the US Bill of Rights - Listina základních práv a svobod - which is part of the Constitution) to specifically note the right to defense with a weapon means the EU can go fuck itself, because while EU law falls under "international treaties" which supersede local law, the Constitution supersedes even that.
We had to somewhat change our gun laws last year due to EU mandate, but the update actually made some things easier; for example, silencers and laser sights were previously banned and the update allows them, and the EU also wanted to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds, which kinda-sorta happened, except you can just get a shall-issue permit for standard capacity mags and it's literally just a piece of paper you pay IIRC ~4 EUR for and it's approved immediately, so it technically fulfills the EU's mandate while changing basically nothing in practice.
Of course, the battle isn't won yet. There's a push to ban lead for completely made-up "environmental protection" reasons (no, there really isn't a huge epidemic of lead poisoning like the EU and green NGOs say), and the newly passed amendment also includes a "as defined by law" clause, so in theory, if self-defense law changes in the future to say you have to give up and let yourself be killed if attacked, we're still screwed. It could have been worded a lot better, but it could also have been a lot worse.
Since the 2015 terror attacks in France the EU has been going all out trying to ban private firearm ownership across the union.
Seems like it worked.
Amending the Constitution (actually the Czech equivalent of the US Bill of Rights - Listina základních práv a svobod - which is part of the Constitution) to specifically note the right to defense with a weapon means the EU can go fuck itself, because while EU law falls under "international treaties" which supersede local law, the Constitution supersedes even that.
Ah, but the EU considers itself the equivalent of the US federal government, specifically in that any time there is a conflict between national (state) and EU (federal) law, EU law takes precedent.
What I’m saying is you guys are going to have to start shooting very soon, since they’re not about to just let you be free again.
silencers and laser sights were previously banned and the update allows them,
Lucky.
There's a push to ban lead for completely made-up "environmental protection" reasons (no, there really isn't a huge epidemic of lead poisoning like the EU and green NGOs say)
What a damn shame. Hopefully you prove them right about the lead poisoning soon.
It could have been worded a lot better, but it could also have been a lot worse.
[...] the EU considers itself the equivalent of the US federal government, specifically in that any time there is a conflict between national (state) and EU (federal) law, EU law takes precedent.
[...] you guys are going to have to start shooting very soon, since they’re not about to just let you be free again.
The EU isn't the US federal government though. The last time someone tried to secede from the EU, they just tried to punish them economically (unlike the last time someone tried to secede from the US. We fought a whole war over that and irrevocably changed the face of our government.)
I've been keeping an eye on this a little. I thought it was cool that this might end up actually being the Second Amendment to your Constitution and where I live there's a very large foundational Czech population. The place in the link is actually a national historical place.
While I'm not Czech descent I know that your cousins across the ocean are proud of you guys.
3 Nays and 56 either abstained or not present, which is effectively Nay as well. This is a fairly popular law among the people, so most MPs really don't want to be publicly against it.
It is kinda unusual; especially since this was approved by the ruling coalition (ANO2011 + CSSD) as well as the opposition, and tensions have been high, especially now due to Covid and the government's absolutely retarded handling of the situation.
This amendment is really popular among the people, the overwhelming majority are for it. We've had much more permissive laws regarding weapons than most other European countries for decades and we're one of the safest countries in the world; people notice. It's also election year, the elections are in October, so not many politicians want to publicly come out against this.
KDU-ČSL are the Christian Democrats (KDU = Křesťanská demokratická unie = Christian democratic union), also known as literal political prostitutes. They were one of the very few parties that existed even during communism to put up an illusion of plurality, and they were allowed to exist because the Communists knew they could depend on them to do whatever they were told. That never changed. Once in a while someone in the party grows a spine and does something good (like this dude, check out the 3rd paragraph), but that never lasts and that person usually either leaves or gets kicked out.
Haha I just realized I didn't actually answer your question about the Pirates and KDU-CSL. The story behind that is that, well, KDU are whores like I mentioned earlier, and the Pirates are your run-of-the-mill progtards, so they would like to ban weapon ownership, but they can't afford to because it's election year and the amendment is massively popular. One of them even tried to poison the well on this when he tried to change the amendment to allow the defense of any right outlined in our Bill of Rights with a deadly weapon - so it would have included a right to defend e.g. your religious freedom. His proposal got to the Senate and they told him to fuck off, literally noone voted for it.
Pirates are very likely to win the October election. I'm not very excited for that, their rule over Prague has already proven to be a disaster.
I have to ask, how do laws get passed in EU? Restricting to 10 rounds magazine seems extreme, so how come it passed, I've not heard of any uproar when it happened.
EU laws are proposed by the European Comission and approved by the European Parliament. In reality it's a total farce because the EC isn't elected and the EP just rubberstamps whatever the EC says.
After an EU law is passed, member countries are required to adapt their local legislations to comply with it. If they don't, they are sued in the Court of Justice of the EU, and if they lose, they're subject to penalties.
Like, literally. A small group of unelected officials decide the rules, punishments, and enforcements thereof. They dictate, and all obey. Dictatorship. So of course there's no uproar over anything. Why would you go against the dictatorship?
I can't find an English article about it yet, but here's one from earlier that discusses the proposal: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/it-looks-like-the-czech-republic-might-get-a-second-amendment/
The amendment doesn't change any current laws that regulate firearm ownership; it's more of a massive middle finger to the pinkos in Brussels that have been trying to ban private gun ownership ever since Charlie Hebdo got culturally enriched.
France keeps trying to surrender harder and harder to their explosive minority group -
They want the world to ban free speech online because it upsets them.
They also want to ban guns - so citizens have no defense
Really? Macron was pressuring the West to implement draconian free speech limitations since the NZ shooting. But Trump rejected his idea.
How so? I’m not aware that they’ve passed any recent legislation
A little more detail into what this actually means would be great. The US doesn’t even have a second amendment, so it’s doubtful that a European nation would grant the same sort of allowances.
Since the 2015 terror attacks in France the EU has been going all out trying to ban private firearm ownership across the union. Czech laws regulating firearm ownership have been fairly permissive compared to other EU states; all gun owners must be licensed, but the license is shall-issue as long as you pass a test, and the new EU legislation would have forced us to change that.
Amending the Constitution (actually the Czech equivalent of the US Bill of Rights - Listina základních práv a svobod - which is part of the Constitution) to specifically note the right to defense with a weapon means the EU can go fuck itself, because while EU law falls under "international treaties" which supersede local law, the Constitution supersedes even that.
We had to somewhat change our gun laws last year due to EU mandate, but the update actually made some things easier; for example, silencers and laser sights were previously banned and the update allows them, and the EU also wanted to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds, which kinda-sorta happened, except you can just get a shall-issue permit for standard capacity mags and it's literally just a piece of paper you pay IIRC ~4 EUR for and it's approved immediately, so it technically fulfills the EU's mandate while changing basically nothing in practice.
Of course, the battle isn't won yet. There's a push to ban lead for completely made-up "environmental protection" reasons (no, there really isn't a huge epidemic of lead poisoning like the EU and green NGOs say), and the newly passed amendment also includes a "as defined by law" clause, so in theory, if self-defense law changes in the future to say you have to give up and let yourself be killed if attacked, we're still screwed. It could have been worded a lot better, but it could also have been a lot worse.
Seems like it worked.
Ah, but the EU considers itself the equivalent of the US federal government, specifically in that any time there is a conflict between national (state) and EU (federal) law, EU law takes precedent.
What I’m saying is you guys are going to have to start shooting very soon, since they’re not about to just let you be free again.
Lucky.
What a damn shame. Hopefully you prove them right about the lead poisoning soon.
Hey, thanks for the outline. Very helpful.
The EU isn't the US federal government though. The last time someone tried to secede from the EU, they just tried to punish them economically (unlike the last time someone tried to secede from the US. We fought a whole war over that and irrevocably changed the face of our government.)
Sure. But they claim to be.
And also didn’t technically let them leave, since all of their foreign policies are still mandated by the EU.
I've been keeping an eye on this a little. I thought it was cool that this might end up actually being the Second Amendment to your Constitution and where I live there's a very large foundational Czech population. The place in the link is actually a national historical place.
While I'm not Czech descent I know that your cousins across the ocean are proud of you guys.
thanks for the explanation
Dude, what are you smoking? We have one, and even the fuckheads on the supreme court agree we do.
And there is still a whole lot if infringement going on anyway.
Okay, whatever you want to lie to yourself about, I guess.
Only 3 no votes? They don't have leftists?
3 Nays and 56 either abstained or not present, which is effectively Nay as well. This is a fairly popular law among the people, so most MPs really don't want to be publicly against it.
Ah, okay. That makes sense.
allowing them to pretend to be whatever in the future
It is kinda unusual; especially since this was approved by the ruling coalition (ANO2011 + CSSD) as well as the opposition, and tensions have been high, especially now due to Covid and the government's absolutely retarded handling of the situation.
This amendment is really popular among the people, the overwhelming majority are for it. We've had much more permissive laws regarding weapons than most other European countries for decades and we're one of the safest countries in the world; people notice. It's also election year, the elections are in October, so not many politicians want to publicly come out against this.
KDU-ČSL are the Christian Democrats (KDU = Křesťanská demokratická unie = Christian democratic union), also known as literal political prostitutes. They were one of the very few parties that existed even during communism to put up an illusion of plurality, and they were allowed to exist because the Communists knew they could depend on them to do whatever they were told. That never changed. Once in a while someone in the party grows a spine and does something good (like this dude, check out the 3rd paragraph), but that never lasts and that person usually either leaves or gets kicked out.
Haha I just realized I didn't actually answer your question about the Pirates and KDU-CSL. The story behind that is that, well, KDU are whores like I mentioned earlier, and the Pirates are your run-of-the-mill progtards, so they would like to ban weapon ownership, but they can't afford to because it's election year and the amendment is massively popular. One of them even tried to poison the well on this when he tried to change the amendment to allow the defense of any right outlined in our Bill of Rights with a deadly weapon - so it would have included a right to defend e.g. your religious freedom. His proposal got to the Senate and they told him to fuck off, literally noone voted for it.
Pirates are very likely to win the October election. I'm not very excited for that, their rule over Prague has already proven to be a disaster.
I like that 'poison pill' though...
You might, but it's a bad pill in practice.
Imagine if you were allowed, legally, to be shot every time you ate bacon. It is not a good law to have.
The issue is in that proposed law's wording: If you restrict Islam's rights to restrict YOUR rights, they can shoot you. Which, obviously, is sub-par.
Banning things by name doesn't work. "Oh, AR-15 is banned? Alright, here's an AR-150!" "Oh, Islam is banned? Alright, here's a Nation of Jihad!"
I have to ask, how do laws get passed in EU? Restricting to 10 rounds magazine seems extreme, so how come it passed, I've not heard of any uproar when it happened.
EU laws are proposed by the European Comission and approved by the European Parliament. In reality it's a total farce because the EC isn't elected and the EP just rubberstamps whatever the EC says.
After an EU law is passed, member countries are required to adapt their local legislations to comply with it. If they don't, they are sued in the Court of Justice of the EU, and if they lose, they're subject to penalties.
it's all made up and the points don't matter. ridiculous
In the EP literally don't even count votes.
The EU is a dictatorship.
Like, literally. A small group of unelected officials decide the rules, punishments, and enforcements thereof. They dictate, and all obey. Dictatorship. So of course there's no uproar over anything. Why would you go against the dictatorship?
This is intersting. I wonder how the rest of the EU will take this.
based
Freedom Czechs out!
If I was a Czech politician, I'd run on a
chickenCZ 75 and CZ Scorpion in everypotcloset.