Arms: the Arms Industry Associations, ANPAM, ASSORAMIERI and CONARMI express their thoughts on the changes to the national legislation in terms of weapons.
The President of Assormieri, lawyer. Antonio Bana, announces that the gunsmithing associations have been invited in a very short time to a discussion with the Ministry (on 12 June 2013) in order to modify the text of the corrective prepared by the ministerial commission. Some issues have been partially modified, others have not been acknowledged at all. Below we publish the complete text of the joint letter sent on 20 June to the Ministry regarding the line of thought of the Armiero, ANPAM, ASSOARMIERI and CONARMI sector as evidence of the absolute transparency of work and the collaborative attempt with the Ministry in a correct interest. legislative attention also to the community regulations in force.
"
HE Prefect Tomao,
despite the very short time available, which prevented the necessary reflection on issues that may prove essential for the sector, we promptly send our comments on the text submitted to us, with the hope of providing useful insights for the formulation of a more effective articulation, also in consideration of the complex parliamentary process that it will have to carry out.
1. Article 1 paragraph 1 letter a) n.3: the proposed provision is not clear, and if implemented in this formulation it is bound to generate significant problems of interpretation. In fact, it is not clear whether the preposition "The provisions, including the regulatory provisions for the license referred to in Article 31, apply insofar as they are compatible" should in any case be applied only to subjects with the license referred to in the first paragraph, or only to subjects exempted from the license. On the merits, the substantial illogicality and probable illegitimacy of attributing to the principal, a subject other than the one identified as the intermediary, an obligation to report on non-proprietary activities is reiterated.
2. Article 1 paragraph 1 letter a) n.5: the above is reiterated; the proposed provision appears unconstitutional, as it is intended to artfully endow public security agents or officers with a discretionary power to "withdraw as a precaution" weapons from the legitimate holder, in the absence of the commission of a crime and on a purely discretionary basis, through the provision of the competence of the prefect to decide on the correctness of the exercise of this power, placed outside the foreseen institute of seizure and confiscation, attributed only to the judicial police. Furthermore, the exercise of this power which should not be considered legitimate by the prefect, through the restitution of the weapons, would in any case be considered a crime and in any case restored in civil proceedings. Finally, the lack of definition of the timing of the Prefect's intervention defines the certainty of the possibility of an abuse in this regard: the weapons could be legitimately detained by the agents or officers of Public Security for a very long time.
3. Article 1 paragraph 1 letter a) n.6: the current wording is certainly more adequate than the previously drafted, even if it is not yet clear which professionals are qualified to draft the required technical documentation. However, a better reference to the construction safety standards of the facilities would have been appropriate, in relation to the work carried out by the sports associations and federations involved.
4. Article 1 paragraph 1 letter b) n.1: in relation to the regulation in question, we are pleased that through our collaboration it has been possible to modify it in a way that is more oriented towards the reality and needs of the sector. A further modification that we still feel we can recommend is to save the possibility of producing, importing and selling the weapons models already included in the repealed National Catalog, as the repeal is not such as to invalidate the nature of common firearms. , established by definitive provision of the Minister. However, we cannot help but point out that the standard is likely to generate a series of application difficulties, as it prevents some sports disciplines in which Italian athletes excel at international level (for example, even in the CONI context, the shooting categories dynamically operated with non-sporting weapons - Production, Shitgun, Rifle - or, outside the CONI disciplines, shooting according to the regulations of the International Defensive Pistol Association - IDPA), and underestimates the fact that long guns with tanks - even immovable - which contain more than 5 shots and short weapons with more than 15 are present in huge numbers on the national territory. Furthermore, it is not clear how magazines with larger capacities can be prohibited since they are excluded from the category of weapon parts, and as such cannot be subject to control, acneh with reference to their manufacture and sale. We would also like to underline that the provision can be considered such as to prevent the circulation in Italy of weapons permitted in all countries of the European Union, so much so as to give Community operators the possibility of marketing them to you. It therefore seems foreseeable that the provision, once enacted, will be subjected to scrutiny by the European Union in order to verify its legitimacy.
5. Article1 paragraph 1 letter b) n.7: from 1 September the immediately applicable temporary export regulations will come into effect, and the matter is in any case already regulated by the executive discipline of Directive 91/477 / EEC and subsequent amendments. .. The provision therefore does not appear necessary, and is in any case destined to be disapplied from 1 September.
6. Article 1 paragraph 1 letter b) n.9: the provision thus formulated, if implemented, is bound to generate significant implementation problems. In fact, the doubts already expressed in this regard are reiterated, in order:
1. the lack of differentiation between the different types of weapons for the purposes of custody, which violates the constant jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation;
2. the lack of definition of the notion of "armored container";
3. the failure to provide for the possibility of keeping at least some weapons without further formalities at the place of detention when they are under the direct control of the holder, for the purposes of personal and housing defense;
4. the failure to foresee the possibility of keeping the weapons in a special security room, with a single access equipped with an armored door.
We wish to underline that we believe that the possibility of producing, importing and selling the models of weapons already included in the repealed national catalog of common firearms cannot be limited, since their nature as common firearms has been established with a provision defined by the Minister, and not susceptible of being modified, for elementary requirements of legal certainty and non-discrimination. We therefore believe that all the provisions relating to the articles should be amended accordingly, and in particular the second paragraph of Article 2.
With reference to the provisions relating to the export of arms, in referring to a specific document, we wish to underline the delicacy of the issue, and the need for Italian operators to compete on an equal footing with exporters from other member countries, therefore with the possibility of obtaining and use multiple and global licenses of adequate duration.
In relation to the discipline envisaged in relation to the so-called "paintball", regardless of the regulatory competence, although this sector is outside the interest of the writing associations, we nevertheless express doubts regarding the cumbersome nature of the proposed provisions, and the restrictiveness of the same . For example, equating a rubber ball with military ammunition in relation to its illegal detention appears decidedly inappropriate and excessively punitive, just as it appears equally inappropriate to classify as a sporting weapon a tool that is not, nor can it be transformed in order to become one.
Finally, we believe it is necessary that the entire text be subject to a careful examination of legitimacy with reference to its contents. In fact, many of the subjects dealt with (discipline of non-firing weapons and sporting weapons, introduction of general limits to allowed weapons, export and import of weapons, etc.) do not seem to be subsumed in the delegation rules referred to in article 36 of the law 7 of 2009 July 88, to which the supplementary and corrective decree must in any case comply under penalty of illegitimacy. These provisions, therefore, if implemented, could result in violation of Article 77 of the Constitution, and consequently can be annulled. This strict control appears opportune and necessary, also in order to avoid the constitutionality exceptions that will be foreseen during the parliamentary process of the text.
Best regards.
Avv. Nicola Perrotti - President of ANPAM
Avv. Antonio Bana - President of ASSOARMIERI
Dr. Pierangelo Pedersoli - President of CONARMI
"
30 June 2013