Ruger Forum banner

61 - 68 of 68 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,392 Posts
Juraj1 Thanks for the update and information. I find it very interesting. My Czech ancestors were starting to see the writing on the wall and "bugged" out of there in the late 1800s-early 1900s. I've often wondered what life would have been like if they'd have stayed or if our blood line would have even survived. I do (barely) remember my Great Great Grandfather talking about "the old country" with my Great Grandfather and how much things were (although not great but), still much better here. The area they settled in here has a very large Czech Heritage that has prospered nicely.

Iowa has a very nice Czech Heritage Center. It hosted an excellent Alphonse Mucha exhibition several years ago.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Update time.

On 30th of January our LIGA LIBE had successful hearing in the senate about the petition against the EU's disarming directive. Translation of the outcome is here:

The senate:
1) accepts the petition.

2) states that petition no. 6/19 - For preserving the rights of the irreproachable citizens regarding legal firearms (senate issue no. 119) us VALID

3) states, that many points of the EU's directive 2017/853 from 17th May 2017, which changes the directive 91/477/EEC about control regarding purchase and ownership of firearms, obviously does not follow, nor can implement the means for fight against terror. Because of this reason Czech republic filed a lawsuit against validity of this directive to the European Court, which is currently being discussed. (Juraj1's explanation: the petition was signed from 2018 to 2019 and it gathered over 100 000 signatures, in 10M country, it is something, due to this size, it cannot closely follow the latest events, such as losing the court against the EU)

4) states that the gun control legislative of the Czech republic is completely reasonable and correct. Reflecting both Czech's traditional right to own firearms for protection of life, health and property and current threats coming from terror attacks. There is no reason for Czech republic to restrict those rights more than the bare minimum needed to fight the terror.

5) recommends that the government, while preparing the implementation of the directive 2017/853 from 17th May 2017, which changes directive 91/477/EEC regarding purchase and ownership of the firearms, to see to protect rights of the eligible firearm owners, especially at those parts of the directive, where limiting or forbidding points obviously do not have any connection with advised fight against terrorism.

Original link here:
https://www.facebook.com/LIGA.LIBE/photos/a.762055103806121/3246710758673864/

What is next? Our ministry of interior, agriculture and defense are working together with GUNLEX and LIGA LIBE to exclude legal gun owners from the jurisdiction of the EU, to preserve our rights and to fight the incoming lead ammunition ban. Next month there will be a hearing about modifying our basic bill of human rights by adding a paragraph saying:

"Right to protect one's life or the life of another person, even with a weapon, is guaranteed under conditions defined by the law."

I do not like the wording of this paragraph, especially the part about "conditions defined by the law" but it is at least something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Ok, update time. Petition against lead ban and EU directive with over 110 000 signatures has been passed to the lower chamber of the Parliament. At the same time, the senators have initiated amendment of our basic bills of right which should state: "Právo bránit život svůj či život jiného člověka i se zbraní je zaručeno za podmínek, které stanoví zákon." Translation: "Right to defend your life, or life of other person, even with a weapon is guaranteed under conditions set by law." It doesn't guarantee the ownership of firearms, and right to bear them, as in US 2nd amendment, but it guarantees the right to defend yourself with a weapon (that is everything that makes an attack more effective, even a shoelace). I personally consider our constitution and bill of rights as a really bad example of those things mainly due to the fact, that most of them say: "conditions are set by law". This allows following situation to happen: "You have free speech, can say anything you want. But the law says that denying holocaust is punishable by 3 years in prison. Well, you can say it, but we will punish you." And this is happening.

Another thing is, that Czech republic blocked remote voting about lead ban and the fight is still carrying on.

And last but not least, some sort of castle doctrine passed through the first reading in the senate.
It expands our paragraph about necessary defense, that says:
"(1) Čin jinak trestný, kterým někdo odvrací přímo hrozící nebo trvající útok na zájem chráněný trestním zákonem, není trestným činem.
(2) Nejde o nutnou obranu, byla-li obrana zcela zjevně nepřiměřená způsobu útoku."

with

„(3) O nutnou obranu jde také, pokud někdo, i bez splnění podmínek odstavce 2, při ochraně života, zdraví nebo majetku použije fyzické síly, včetně použití zbraně proti tomu, kdo násilím, pohrůžkou použití násilí nebo lstí neoprávněně vnikne do obydlí jiného, jestliže obránce při tom úmyslně nezpůsobí smrt jinému.

(4) Trestní odpovědnost obránce za trestný čin spáchaný z nedbalosti není vyloučena, pokud se vzhledem k okolnostem případu mylně domnívá, že útok hrozí, jestliže omyl spočívá v jeho hrubé nedbalosti.“

Translation:
"(1) Deed, a crime, which is being used to divert directly imminent or continuing attack on the interest protected by the criminal law is not a crime.
(2) It isn't necessary defense, if the defense was completely obviously disproportionate to the means of the attack."

is being amended with:
"(3) It is necessary defense as well, if somebody, even without meeting condition in paragraph 2, during the defense of life, heath or property uses physical force, including a weapon (juraj1's note: see my note about weapons above) against a person who uses violence, threat of violence or ruse, to enter without justification into one's home, if the defender doesn't willingly cause death to the other.

(4) Criminal responsibility of the defender for the crime commited negligently is not excluded, if, given to the circumstances of the case, the defender wrongly presumes that the attack is imminent due to his gross negligence."


Personally I am not happy with the exact words in these mechanisms, as I thing they can backfire, however it is better than nothing.

Cheers mates and thank you for your support.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,114 Posts
Hello Juraj1. Thank you for sharing your struggles and your victories. Even though the victories seem to be less than optimal, they are still significant in the greater scheme of things for you and your fellow like-minded citizens. Don't give up. We here in Oklahoma just recently achieved Constitutional Carry Status and we were only the 16th or so State to so, and it was a long tough fight to gain that Status. And we have already had a couple of serious, but ineffective challenges to reverse that law since it passed. My local State Representative was not for Constitutional Carry until some folks like me talked to him about it. He was afraid too many folks would buy firearms who did not know how to handle them and there would be too many unnecessary and tragic deaths because of this. I asked him why he did not consider folks like me in his decision, and he did not understand what I was talking about. I told him I had been shooting and hunting with a .22 and a .410 since I was ten, that I had spent eight years in the OKARNG and qualified expert on the M16 and the M60 and that I had hunted everything from quail, pheasant, dove and ducks up to mule deer and elk for well over fifty years, that I had handled firearms all those years and never shot of killed anyone. I told him there were literally hundreds of thousands of Oklahomans just like me who felt like we deserved to have Constitutional Carry, and he should do some research on the issue so he could vote accordingly as a representative of his constituents. He actually did more research and changed his mind and voted in support of Constitutional Carry. Keep talking to your representatives of your legislative body. It cannot hurt. Good luck with all your efforts.

Bruce
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
Sorry for typos though.
I think you did an excellent job of clarifying the matter in great detail. I know somenatuve English speakers who make more typos than you did. Really, you made an amazingly good and set our knowledge straight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
@Nashoba Losa Good job on passing the constitutional carry. I wish you luck in defending it. I'd like to thank you for your words of support as well.

@Allenr Thank you for your kind words. I will keep updating this board as soon as something interesting and important happens.
 
61 - 68 of 68 Posts
Top