Gun-Grabbers, Gun-Runners, and the European Commission

And sometimes the gun-grabbers and the gun-runners are the same person.

The following two articles — one from Poland about events in Belgium, and the other from Switzerland — illustrate the hypocrisy and corruption surrounding the push for tighter gun control in Europe. Interestingly, the push for gun-grabs follows the same sort of process as it does in the USA: every violent criminal or terrorist incident is exploited by gun-controllers to further restrict the right of citizens to possess firearms. The process even extends to Switzerland, which, although not an EU member state, is required by the Schengen agreement to modify certain parts of its legal structure to “harmonize” with the laws of the EU.

Many thanks to Ava Lon for translating both these articles. The first is from the Polish site

European Commission expert arrested for illegal arms trade

November 3, 2016

An expert for the European Commission who is promoting the limitation of gun ownership by law-abiding citizens has been arrested for illegal arms trade. The organization EU Gun Rights reports on Twitter.

More details at

According to the organization EU Gun Rights, Jean-Luc Stassen, an expert for the European Commission who promotes limiting gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, has been arrested for illegal arms trafficking.

Stassen was arrested on Thursday, October 27 on charges of forgery, using of forged documents, and embezzlement. The arrest took place after the police searched his home. While searching the house police found a firearm that had earlier disappeared from the police armory, together with 260 other units. There are reasons to believe that Stassen “tampered” with the Belgian central register (Central Weapons Registry / CWR), by deleting the entries in the system on firearms to be destroyed. Pieces appropriated in this way were then distributed on the black market.

Jean-Luc Stassen is a well-known figure among European regulators of the access to firearms. He worked on the preparation of the draft directive to limit access to weapons for EU citizens. He has served in many committees and advocated the necessity of confiscation of, among others, automatic rifles, after last year’s Paris massacre.

Andrzej Turk, president of the Civic Movement of Weapon Lovers (ROMB) reacted to the matter: “Short comment. Message shocking. This fact illustrates what are the real objectives and intentions of the people involved in the obstruction of access to the firearms for the law-abiding Europeans,” he wrote on his website


The second article is from

Swiss Guns. Swiss Parliament: Free weapon for honest Swiss citizens. The EU will decide …

Update on Petition

The train is running

6 November 2016 — In the days ahead, the European Union must make a decision on Directive 991/477 / EEC, which governs European laws on weapons… and, as Schengen requires, also Swiss law.

The discussions are going to be difficult, as several countries in the east (Czechia, Hungary and Estonia, in particular) have expressed their opposition to the totally liberticidal project launched by France and immediately adopted by all that Europe has of social-Green-leftist-bobos.

On Friday November 4, to prepare the ground, French Minister of the Interior Bernard Cazeneuve once again called on the EU to better regulate the circulation of firearms within the framework of the fight against terrorism. He considered it unimaginable that his proposals would be revised negatively. His guest, Britain’s Julian King, the new European Commissioner in charge of security and the fight against terrorism, welcomed France’s involvement in this issue.

The European train is underway. In a few days, the new directive will enter the station and we’ll know what the gun owners need to be prepared for.

The problem is that whatever the EU decides, one can be sure that it will lead to a change in Swiss legislation. And that Mrs SS [Simonetta Sommaruga of the Social Democratic Party, Swiss Justice Minister; a Nazi allusion, for once towards the Left, which really deserves it! — translator] will be able to express her joy at seeing public security reinforced. And that we, the owners of Swiss weapons, will have only two options, submission or revolt.

For we shouldn’t delude ourselves: in the face of the threat of leaving the Schengen area, the majority of our parliamentarians will feel that the price to be paid (the destruction of our freedom) will remain light. After all, they felt that sucking up to Europe, in connection with the initiative against mass immigration, was well worth the violation of the Constitution.

10 thoughts on “Gun-Grabbers, Gun-Runners, and the European Commission

  1. Leland Yee, an ardent gun control activist Democrat State Senator was busted back in 2014 for firearms trafficking on behalf of the local Triads.

  2. Once you actually need one of the damn things, you will find them impossible to get–yet YOU NEED ONE RIGHT NOW!!!
    Too late to:
    Go to the gunstore and pick out a gun IF ONE IS AVAILABLE.
    Fill out the forms.
    Bring ’em to the county clerk.
    Wait for the coupon.
    Waiting period??
    Go get the damn coupon.
    Go back to the gunstore, exchange the coupon for the gun.
    Maybe you need to use the receipt to “prove” you can buy the bullets for said gun.
    Buy bullets IF AVAILABLE.
    THEN, and ONLY then—“lock and load”.

    (Just sayin’–one day I’ll be able to shoot my SCCY-2.) (One day.) (Sigh.)

  3. I wouldn’t be surprised if our gun grabbing politicians one day decided to arm the hordes of young muslim men now standing ready all over Europe.

    • That’s a disturbing thought. But why does it not make sense? Why would there be any aspect of European life that would be exempt from the attention of treasonous European politician?

      This never occurred to me.

  4. There are reasons to believe that Stassen “tampered” with the Belgian central register (Central Weapons Registry / CWR), by deleting the entries in the system on firearms to be destroyed. Pieces appropriated in this way were then distributed on the black market.”

    This is precisely what happened in Australia with John Howard’s misguided knee-jerk reaction to the Port Arthur massacre in the 1990’s, the compulsory “buy-back” scheme for firearms. Black market sale/distribution of bought-back firearms after the records of their collection (the firearms were meant to be destroyed) by the government agency were deleted was merely one aspect of the disastrous policy. In another instance one government employee sold an official list of firearms collected in one rural area to a criminal, who then obtained the address of the private property where they were being stored in transit for destruction and the place was robbed. Overall, it amounted to the biggest (and expensive) transfer of legal firearms from law-abiding citizens to criminal’s in Australia’s history. Think Henry VIII’s mass transfer of lands confiscated from the church to cronies when he established the Church of England.

    The Leland Yee anecdote leaves me thoroughly unsurprised.

  5. Just a tad bit more of Flouride in the water……Just another one or two vaccinations…Just a few more University professors.. in politicsand some additional Genetically modifiedfoodstuffs…AND THE WORLD WILL BE AN unfit place to live. IF THE PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID AND NEAR SIGHTED , NOT TO SEE THAT THEIR OWN ACTIONS ARE LEADING TO THEIR SELF DESTRUCTION ; THEY DESERVE TO DIE.

    • francis, with the advent of so many processed foods and their incessant advertising, one has to be willing to spend hours studying often contradictory research on nutrition and then hope one is making the right decision. My dentist prescribes fluoride; I wouldn’t touch it. That and the bromine in some breads latch onto the nodes in the thyroid meant to be used by iodine. My dentist knows the research…otoh, he is the only one doing microscopic surgery here so his work is excellent. One has to pick and choose.

      I know several scientists who aren’t sold on the GMO story. My philosophy is “when in doubt, leave it out” so I avoid them. Can’t hurt.

      I have never gotten the flu vaccine and haven’t had the flu either. But for those at risk, it might be a lesser evil to get the vaccine…I know if I were raising children today I’d want them innoculated against the worst diseases, but I’d insist that it be done much less intensively. Giving a baby three or four injections to save time and money is wrong, but I didn’t know that back then. Now, though, I am known as a Difficult Patient because I ask questions.

      No one DESERVES to die because those in power make poisonous decisions. Please re-think that.

      • Dymphna,

        The Australian government is tyrannical when it comes to vaccinations. They refuse to allow any opposition to the recommended schedule and so infants are jabbed twice on the day of their birth, one for HepB and another for vitamin K. I think it’s not only barbarous but an insult to almighty God.

        Then they give them multiple jabs beginning at 2 months. There are too many jabs given way too early. If I had children these days I wouldn’t submit to such an evil schedule.

  6. My opinion is that the people who think firearms are a means of control against tyrannical governments are deluded. In a stand-up fight, the government forces will come out ahead. I don’t care how many ex-military, ex-special operations, ex-war veterans there are. Anyone who advocates armed standoffs against government forces is either deluded or a provocateur.

    But, governments hate to use their own forces against their populations. The national military and the population are the same. When the military is ordered to use force on its own population, there’s an appreciable risk they will turn their guns around.

    The solution of the government is to use quasi-government forces to do their dirty work. Many times, these forces take the form of street gangs or mobs. I recently read an article reinforcing just this notion:

    Private arms are extremely effective against street gangs and mobs. The mobs don’t have the training or discipline of the regular armed forces. Furthermore, citizens defending their homes and neighborhoods have an advantage. It is for this reason that oppressive governments try to disarm the population. They are then able to use street violence to achieve their goals, without the risky use of the regular armed forces.

    So, for instance, the ranchers in Nevada who used an armed standoff against federal forces may have gotten a temporary stalemate, but they risked losing the war. It is counterproductive to make federal forces, even federal agents, see the population as an armed enemy.

    It’s obvious by now that the ruling elite in Europe, for their own reasons, see the invading Muslims as an agent of government change. The more completely the elite can disarm the real citizens, the easier it is to limit themselves to the Muslim gangs. Very few actual citizens would get upset if a neighborhood protection group shot a few violent criminal Muslims.

    The backup plan for the EU was NATO or the EU force. Once these groups came under the command of the EU bureaucracy, the EU military could be used to quell any local defense against the Muslims. You can be very, very sure that whatever military forces were sent into a region, they would not speak the same language as the area they were sent to.

    The election of Trump set their timetable back. Trump is against gun confiscation, and his agreeing to US forces being involved in suppressing local militias and defense groups in Europe is highly doubtful. Trump is a threat of the first order to the globalists.

    The worst thing gun rights advocates could do would be to promote fighting the government and armed forces of their country. It just won’t fly, for many, many reasons. In fact, government counter-intelligence agents could very well help to promote the myth of fighting the government with guns. It’s a red herring to cover up the real use of guns: self-defense against violent gangs encouraged by the government as well as against individual criminals.

    The proper strategy with respect to an oppressive government is to subvert the agents of control used by the government. Support the members of the armed forces, police, and even federal agencies. Integrate them with the neighborhoods and the people. Throw parties and celebrations for them. This will serve the dual purpose of making it more risky to use the armed forces against the population and making the agents of national defense and law enforcement as advocates for an armed citizenry, since they see armed citizens as no threat to themselves.

Comments are closed.