Malta and the Use of Firearms (1 Viewer)

[A CHAPLIN]

Firearms shoot up - 18,782 sold on Malta in four years[
18,782 firearms were sold between January 2005 and March 2009, home affairs minister Carm Mifsud Bonnici revealed in parliament last week. Unlike Americans, the Maltese have no constitutional right to bear arms and carrying weapons for self-defence is not permissible at law. But in 2007, 1,496 pistols, 438 revolvers and 602 shotguns were registered.

Only last year, Mifsud Bonnici announced plans to amend current legislation to ensure that “any loopholes in the system are addressed and abuses curtailed.” All firearms in Malta are scheduled and licensed separately according to four different categories. Two kinds of licences exist for those keeping weapons for collection purposes. Target shooter ‘licence A’ is issued for pistols, revolvers and rifles used for sporting purposes, and target shooter ‘licence B’ is issued for airguns used in clay pigeon shooting practice.

The law doesn’t provide for the use of any of these weapons for self-defence purposes. The 2006 Weapons Act facilitated the practice of sport shooting in Malta and regularised the practice of weapon collection. But the introduction of this law has seen a surge in the amount of firearms registered in the country. Last year, a government spokesperson told MaltaToday the government was considering a reduction in the amounts of ammunition rounds that can be stored by individuals.

Does the Maltese government know of this law and if so why are they not enforcing it?

Ann:-C:storm:




__._,_.___

 

[SDB777]

Luckily our founder's had the mindset to protect us from our own government and write in the Second Amendment.

No one should ever be put in the position of not being able to protect oneself or their family(or even the innocent). Old saying here...call a pizza guy and the police, see which shows up first!



As fun as this topic is, what does it mean to the birds and animals we all love?





Scott (puttin' my money on the pizza guy) B

 

[lmans66]

Luckily our founder's had the mindset to protect us from our own government and write in the Second Amendment.

No one should ever be put in the position of not being able to protect oneself or their family(or even the innocent).


B

Not sure if our forefathers really meant the 2nd to be interpreted in that manner. I think one thing that needs to be looked at was the 'definition of words and phrases' within the context of the times they were written. For instance, a "jury of your peers" is also in the constitution but what it means today is totally different than the true meaning of it when written. One has to look at the context of the times when looking at any written work, not context as seen today, but context as seen yesterday. Just a bit of history....that can be used in all countries...