18 DECEMBER 2015 – FIVE YEARS TODAY SINCE THE INFAMOUS EU COMMISSION PROPOSAL
Ten years ago today, on 18 November 2015, the European Commission published its infamous proposal to revise the EU Firearms Directive, an initiative that sought to penalise law-abiding firearm owners for crimes committed by terrorists and failures within law-enforcement agencies.
Presented as an urgent response to the Paris terrorist attacks just one week earlier, the proposal was framed as essential for public safety. In reality, these measures had been in preparation long before. The tragedy merely provided the “perfect storm” to advance sweeping gun bans at a moment when public emotion was high and resistance appeared minimal.
Once the initial shock subsided, and rumours circulating for months were confirmed, stakeholders across Europe mobilised in an unprecedented show of unity. Sport shooters, hunters, collectors, re-enactors, museums, and representatives from trade and industry stood together, presenting EU institutions with a single, clear message. This was not about security; it was a disproportionate and unjust attack on law-abiding citizens, sporting traditions, cultural institutions, and a priceless historical heritage preserved by museums and private collectors.
As Chairman of the Foundation for European Societies of Arms Collectors (FESAC) and President of the Association of Maltese Arms Collectors & Shooters (AMACS), I was among the first to confront the Commission’s attempts to mis-characterise bona fide collectors in order to influence uninformed Members of the European Parliament.
What followed was a long and often acrimonious struggle. Ultimately, thanks to a small but determined group of reasonable MEPs, the most damaging aspects of the proposal were defeated. The final 2017 Directive was significantly watered down. While some ineffective and ill-conceived clauses remained, largely due to legislative ignorance, sport shooting in all its forms was protected. Crucially, the acquisition, preservation, and study of firearms by collectors and museums were formally recognised, including a legal definition of a “collector” originally drafted by FESAC years earlier.
This experience serves as a reminder: our community must remain vigilant. Misguided political initiatives often arise from fear born of ignorance. Yet there is another, more insidious motive at play. While authorities frequently urge us not to judge entire communities for the actions of a few, they have little hesitation in targeting all legal firearm owners for crimes committed by unrelated individuals, often as a means of deflecting attention from their own failures.
We see this unfolding today in Australia, where legal firearm owners are facing a broad political and institutional assault. Proposed measures aim to severely restrict, or effectively ban, lawful ownership and use, while conveniently obscuring failures that allowed individuals already known to authorities to acquire weapons and carry out attacks. I stand firmly with Australia’s legal firearm owners at this troubling moment.
We should cherish what we are passionate about. However, complacency is not an option. The next generation must be encouraged to engage, to stay informed, and to continue defending the rights and heritage that so many worked tirelessly to protect.
Stephen A. Petroni
18 December 2025