BASC opposes new proposals for medical fees
- Thread starter David63
- Start date
LOL. It will read something very familiar like "BASC has welcomed an announcement by Lincolnshire Police...."
Well Members her it is - still taking legal advice - you expected something else ? Dismal is an understatment.
[TABLE="class: x_MsoNormalTable, width: 100%, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: x_MsoNormalTable, width: 100%, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: x_MsoNormalTable, width: 100%, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD][h=1]Lincolnshire Police now require medical checks for all firearms applications[/h][h=2]BASC seeking legal advice on change of policy[/h][h=2][/h]Lincolnshire Police have issued a statement on their website that medical checks will be required for the grant and renewal of shotgun and firearms certificates.
This change in policy applies to all new applications from 4 April 2018 and for all renewals from 1 August 2018 onwards.
BASC is seeking legal advice on this matter.
If your application is affected by this change please click here to send BASC’s firearms team a message or call 01244 573010 for advice.
Click here to read the Lincolnshire Police statement.
[h=2]Important! Don’t miss out on future emails from BASC[/h]New data protection regulations are coming into force on 25 May. We will not be able to send you e-newsletters (or other emails) unless you ‘opt in’ to receive them. We want to keep in touch so we can notify you about important local, regional or national issues and inform you of events, courses and special offers.
To opt in, click the link below and go to 'mailing preferences' to sign up to receive communications from BASC. If you have not used the Members Area before, you will need to set up a password. Remember, you can opt out at any time by clicking the 'unsubscribe' link at the foot of all our emails.
The email newsletters you can subscribe to are:
BASC News & Action Alerts
Members Offers & Discounts
Regional News & Events
BASC Surveys
LOG IN TO BASC MEMBERS AREA
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: x_MsoNormalTable, width: 100%, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%"]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: x_MsoNormalTable, width: 100%, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD]
BASC Central office, Unit 6, Grange Farm, Belmont Road, Tutbury,
Burton upon Trent DE13 9HJ | Tel: 01283 810 910 | email
Burton upon Trent DE13 9HJ | Tel: 01283 810 910 | email
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: x_MsoNormalTable, width: 100%, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%"]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: x_MsoNormalTable, width: 100%, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD][h=1]Lincolnshire Police now require medical checks for all firearms applications[/h][h=2]BASC seeking legal advice on change of policy[/h][h=2][/h]Lincolnshire Police have issued a statement on their website that medical checks will be required for the grant and renewal of shotgun and firearms certificates.
This change in policy applies to all new applications from 4 April 2018 and for all renewals from 1 August 2018 onwards.
BASC is seeking legal advice on this matter.
If your application is affected by this change please click here to send BASC’s firearms team a message or call 01244 573010 for advice.
Click here to read the Lincolnshire Police statement.
[h=2]Important! Don’t miss out on future emails from BASC[/h]New data protection regulations are coming into force on 25 May. We will not be able to send you e-newsletters (or other emails) unless you ‘opt in’ to receive them. We want to keep in touch so we can notify you about important local, regional or national issues and inform you of events, courses and special offers.
To opt in, click the link below and go to 'mailing preferences' to sign up to receive communications from BASC. If you have not used the Members Area before, you will need to set up a password. Remember, you can opt out at any time by clicking the 'unsubscribe' link at the foot of all our emails.
The email newsletters you can subscribe to are:
BASC News & Action Alerts
Members Offers & Discounts
Regional News & Events
BASC Surveys
LOG IN TO BASC MEMBERS AREA
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: x_MsoNormalTable, width: 100%, align: left"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 100%"]
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Pine Marten
Well-Known Member
Rasputin
Well-Known Member
Some people need to get a grip. What exactly do you expect BASC to do just quickly blurt out a statement without 10000% certainty that they have taken legal advice and found sufficient grounds from which to appeal not to mention collect sufficient evidence to make a strong case. Anyone who deals with lawyers will tell you that they charge not only a **** load for their time but also bill you by the hours so those of you moaning about your £70 might care to be reminded that everytime there is a fck up it means more and more expenses so why not do things right no matter how slowly they are.
Well, they did say back on 20th October "[FONT="]“BASC will robustly challenge any attempt to introduce non-legislative requirements into the application process in Lincolnshire and elsewhere.”
[/FONT]
BASC still busily taking ads for new staff here & there, so maybe there is a future for shooting.
Great sentiment. And as an adjudication of BASC response to a recent surprise development , these words may even sound wise...until you consider how long this legislative process has been trundling. From a membership perspective, BASC look to be co-authors of the medical cert scheme hatched over 18 months ago. That original idea was impoverished, was brokered badly, and poorly executed [Where the evidence based requirement? How is a deal with BMA binding on all surgeries? Where did BASC think this "initiative" would lead?]
The yanks have a great saying: "day late and a dollar short". That sums the BASC efforts to date.
I would expect BASC to say "Having taken legal advice BASC will/is unable to pursue a legal case for stautory/non-stautory rulings which breach the human rights of the shooting community. Detail will subsequently be sent to members privately." or anything worthwhile.
That's what I would expect, not facetious comments like yours - have you thought of offering your services to Donald as a second-rate twitter basher ? Clearly your fondness for BASC blinds you to its inaequacies over this and other issues.
Pine Marten
Well-Known Member
One word "SWIFT"
Pine Marten
Well-Known Member
Swift from Section Boyz is a member of BASC?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Boyz
Just goes to show you shouldn't rely on stereotypes!
You mean the would-be Lord Swift of Marford Mill.
For whatever reason, BASC seem ineffective in this matter.
How about we get all concerned parties to write directly to the Minister of State at the Home Office responsible for firearms licencing: nick.hurd.mp@parliament.uk
If we are not resident in his constituency, he does not have to reply to our emails. Be clear that your email is being sent in relation to his governmental post and is on a matter that that he is drafting and which will affect you, wherever you live.
For what its worth, this was my mail to him:
"Dear Mr Hurd
The premise by which GP assent is requred before the issuance of a FAC is gravely flawed and I would request that your office reviews all statutory proposals you have in prospect. In the opinion of many GPs the spectre of the requirement for GP endorsement is likely to deter those with mental or other issues from seeking help for fear of FAC debarring.
Many folk do not see their GP from one year to the next. In big practices, even that intermittent interaction with the surgery might be with different GPs or locums. How is any GP to extrapolate from that sample any meaningful response to a FAC request?
Indeed, even where there is a significant GP - patient relationship, it is highly unlikely whether a GP would ever be bold enough to prognosticate on a patient's future mindset or actions. But if cowed by the state they might err on the "safe" side! Indeed the BMA have created no fewer than three template letters by which GPs can decline to supply an answer to any FLD request for that very reason, or for matters of conscience.
But what really sticks in the craw of common sense is that in most of the UK cases where legal firearms have been used illegally by their owners, their FAC certificates should have been abrogated by the police prior to that time because of behaviour inconsistent with firearms ownership, all of which had been previously recorded by the police force in question. I.e. it was inept policing that allowed those subsequent tragedies to happen. Reviewing those cases retrospectively, there is no evidence that the current proposed GP check would have flagged any issues in those cases.
The proposal constitutes an intrusion in the lives of FAC holders and one which has negligible benefit to the public. And it may drive some away from seeking GP help for serious ailments. It is not an evidence lead initiative, it is potentially dangerous, it will be expensive [lucre at point of imposition, vote haemmorage from the party that imposes it]. Please reconsider."
How about we get all concerned parties to write directly to the Minister of State at the Home Office responsible for firearms licencing: nick.hurd.mp@parliament.uk
If we are not resident in his constituency, he does not have to reply to our emails. Be clear that your email is being sent in relation to his governmental post and is on a matter that that he is drafting and which will affect you, wherever you live.
For what its worth, this was my mail to him:
"Dear Mr Hurd
The premise by which GP assent is requred before the issuance of a FAC is gravely flawed and I would request that your office reviews all statutory proposals you have in prospect. In the opinion of many GPs the spectre of the requirement for GP endorsement is likely to deter those with mental or other issues from seeking help for fear of FAC debarring.
Many folk do not see their GP from one year to the next. In big practices, even that intermittent interaction with the surgery might be with different GPs or locums. How is any GP to extrapolate from that sample any meaningful response to a FAC request?
Indeed, even where there is a significant GP - patient relationship, it is highly unlikely whether a GP would ever be bold enough to prognosticate on a patient's future mindset or actions. But if cowed by the state they might err on the "safe" side! Indeed the BMA have created no fewer than three template letters by which GPs can decline to supply an answer to any FLD request for that very reason, or for matters of conscience.
But what really sticks in the craw of common sense is that in most of the UK cases where legal firearms have been used illegally by their owners, their FAC certificates should have been abrogated by the police prior to that time because of behaviour inconsistent with firearms ownership, all of which had been previously recorded by the police force
The proposal constitutes an intrusion in the lives of FAC holders and one which has negligible benefit to the public. And it may drive some away from seeking GP help for serious ailments. It is not an evidence lead initiative, it is potentially dangerous, it will be expensive [lucre at point of imposition, vote haemmorage from the party that imposes it]. Please reconsider."
Swift from Section Boyz is a member of BASC?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Boyz
Just goes to show you shouldn't rely on stereotypes!
Good grief you are telling me the man has another string to his bow.
That could go down like a LEAD balloon or is it a LEAD free balloon.
Similar threads
