Latest update from BASC here: https://basc.org.uk/blog/key-issues/media-key-issues/basc-statement-on-home-office-proposals/
David
David
BASC statement on Home Office proposals
- Thread starter David63
- Start date
David , thank you for the update. The advice Leading Counsel has given is "advice", does BASC intend to take a second opinion, which may support, or otherwise the advice of Leading Counsel. And does BASC have a backup plan, and are they in a position to divulge the Legal Remedies", apart from a Judicial Review. It would assist some members Iam sure
patrickt
patrickt
................ 
reloader54
Well-Known Member
"I'll just leave this here then"
Your going to need a bigger bucket
I have never, ever, heard a QC suggest the law should come second to a political approach.
Who gave this advice ? Let us (members) know the identity of this leading QC, send an e-mail.
Or is that another secret after 4 weeks ?
I note the language from Mr Glenser is close to that of the CA but has rather less bite.
Very sad effort.
Who gave this advice ? Let us (members) know the identity of this leading QC, send an e-mail.
Or is that another secret after 4 weeks ?
I note the language from Mr Glenser is close to that of the CA but has rather less bite.
Very sad effort.
Essexsussex
Well-Known Member
i have, when the interpretation of the law is that it goes against the client - ie that the law doesn’t (or may not or does not conclusively) support the BASCs position. In that instance it is usually better to get a different position politically accepted rather than openly publish an opinion that doesn’t say what you want.
"The current legal advice from a QC, the leading expert in his field, is that political action rather than legal is the best route at this stage."
Quite good advice actually becase you can't legaly challenge "guidance".
What you could challenge is a refusal to grant a SGC/FAC 'because the individual did not pay his doctor to sign the form' as there is no statute covering this.
So you need is a volunteer to step forward and not pay the Doctors fee and have his certificates refused ..... the volunteer would need to be squeaky so that the "only reason" his certificate was refused was because he refused to pay the doctors fee.
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
You can't go making perfectly good sense on a thread that is full of BASC bashers otherwise they'll have nothing to say.
Wouldn't a QC of any standing, and knowing the situation, suggest this? After all, he was approached for "Advice" therefore should advise the best way forward.
jimbo1984
Well-Known Member
Are you serious ??? Basc bashers !!! After their performance and pretty much total indifference your actually standing up for them ? Wow ! It's not just a river in Egypt is it !Can't say I've been especially impressed with BASC thus far, but this does seem a fair position. BASC did, as we requested, (eventually) take advice from an 'expert'. That the advice given isn't what we wanted to hear cannot really be BASC's fault, it's out of their hands. A QC could give this advice for many reasons. Maybe he believes, based on his own interpretation of the law, that BASC's position is weak or unsupportable, maybe he believes that it would be a difficult or expensive case to win. Maybe, although this wouldn't be within his area of expertise, he believes that either option could end in a positive outcome for BASC, but that a political approach may be cheaper and or leave the organisation in a better position in the long run. That's fine. BASC did as we wanted them too, and explored the option of taking legal action against the issue. The advice wasn't what we, as shooters, wanted to hear, but that's hardly BASC's fault.
What will be telling, is BASC's approach moving forwards. Advice has been provided, it's not looking good, what can they do now? Second opinion? Legal action anyway? Different legal challenge? Political pressure? Fold on the issue? All options, but some will be better recieved than others. This is a positive first step, irrespective of the outcome and time taken. Now it's up to BASC to impress us (or at least not disappoint us.)
Your move, BASC.
What will be telling, is BASC's approach moving forwards. Advice has been provided, it's not looking good, what can they do now? Second opinion? Legal action anyway? Different legal challenge? Political pressure? Fold on the issue? All options, but some will be better recieved than others. This is a positive first step, irrespective of the outcome and time taken. Now it's up to BASC to impress us (or at least not disappoint us.)
Your move, BASC.
Make an appointment to see your GP. When you see him, ask if there is anything in your notes over the last 5 years to make you unsuitable to own a firearm. It shouldn't take the whole 10 minutes allocated for the appointment, for most applicants. If he says there isn't, then that's it, and his time has been paid for, so no fee should be charged.
Kes,
Mr Glenser QC, is the QC.
It would appear that the Law and the Guidance to Chief Constables are not in conflict.
It it would appear that the current “bitch” we FAC consumers have is nothing to do with any of this but that the self employed GP is now forced into an administrative process that he seeks to cover cost/ mark up on ( as per your local tradesman, without the tea and bacon butty).
There is no medical report being issued by GPs. This is the tick box exercise that is expected of them rather than the “no response means OK”. The only way that the “involment of the medical profession” can be seen to happen is if there is a positive response, rather than zero response.
The QC pointed out that administrative issues are unlikely to result in what WE want and that political clarity on the issue is the way forward.
Stan
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure why people are bashing BASC when the real culprits are the deceitful Tory government that always ********s rural folk with tales of "country sports are safe with us" at election time when in reality since the days of Robert Carr's Green Paper they have been every bit as bad as the loony lefties.
Much sense in this thread on the QCs opinion.
My feeling remains overwhelmingly that BASC did not use a long enough spoon when supping (or being 'fully engaged') with, the HO and Police.
These last two bodies have never been our friends on firearms regulatory matters, and regardless of how closely they invite our representative bodies to 'work with' them, they most likely never wiill be. It seems to me that unless this is clearly recognised, any 'full engagement' with them is likely to result in further ongoing BOHICA events.
My feeling remains overwhelmingly that BASC did not use a long enough spoon when supping (or being 'fully engaged') with, the HO and Police.
These last two bodies have never been our friends on firearms regulatory matters, and regardless of how closely they invite our representative bodies to 'work with' them, they most likely never wiill be. It seems to me that unless this is clearly recognised, any 'full engagement' with them is likely to result in further ongoing BOHICA events.
Last edited:
Similar threads
