‘Crowd funded’ judicial review?
- Thread starter palmer_mike
- Start date
Free range rob
Well-Known Member
Will you "publish the advice"....?
YES, beyond a shadow of doubt, EVERYTHING relevant will be made public, this is been looked into for the good of everyone involved in the shooting and firearms community, there will be nothing to hide and will be made as transparent as possible.
The problems with this, it will have to be done at a time and in a manner that would obviously not compromise any case that is ongoing.
Myself, along with a few others would love to have this shouted from the rooftops, but we would just be waffling garbage at present, it would only be a layman’s opinion, it needs to be facts backed up by a legal team, once we have those facts, and something solid to work with, provided it will not harm the actions been taken, then there is no reason not to let people know, whether that is good news or bad, I think it should be made public, who knows, it may be terrible news and back up orgs reasons to not Pursue this, only time will tell.
Free range rob
Well-Known Member
If it does go ahead, we’re going to be looking for as much help and support as we can possibly get.
Anyone who believes they have skills that could be utilised, feel free to send any of us a pm.
Anyone who believes they have skills that could be utilised, feel free to send any of us a pm.
Harry mac
Well-Known Member
I hope this is not too simplistic, and it's something I have said before. The police form that we all fill in for grant and renewal of an FAC asks very specifically for the applicant to declare that he or she suffers from no illness or condition that would make them unsuited to own a firearm. The fact that the form asks for this information then puts the onus on the police to check the truthfulnes of the answer you provide. They have set themselves up in the position where they have to prove you are not telling the truth, or confirm that you are. The form also asks for your permission for them to contact your GP to confirm such. Their own form puts the onus on them, NOT the applicant.
Surely, if the argument is presented as such, it knocks the legs out from under them?
Free range rob
Well-Known Member
Possibly correct on all levels, but that would just mean the wording to be changed to put the onus on the applicant instead, so instead of an improvement it would just be another nail in the coffin of applicants.
Harry mac
Well-Known Member
But the form as it stands is in alignment with the common law assumption of "innocent until proven guilty". In that it asks you a question to which you provide an answer, which the police then have to varify. If the wording is changed, requiring you to furnish proof yourself, surely this is an assumption of "guilt" before you even start?
The first question on the form asks for your name, it doesn't ask you to provide a copy of your entry in the register of births, or a copy of your birth cerificate.
The first question on the form asks for your name, it doesn't ask you to provide a copy of your entry in the register of births, or a copy of your birth cerificate.
Our lot have now moved to all online application so we are stuffed. You have to provide medical cert before you are allowed to apply.
Having said that a variation only took a week.
Free range rob
Well-Known Member
you are applying far too much common sense.
Do you believe if someone challenged and won on the way the form was worded, the said form would not be altered, or would the Licencing practise be overhauled ?
Free range rob
Well-Known Member
And I believe that’s the way all forces will be going, everything is online now, those who still use paper are looked upon as dinosaurs and it will be fazed our quicker than we would like to think.
Personally I have no issue with online, it does make financial sense and should be more efficient.
Providing a medical cert as things stand right now I believe is wrong.
Obviously different forces have different budgets for licencing depending on the level they have to deal with, somewhere like Northamptonshire maybe doesn’t deal with the amount of shooters as say East Sussex, so budget would affect turn around time, I also think an areas background (I know for fact the West Sussex community is more in tune than Bedfordshire to seeing shooting) and it stands to reason that different forces view shooting differently.
Sorry that last bit was off track, but I think it affects turn around time
Harry mac
Well-Known Member
What I'm trying to convey, mayb badly. Is that the form asks for the details the police require in order for them to fulfil their legal requirement to ascertain your suitability to own a firearm. The "doctor's report" is not a legal requirement. For it to become one, there needs to be a change in law. The police are jumping the gun by imposing a burden on the applicant which is not a legal requirement.
Free range rob
Well-Known Member
Ah, sorry I didn’t read that far into it.
Yes of course and I’m in total agreement with you.
Too many grey areas, home office “guidance” too much interpretation of the what’s written down, and finally, too many CC’ making up thier own agendas and laws
Tom D
Well-Known Member
I don't have a problem with paying a fee to have a report produced, however I do have a problem if that fee varies from region to region or doctor to doctor. I mean we're paying through our taxes for all this stuff anyway. I'm happy to pay for what services I use. I think that it might be an idea if other groups such as the morbidly obese or smokers paid more towards the services that they use.
Any updates?
palmer_mike
Well-Known Member
Maybe on a back-burner given C19......
maybes aye, maybes naw…….
Many people have lots of time on their hands at the moment. just wondered.
palmer_mike
Well-Known Member
Good point!
Similar threads
