Tf223
Well-Known Member
Thanks for clarifying!
Suggest this deserves a fixed posting for reference ?
- Thread starter kes
- Start date
- Status
This for one of the posters.....back in the darker days... 
If that is so why does it say first edition not draft edition on the document?
Tf223
Well-Known Member
Jesus, BASC bashing seems to be a full time hobby of some on here. Give him a break for clarifying that.
It’s a draft which was consulted on - he’s just clarified that. Draft stat guidance does not have the weight of stat guidance, it is a consultation version prior to feedback from the public, and various groups and bodies etc.
It’s a draft which was consulted on - he’s just clarified that. Draft stat guidance does not have the weight of stat guidance, it is a consultation version prior to feedback from the public, and various groups and bodies etc.
If you think that was merely clarification then you have perhaps missed the point of his comment - BASC bashing has nothing whatsoever to do with it but it has a nice "ring" to it.
There is also a draft document on the same web address but this is apparently not it - so what is it ? What weight might it carry ?
Im not sure I can understand what you mean with there is another document at that web address. This specific web address is for this document and the address very clearly says DRAFT
/file/818022/Draft_firearms_statutory_guidance_-_16_July.pdf
The biggest issue I can see is the disparity between statutory and guidance. Surely it should be one or the other. If it's guidance then it's open to interpretation. If it's statutory it must be followed. If statutory guidance is something that must be followed then surely the word guidance is pointless.
/file/818022/Draft_firearms_statutory_guidance_-_16_July.pdf
The biggest issue I can see is the disparity between statutory and guidance. Surely it should be one or the other. If it's guidance then it's open to interpretation. If it's statutory it must be followed. If statutory guidance is something that must be followed then surely the word guidance is pointless.
Contrary in that statutory and guidence are opposites.
It’s an oxymoron! Needs to go before Parliament to become a “statutory instrument” to have any legal status and I doubt that will ever happen, so will just be ignored by the Chief Constables.
As an individual have do we evaluate "May". The shooting organizations could collect such data.
If force A required doctors info for 100% of candidates, they wouldn't be complying with the guidance.
Force B require doctors for 10%, that's risk based and complies.
If force A required doctors info for 100% of candidates, they wouldn't be complying with the guidance.
Force B require doctors for 10%, that's risk based and complies.
That is not correct. As far as I can see 2.24 says that they should consider information from the GP for everyone that is applying for a grant or renewal. So if a police force is only looking at getting a GPs input in 10% of cases then they are the ones in breach of the new guidelines.
Last edited:
Unless the document, what ever version, draft, first or final via parliament is made a statutory instrument it will have no credibility and the 1968 firearms act will alway trump it and that allows unlimited scope for the chief officer to do what ever they consider necessary to confirm the applicant is a fit and proper person to own firearms.
Roestalker39
Well-Known Member
^^this , no skirting round things and no applying unnecessary restrictions because they feel like it , at least then they could be taken to task
Rusty Gate
Well-Known Member
We fund both services, a further fee would seem unreasonable to be fair
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you could show some maturity and integrity in this instance and just admit you jumped the gun from an internet search and made a mistake. We are all human and you might recover some credibility from apologising - especially when you not only posted a link to a draft document published in 2019 as if it were a new policy development that you alone in the entire shooting community had found - but you then went on to ask people to contact BASC to ask if BASC was aware of the document - a document that in fact was subject to a high profile consultation last year that BASC responded to.
Furthermore, it would appear that you are only reading the document for the first time which is rather strange given the numerous posts you published in a thread on this very forum about this document last year. Did you not even read the document you were commenting on ad nauseum?
To jog your memory here is the thread you were commenting on:
BASC response to Firearms Licensing Guidance Consultation
BASC's firearms team is drafting a response to the consultation and if any forum members have suggestions on amendments that should be made to the draft guidance feel free to either comment below or email me at conor.ogorman@basc.org.uk I will ensure that all suggested amendments are considered...
www.thestalkingdirectory.co.uk
Tf223
Well-Known Member
Statutory guidance is normally approved/published by the relevant sec of state, and holds weight in that licensing authorities must have regard to it and this being more than a passing note to its intention. They can deviate based on need and local circumstance, but should document such decision making duly. The courts will give it that weight and will cautiously view deviation where it is not justified or in the wider public interest (public safety).
If it had to be followed to the letter without any potential for deviation then it would have been in the relevant Act(s).
So in short it’s still guidance but with added weight.
Perhaps you could show some maturity and integrity in this instance and just admit you jumped the gun from an internet search and made a mistake. We are all human and you might recover some credibility from apologising - especially when you not only posted a link to a draft document published in 2019 as if it were a new policy development that you alone in the entire shooting community had found - but you then went on to ask people to contact BASC to ask if BASC was aware of the document - a document that in fact was subject to a high profile consultation last year that BASC responded to.
Furthermore, it would appear that you are only reading the document for the first time which is rather strange given the numerous posts you published in a thread on this very forum about this document last year. Did you not even read the document you were commenting on ad nauseum?
To jog your memory here is the thread you were commenting on:
BASC response to Firearms Licensing Guidance Consultation
BASC's firearms team is drafting a response to the consultation and if any forum members have suggestions on amendments that should be made to the draft guidance feel free to either comment below or email me at conor.ogorman@basc.org.uk I will ensure that all suggested amendments are considered...
Good response Connor.
First, as regards recovering credibility, I suggest BASC is way ahead of me in the need to do this, yet no apology from them - you expect one from me ?
You obviously read my posts more often than I do, if I have made a mistake then I rely on SD members to be sympathetic and understand you are just simply aggressively argumentative - somewhat unbecoming.
Apologise to whom ? You ? You must be joking since you have not apologised for the racist comment or a number of other less than supportable faux pas, directed at me.
Still, carry on you may get there eventually, BASC however is a lost cause.
Lets try and keep this "on topic" and not personal because you cant hack that.
Roestalker39
Well-Known Member
Mind blowing that the “ voice” can ask for an apology from someone when there is zero apologies for their litany of failures
- Status
