Thoughts on BASC's new stance on Police Firearms Licensing Departments!

[25 Sharps]

It might reply in kind and ask if you have any connection with animal aid & the gun control network, but that would be sinking to your level wouldn't it?

Sink away buddy.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

BASC's update on legal expenses insurance is here:

Important notice regarding firearms licensing legal expenses insurance - BASC

BASC announces changes to membership package.

basc.org.uk

BASC's legal expenses insurance was introduced in 2014 which pre-dates the humane dispatch case mentioned earlier which was BASC-funded. Most BASC-supported cases are resolved before they reach court and there are always a few cases on the go at any one time. Additionally BASC has always funded cases where a principle is involved in the interests of the wider membership.

 

[Nelson62]

I think that Basc made a big mistake in dropping the part of the insurance that would fund and defend a members case to court level against a police force, if it was necessary and if the member had a valid case. A lot of members (myself included) only really joined for the insurance cover in the first place.

I know of a case where previously Basc has defended a members right to own a semi automatic pistol which was wanted for humane dispatch purposes. The police force in question would not issue permission for this type of pistol, basically citing any number of reasons that they could think of for not granting permission. Basc‘s appointed legal team, took on the case against the police and won in court. The police were then obliged to issue the necessary permission. This showed the police force involved that they could not just interpret firearms law as they saw fit and it laid down a good checks and balance process on this particular Police force.

Perhaps Basc aught to consider consulting its members about it and reinstate this part of the insurance, even if it involved a modest membership price increase. I would be willing to pay a reasonable premium on my membership for this.

I have previously been helped by the Basc when I wanted a change of condition from target shooting to deer stalking, this was about 9 years ago now. The FEO involved told me that I would not be granted permission and that I would be required to have a “mentor” etc, the whole process was to take about 18 months. I knew this to be nonsense. Basc intervened and phoned the police force on my behalf to point this out. I was granted permission and had my certificate back within two weeks.

Basc has also given me good advice on questions that I have asked around variations and other issues.

I will criticise Basc when I think the criticism is deserved, but I will acknowledge that the organisation has been very helpful to me in the past also.

Iv'e been a member for a good number of years, and joined for exactly the same reason as most others have, which is peace of mind if something went wrong and i needed help. I need to review my membership benefits it seems!

 

[paultap]

BASC's update on legal expenses insurance is here:

Important notice regarding firearms licensing legal expenses insurance - BASC

BASC announces changes to membership package.

basc.org.uk

BASC's legal expenses insurance was introduced in 2014 which pre-dates the humane dispatch case mentioned earlier which was BASC-funded. Most BASC-supported cases are resolved before they reach court and there are always a few cases on the go at any one time. Additionally BASC has always funded cases where a principle is involved in the interests of the wider membership.

Will Basc still act to support a deserving member against an unjust police decision and if necessary, go to court to defend a deserving member now though? If not and it’s predictably down to the cost of the legal process, why are Basc members paying exactly the same membership fees for what is in effect, a lesser service.

Some members are saying that after consulting Basc, they are now left to challenge the police themselves and that Basc now has a tendency to say, let us know how you get on.

As has been pointed out, if Basc has saved a claimed £2 million by dropping this part of the legal expenses insurance, why hasn’t this saving been passed back to the members? and why weren’t Basc‘s members consulted in the first place rather than just being informed that this part of the insurance had been dropped, when it was being fully funded by the members themselves in the first place.

If Basc has a quoted 150,000 members, it works out that just over £13 of the £85 full membership fee (15%) was being used to pay for this part of the insurance premium.

If you state that this money has been put into a fighting fund then what exactly is it being used for? Surely the first port of call should be to defend the members who fund your organisation.

 

[Dalua]

BASC is continuing to fight for improvements in firearms licensing and a review of firearms licensing fees is taking place through a Fees Working Group, which includes representatives from BASC and the British Shooting Sports Council, and our position is as follows:

BASC's position should be to keep in mind what happened when they agreed with the police and the Home Office that all FAC/SGC applicants should have a form completed by their GP at no cost to the applicant - the only fee being payable for further medical reports it needed.

This might focus their corporate mind on how not to conduct themselves in quasi-negotiations with those two bodies: who are better at it than they are, and whose goal always has been and clearly remains the gradual erosion of the lawful possession and use of firearms in the UK.

 

[terrier1]

If you state that this money has been put into a fighting fund then what exactly is it being used for? Surely the first port of call should be to defend the members who fund your organisation.

Yes the members may fund it. But you do as BASC tell you.
If they don't ask them they will not get any answers they don't like.

 

[paultap]

Reading the update from Conor on the Basc legal expenses insurance, the figures I quoted appear to be wrong as regards to the premium. The principle point remains valid though.

 

[Lateral]

Will Basc still act to support a deserving member against an unjust police decision and if necessary, go to court to defend a deserving member now though? If not and it’s predictably down to the cost of the legal process, why are Basc members paying exactly the same membership fees for what is in effect, a lesser service.

Some members are saying that after consulting Basc, they are now left to challenge the police themselves and that Basc now has a tendency to say, let us know how you get on.

As has been pointed out, if Basc has saved a claimed £2 million by dropping this part of the legal expenses insurance, why hasn’t this saving been passed back to the members? and why weren’t Basc‘s members consulted in the first place rather than just being informed that this part of the insurance had been dropped, when it was being fully funded by the members themselves in the first place.

If Basc has a quoted 150,000 members, it works out that just over £13 of the £85 full membership fee (15%) was being used to pay for this part of the insurance premium.

If you state that this money has been put into a fighting fund then what exactly is it being used for? Surely the first port of call should be to defend the members who fund your organisation.

My bad, I recalled £2m being mentioned, based on £13.5 x 150,000, but having looked back, that related to the total cost of the insurance element.

The interesting point, is we buy insurance hoping never to need it, but having it, in case we do ! We accept the cost, for peace of mind.

We, the members were happy to pay the small premium, for the legal cover, for the same reason. We hoped never to need it, but had it, just in case.

The members should have been asked if they wanted it to continue, and if too few wanted it, to make it viable, then fair enough. IMPO, it wasn't for the BASC to remove it, claiming the cost, when WE were paying it. NOT THEM.

And now it's been confirmed, that they only ripped the members off for ONE MILLION pounds, is that supposed to make us feel all warm, and fuzzy inside ???

 

[25 Sharps]

Duplicate post

 

[JTO]

We, the members were happy to pay the small premium, for the legal cover, for the same reason. We hoped never to need it, but had it, just in case.

^^^^^
That is how insurance works. I thought!
Not everyone will need it, we hope, but one court case can help everybody if it sets a precedent, or can be referred to.

 

[Twodogs]

Not quite as simple as that is it with legal issues? Precedents being set etc etc. lose one case, lose all subsequent similar cases.

Not correct, precedent can be challenged/precedented/overturned.

 

[finnbear270]

Not correct, precedent can be challenged/precedented/overturned.

I really like that "Challenged" word.

 

[Cloudhopper]

Well I would hardly call it a blasting .

I’ve heard a harsher telling off from a mother to a toddler

Our shooting orgs have have no teeth at all , it’s all nothing but mouthing off and lip service.
BASC have never taken on , defended and won a legal case since its inception .

It is what it is .

Yes and for me BASC provides the Arran stalking scheme, the only organised event I know of which gives week-long access to a block of land holding deer that you can hunt properly, on your own wits and skills, for a very reasonable fee. This alone is worth the £85 per year membership, anything else is jam.
As far as I'm aware BASC exists to promote the shooting sports. I think it does this very well in a licensing environment intended to restrict access to firearms and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be stalking without them.
CH

 

[Rewulf]

Yes and for me BASC provides the Arran stalking scheme, the only organised event I know of which gives week-long access to a block of land holding deer that you can hunt properly, on your own wits and skills, for a very reasonable fee. This alone is worth the £85 per year membership, anything else is jam.

Woohoo!
And how many take advantage of this scheme no ones ever heard of?

 

[finnbear270]

Yes and for me BASC provides the Arran stalking scheme, the only organised event I know of which gives week-long access to a block of land holding deer that you can hunt properly, on your own wits and skills, for a very reasonable fee. This alone is worth the £85 per year membership, anything else is jam.
As far as I'm aware BASC exists to promote the shooting sports. I think it does this very well in a licensing environment intended to restrict access to firearms and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be stalking without them.
CH

A change to Cloud 9 from Cloudhopper?

 

[TomTalks]

Seems things are getting a bit heated (Who'd have thought )

Remember folks, like it or not, we are united in our common interest.
AND remember we are not woke, we are allowed to, and expect to, have differing opinions and remain cordial (Sarcastic is ok though )

Appreciate all your opinions folks, they matter.

 

[terrier1]

My bad, I recalled £2m being mentioned, based on £13.5 x 150,000, but having looked back, that related to the total cost of the insurance element.

The interesting point, is we buy insurance hoping never to need it, but having it, in case we do ! We accept the cost, for peace of mind.

We, the members were happy to pay the small premium, for the legal cover, for the same reason. We hoped never to need it, but had it, just in case.

The members should have been asked if they wanted it to continue, and if too few wanted it, to make it viable, then fair enough. IMPO, it wasn't for the BASC to remove it, claiming the cost, when WE were paying it. NOT THEM.

And now it's been confirmed, that they only ripped the members off for ONE MILLION pounds, is that supposed to make us feel all warm, and fuzzy inside ???

I totally agree in everything in this post.
But can I ask why are you still a member time and time again they do what BASC THINK IS BEST. NOT WHAT THE MEMBERS WANT.

 

[Cloudhopper]

Woohoo!
And how many take advantage of this scheme no ones ever heard of?

I go every year and it's usually fully subscribed. That being the case I doubt they feel the need to advertise, I'm pretty sure most in the stalking world are familiar with the Arran scheme. It's unique and I have to say that the BASC guys who I deal with on this, James, Chris (and Bob), are excellent and they come up with the goods every time.
CH

 

[Mickeydredd]

I think that Basc made a big mistake in dropping the part of the insurance that would fund and defend a members case to court level against a police force, if it was necessary and if the member had a valid case.

I suppose it depends on how willing BASC are to utilise the replacement fighting fund.

 

[Rewulf]

I suppose it depends on how willing BASC are to utilise the replacement fighting fund.

Pssst... I'll let you in on a secret... There isn't really a fighting fund.
There are only BASC funds, its not your money, it's THEIRS