BASC and NI licensing increase

[Trickyd66]

Does anyone remember BASC launching a legal challenge against the licensing fee increase in England and Wales (poss Scotland) using the "fighting fund"? I don't?


Has @Conor O'Gorman left the group as little input from him recently... ? Hope all OK with him.

 

[Liveonce]

As you say BASC took no such action for the rest of the U.K.

 

[flatliner]

NI firearms fees consultation withdrawn after BASC legal challenge

BASC has welcomed the postponement of a Northern Ireland consultation on proposals to increase firearms licensing fees by 153 per cent.

basc.org.uk

 

[Foxyboy43]

NI firearms fees consultation withdrawn after BASC legal challenge

BASC has welcomed the postponement of a Northern Ireland consultation on proposals to increase firearms licensing fees by 153 per cent.

basc.org.uk

A result indeed but can’t help suspecting the NI Alliance Party’s answer to Mama Cass

- our current Minister of Justice realised that this and her party’s equally nonsensical Hunting with Dogs ban currently going through the NI Assembly was a double whammy too far for many and would cost them votes and likely seats.

 

[mudman]

Good job by BASC

 

[3595wilk]

As you say BASC took no such action for the rest of the U.K.

Scotland, England and Wales now operate on a system of cost recovery based upon an average administrative charge. For years, the administrative costs of licensing have not reflected reality........and go a long way to explaining the woeful service that some forces provide. Introducing the user pays principle seeks to cover a chunk of such costs.

NI DoJ were seeking a charge that was in no way related to cost recovery.

Quite rightly BASC challenged something that on the balance of probabilities would be seen to be punitive rather than equitable under a JR.

There is simply no way any legal case can be made - and won - that supports or defends subsidising costs in the current political and public opinion climate........for something as emotive as gun ownership. So BASC seeking a JR in Scotland England and Wales would have been pointless. Equally, unfairly loading costs - as the NI DoJ consultation appears to have attempted - would in all likelihood, be struck down too. Fairness should work both ways.

Choose your battles.

 

[Liveonce]

Scotland, England and Wales now operate on a system of cost recovery based upon an average administrative charge. For years, the administrative costs of licensing have not reflected reality........and go a long way to explaining the woeful service that some forces provide. Introducing the user pays principle seeks to cover a chunk of such costs.

NI DoJ were seeking a charge that was in no way related to cost recovery.

Quite rightly BASC challenged something that on the balance of probabilities would be seen to be punitive rather than equitable under a JR.

There is simply no way any legal case can be made - and won - that supports or defends subsidising costs in the current political and public opinion climate........for something as emotive as gun ownership. So BASC seeking a JR in Scotland England and Wales would have been pointless. Equally, unfairly loading costs - as the NI DoJ consultation appears to have attempted - would in all likelihood, be struck down too. Fairness should work both ways.

Choose your battles.

so what’s to stop NI now saying they will operate a system of cost recovery based upon an average administrative charge. For years, the administrative costs of licensing have not reflected reality........and then a 153% increase is justified as it was in the rest of the U.K.

and by your statement no JR is then possible.

 

[palmer_mike]

Scotland, England and Wales now operate on a system of cost recovery based upon an average administrative charge. For years, the administrative costs of licensing have not reflected reality........and go a long way to explaining the woeful service that some forces provide. Introducing the user pays principle seeks to cover a chunk of such costs.

NI DoJ were seeking a charge that was in no way related to cost recovery.

Quite rightly BASC challenged something that on the balance of probabilities would be seen to be punitive rather than equitable under a JR.

There is simply no way any legal case can be made - and won - that supports or defends subsidising costs in the current political and public opinion climate........for something as emotive as gun ownership. So BASC seeking a JR in Scotland England and Wales would have been pointless. Equally, unfairly loading costs - as the NI DoJ consultation appears to have attempted - would in all likelihood, be struck down too. Fairness should work both ways.

Choose your battles.

Why shouldn’t Firearms licensing be publicly funded. It’s not there for the protection or convenience of the certificate holders but for public protection.

 

[3595wilk]

so what’s to stop NI now saying they will operate a system of cost recovery based upon an average administrative charge. For years, the administrative costs of licensing have not reflected reality........and then a 153% increase is justified as it was in the rest of the U.K.

and by your statement no JR is then possible.

They should as the rest of the UK does. We are living at a time when an attempt to reflect reality has occurred. Maybe we have just been very lucky for a long time by not having the spotlight shone on it.

My suggestions on the JR outcome is based upon the balance of probabilities and not a definitive outcome. Like anything, it depends on the quality of the argument - but guess the advice BASC and others took on the issue for the rest of the UK suggested success was highly unlikely.

Actual cost recovery may mean large percentage increases......and it is in the CA and other shooting groups' interests to trumpet scary headlines to get a reaction. Same as other clickbait. In reality the actual increased costs are unwelcome in a time where all other costs are going up - but hard to justify making a case for the status quo against that background.

What it seeks to do is to bring them in line with what it costs to administer. Any other public service offered at a reduced rate that benefits a minority is or should be treated in a similar way.

I would agree with your position @palmer_mike if we were mandated or required to own firearms. As the majority of licence holders choose to own them I am not sure how me choosing to do something should be funded by my next door neighbour? My view - others are available.

Maybe once the system gets organised or even better overhauled and modernised (if ever), we can look at making it equitable so individuals who use such items for a professional purpose could be treated differently...... but maybe they can claim costs back as a tax break associated with their work already?

 

[andyk]

I have to agree with @3595wilk there seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding amongst shooters of what a JR can achieve.

It’s not a process where, if you can convince a Judge that your position is the better one, the Judge has the ability to strike down a government action you don’t like.

It’s a method of challenging whether a government action, taken under existing legislation, is permitted by that legislation. Primarily, that’s done by arguing that the action isn’t available to the government under the legislation or, even if it was, the government was mandated to follow a process before taking it, which it failed to do. Establish either of those, and the Court can overturn the action (but the government can go and do the same thing again following the proper process, if that’s an option). There’s also scope to argue a decision is so unreasonable no reasonable decision maker would take it, or that it was taken for an improper purpose - both of which might come into play in relation to an increase in fees that isn’t justified on the cost of the exercise or is intended to discourage applicants.

The British approach of full costs recovery, based on an average cost, is not going to be ruled unreasonable or improperly motivated so, as long as the government followed the correct process, it’s not vulnerable to JR.

If the NI approach (I haven’t looked) had no relation to the cost of administration and was significantly more than it, there may have been scope to argue it was unreasonable or improper. Similarly, if they hadn’t consulted properly, that might have been a problem.

However, this is unlikely to be the end of this. The government can simply launch a proper process and make the increase appear more reasonable, such as by linking it to costs of administration, and it’ll get that through.

 

[Liveonce]

They should as the rest of the UK does. We are living at a time when an attempt to reflect reality has occurred. Maybe we have just been very lucky for a long time by not having the spotlight shone on it.

you should google and read the slippery slope of gun laws, it documents the history of gun laws in the the u.k.

Luck has had nothing to do with it, the conception of the firearms act was for one reason public safety and therefore the public paid a contribution towards the fees.

 

[3595wilk]

you should google and read the slippery slope of gun laws, it documents the history of gun laws in the the u.k.

Luck has had nothing to do with it, the conception of the firearms act was for one reason public safety and therefore the public paid a contribution towards the fees.

The 1968 Act is legislation older than me. Times change. Attitudes change. If you think that legislation drawn up over 57 years ago is really relevant to modern society attitudes...fair enough....but you are in the minority.

You (and me) may not like it, but probably time to move on fella.

 

[Woodenbeam]

The 1968 Act is legislation older than me. Times change. Attitudes change. If you think that legislation drawn up over 57 years ago is really relevant to modern society attitudes...fair enough....but you are in the minority.

You (and me) may not like it, but probably time to move on fella.

Yep but with that attitude it ain’t gonna be long before private gun ownership is no more.
Shooters are in a minority so therefore the majority of tree hugging fruitloops should steer policy - yeah right, I think not.

 

[3595wilk]

Yep but with that attitude it ain’t gonna be long before private gun ownership is no more.
Shooters are in a minority so therefore the majority of tree hugging fruitloops should steer policy - yeah right, I think not.

Called democracy mate.

Choose to do something about it or just froth at the mouth on a likeminded forum. Most of the shooting community choose the latter. An active group we are not.

 

[Chris Richardson]

Scotland, England and Wales now operate on a system of cost recovery based upon an average administrative charge. For years, the administrative costs of licensing have not reflected reality........and go a long way to explaining the woeful service that some forces provide. Introducing the user pays principle seeks to cover a chunk of such costs.

NI DoJ were seeking a charge that was in no way related to cost recovery.

Quite rightly BASC challenged something that on the balance of probabilities would be seen to be punitive rather than equitable under a JR.

There is simply no way any legal case can be made - and won - that supports or defends subsidising costs in the current political and public opinion climate........for something as emotive as gun ownership. So BASC seeking a JR in Scotland England and Wales would have been pointless. Equally, unfairly loading costs - as the NI DoJ consultation appears to have attempted - would in all likelihood, be struck down too. Fairness should work both ways.

Choose your battles.

So why hasn’t service improved?

 

[3595wilk]

So why hasn’t service improved?

Takes a while to turn a tanker Chris ...... especially in the public sector.

 

[Liveonce]

The 1968 Act is legislation older than me. Times change. Attitudes change. If you think that legislation drawn up over 57 years ago is really relevant to modern society attitudes...fair enough....but you are in the minority.

You (and me) may not like it, but probably time to move on fella.

You may find a lot of our current laws date back far further than 1968, back to henry the eight and likely before, 57 years is nothing, for example did you know until 1960 it was law to practice with a longbow?

Mandatory longbow practice laws in England were completely abolished in the 1960s.
Originally mandated by King Henry VIII’s Unlawful Games Act 1541, the law required all able-bodied men to own longbows and practice regularly. It was phased out through the Statute Law Revision Act 1948 and finally nullified in its entirety by the Betting and Gaming Act 1960

I wonder what a driving licence or passport would cost if the same full cost recovery was applied? bet then the public at large would not be happy.

 

[Chris Richardson]

Takes a while to turn a tanker Chris ...... especially in the public sector.

Or is it the fact that it’s not going to ….:

 

[Foxyboy43]

Hmmmm.
Full cost recovery is normal across the public service and is intended to provide the Public Purse i.e. the taxpayer, i.e. you and me, with the funds required to provide each “service” rather than “us” subsidise that service- simple enough approach and who can really argue with that?
Where it falls down though is the absence of service quality which is not reflected in the calculation; often resulting in very slow service using antiquated and often secondhand systems, these in turn simply add to the cost. Rather than address the core problems of efficiency, economy and effectiveness the poor system is subsidised by a cost way in excess of what it could be and that is what lies at the heart of the problem - particularly so with the FAC systems currently in use. Add to the mix that the parent police forces see this responsibility as a very low priority which will never compete with boots on the ground and you have a perfect storm of inefficiency, ineffectiveness and of course high costs.
I have said before on this site that a simple solution is to move to 10 year facs and transfer responsibility for the entire process to an existing and efficient government department which already handles millions rather than tens of thousands of not dissimilar applications - HM Passport Office.
I have it on very good authority that their seven regional offices could accommodate this without blinking!

 

[Liveonce]

other efficiency saving are also possible like moving to bands of calibre and no need for a variation to sell and buy a replacement, like i think it is in NI.

Then the soon to be removal of sound moderators.