I'll try the phone again.
BASC - fighting your corner on firearms
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
There is currently no 'member log in' function on the BASC website for updating your details yourself etc.
I just twigged the "under development" bit.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Thanks, I have passed that back to colleagues in our firearms team.
The point in bold seems ironic, since BASC walked us all, apparently in its sleep, into having to pay for medical involvement every renewal.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
I appreciate that is your strongly held view but the facts do not back it up, BASC did everything it could to find a solution to recommendations for GP involvement in firearms licensing going back a decade and more, and this has been well covered in previous threads. As such you might qualify your assertions with "I think" or "my view is". We can agree to disagree.
Rewulf
Well-Known Member
This involved telling members to not bother with the doctors note rule change, causing their renewals and grants to be stalled or cancelled.
Then it folded and told everyone to pay the fees and get doctors notes
There was no problem as far as I'm aware with GP's involvement in firearms licensing. For at least 20 years, everyone has been giving the FLD permission to contact their GP and ask pertinent questions about their medical history.
I think that BASC completely overlooked, despite having the problem pointed out at the time, that approving (or 'welcoming') a system that caused applicants (rather than, as had formerly been the case, the FLDs) to become liable for the cost incurred for medical involvement in some cases kind would likely result, once established, in applicants being liable for the cost of medical involvement in all cases - which is, in my view, what has indeed come to pass.
I can't comment on the nature of the everything that BASC did to 'find a solution to recommendations for GP involvement in firearms licensing'. As far as I can tell, there was historically no problem - we have always given the FLD permission to contact the GP: they contacted the GP for the info they wanted, and they paid the GP if the GP wanted paying.
My view is that what BASC did was get involved in something that approved the shifting of cost of medical involvement to certificate applicants/renewers - apparently without noticing.
Is there any evidence which suggests the facts are other than that?
The GP reports in my view came about as the police did not like paying the GPs for a report when required and some were less than honest on their application forms. The carrot was the ten year certificate, we got the stick but no carrot, only perhaps that the public perception is that the application process is more rigorous due to the GP reports.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Again I appreciate this is your view but the fact is that there were problems and concerns about GP involvement raised because of a series of incidents and these are outlined and explained in this 2015 report with solutions recommended:
https://assets-hmicfrs.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/uploads/firearms-licensing-targeting-the-risk.pdf
Attempts were made from 2016 onwards (and continue to be made) to resolve these concerns and problems. I appreciate you hoped to see the status quo from a decade or more ago maintained, but perhaps that was/is an unrealistic position and holding firm to your repeated position at every opportunity perhaps comes across as dogmatic.
Policy around firearms licensing continues to develop, it is not a linear path, and there is still a lot of work ahead. The same pressures and challenges are happening in the EU, USA and many other places in the world.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Perhaps the carrot and stick analogy as regards longer cert times is a neat but simplistic view of those policy developments from that era. Longer cert times is still a possibility if the technology and statutory process is put in place but there are more immediate issues. There have been a series of draconian proposals over the years that have not seen the light of day. Not least most recently putting shotguns on the same footing as rifles. Many on here were resigned to that happening in fact. It has not happened, but its not gone away either - lobbying continues and must be resisted. We have new proposals to raise firearms licensing fees next in the mix - a public consultation to launch soon. They would already be £200+ now had the previous proposals not been successfully challenged.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
The OP was about a blog post and received positive feedback. Obviously a red rag to some of the bulls. Look where we have ended up. It is rather disappointing and demoralising that some seek to derail a thread such as this - many people reading this are doing their best in the shooting organisations on behalf of us all. Some respect and a little faith is not much to ask for.
Again my simplistic view to ever seeing a ten year certificate is by government investment in a new digital licensing system that moves us away from a paper certificate to possibly a photo credit card type licence or online where both the certificate holder and RFDs have access so transactions can be immediately verified and recorded be that section 1 or 2 firearms or section 1 ammunition. Likewise where certificate holder can immediately notify sales or purchases of firearms S1 or S2 and apply for variations or renewals. Then RFDs can also notify like wise. No need for emails or letters.
But what government will ever put public money in to such a system ?
I think am not 'holding firm to a repeated position'. In my view am simply pointing out what BASC did, in the hope that they will either explain why I am mistaken, or apologise for being party to the loss of quite a valuable concept - namely that, firearms ownership still being a right in the UK - albeit a 'certificated' one - the costs required to exercise that right should not be greater than the statutory fee.
It's a fairly simple principle, and one which BASC seemed happy to see disappear with out apparently even noticing. Despite its being pointed out to them.
If we consider 'dogma' as being a thing people are expected to accept just because they are told it and without further question, then I think perhaps it is the BASC line that BASC were somehow not to be found wanting that is being dogmatically repeated here.
I am simply pointing out what appears to me to have happened - and there seems to be no direct answer from BASC suggesting that things were otherwise. It might be, of course, that BASC realised what they were getting us into - but thought that by 'selling off' this important position they would gain something of equal value (though I can't imagine what that might have been) in another part of their 'negotiations'?
The comments about the US, the EU etc. simply seem to reinforce the idea that BASC simply had no idea what it was doing, and even now can see no problems with what it has done in principle to undermine the position of firearms owners in the UK. It's not 'the status quo from a decade or more ago' - its a defining principle of the law on firearms ownership in the UK since the certification of fitness was introduced in 1920.
Last edited:
devon deer stalker
Well-Known Member
Maybe BASC have pulled their Trade membership?
There used to be a function where one could see who are trade members, not sure where to find it now.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
If the cost of GP verification of the information provided by applicants on the relevant medical conditions declaration form were included in the statutory fee would that address your concerns?
With all the knob jockeys on here bashing their every post , I can see why if they have.
Similar threads
