BASC - fighting your corner on firearms

[finnbear270]

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?

If it were standardised across UK.?

 

[bowji john]

I'm still a trade member

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

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 ?

A key issue is having a joined up digital system in place for GP medical markers and the requirement for markers to be placed on firearm owners' records. Work still to do on both of these issues. Meanwhile, there were proposals last year to reduce the certificate term to 2-3 years which we challenged. The recent Home Office firearms consultation offered feedback on certificate length and mandatory involvement of GPs. We encouraged people to response with their views and we await the outcome of the consultation.

 

[Rewulf]

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

Are you playing the victim card here ?
I gave positive feedback, Kes said it was a U turn, was that a red rag to us 'bulls' ?

The insinuation then seemed to be that the fighting fund had always been there to help individual members legal fights, thus kind of replacing the LEI ?
At this point I asked a couple of genuine questions, and then the mud started getting thrown AGAIN.
It seems that certain questions generate a very defensive stance from BASC reps.

So Ill ask for the 3 rd time.
Has the fighting fund been available for personal legal fights since LEI was cancelled in 2020 ?
How many individuals have taken advantage of it in 20, 21, and 22 if this was the case ?

Finally , if the cancellation of LEI in 2020 saved BASC '£1 million a year' so £3 million 'saved' so far up to 2023, and a million put into the fighting fund, where did the rest of the savings end up ?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

If it were standardised across UK.?

The statutory fee is set by the Home Office - that covers England, Wales and Scotland.

 

[Liveonce]

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?

Would be a good step forward as the GP fee is currently a postcode lotto, then the issue of not all GPs engage in the process.

 

[finnbear270]

^

 

[kes]

Are you playing the victim card here ?
I gave positive feedback, Kes said it was a U turn, was that a red rag to us 'bulls' ?

The insinuation then seemed to be that the fighting fund had always been there to help individual members legal fights, thus kind of replacing the LEI ?
At this point I asked a couple of genuine questions, and then the mud started getting thrown AGAIN.
It seems that certain questions generate a very defensive stance from BASC reps.

So Ill ask for the 3 rd time.
Has the fighting fund been available for personal legal fights since LEI was cancelled in 2020 ?
How many individuals have taken advantage of it in 20, 21, and 22 if this was the case ?

Finally , if the cancellation of LEI in 2020 saved BASC '£1 million a year' so £3 million 'saved' so far up to 2023, and a million put into the fighting fund, where did the rest of the savings end up ?

There will no answer, just as there was no answer to why a JR was not used for medical costs.
We both know there are many issues BASC will not talk about - like why John Swift was awarded life membership after the 'change' in BASC's stance on lead.
In this case you wont get an answer because you are correct, there was no explicit use of the fund for individual members legal firearms issues - its convenient to say it now that they are reinstating it.
I've had enough of BASC's 'truth',
I know what is truth and what is fiction, as do you.

 

[Stalker62]

I know what is truth and what is fiction, as do you.

You, of all people on this site, have zero credibility when it comes to truth verses fiction.

Is that not so @kes, @Triton, @kes (again).

Your hypocrisy sickens me.

 

[T.eddie]

Whatever happened to not heckling posts....

 

[Dunwaters]

the basc shafted shooters ,that will never change .personally i will never join basc again

How?
You have the right to disagree with BASC policy and decisions but throwing what is arguably your most effective representative body out of the pram because of an undefined flaw in their policy isn’t giving the rest of us much to go on.
And don’t start with the lead issue, that’s been a multi agency project for the last 30 years, not one single one of them has succeeded in challenging the science until September 2022.

 

[Liveonce]

There will no answer, just as there was no answer to why a JR was not used for medical costs.

Not sure about the medical costs, but did speak to BASC about why no JR on the process and they told me they took legal advice from a QC (?) and that given the firearms act set no scope or boundary on what a chief constable was able to do to ensure a fit and proper person, the advice was they would not win a JR.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

@Rewulf as already explained the Fighting Fund was launched in July 2020 and is used for many things including helping individual members with legal cases as explained clearly in the article in the OP and I hope we will have more comms on this important work and I will share those updates when they are published.

@kes as I already explained to you if you wish to submit an application for the 2024 BASC Council elections the process is clear and the same for everyone and it is now up to you to make the decision whether to proceed.

 

[Dalua]

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?

My concern is that BASC seemed to have given their approval, apparently unaware that it is any kind of problem, to a system under which people applying for or renewing certificates to exercise the right to own and use firearms are required to pay fees over and above the the statutory fee as part of the process.

My concerns would be addressed if that plan were abandoned (perhaps because it is unjust and likely unconstitutional which, as I've pointed out previously, it appears to me to be), and we reverted to what you describe above - namely the previous system under which the FLD was given the applicants' permission to contact their GP for relevant medical information, and would then pay the GPs who wanted paying for it. That system worked perfectly well for years.

That system might well have needed looking after the FLDs decided to ask absolutely every applicant's GP for the information. Previously, they did it only when they had particular concerns: so although they had permission from everyone to do it, they actually did in in relatively few cases. That would have raised some interesting points, which the current system has short-circuited:

1. Is it actually useful insofar as it is time/cost-effective to do it for everyone, or does it make more sense to use an intelligence-guided approach and do it only in particular cases?
2. Would the FLD/Police approaching the GPs for information (rather than the applicant) alter the fees charged by the GPs, their attitude to having to do the work, or both? And for better, or worse?
3. If GPs are in any case going to 'tag' medical records of certificate-holders with a view to advising the police of any concerns, would this not apply to historic as well as possible future risk-factors - making the form-filling bit irrelevant anyway?
4. If it were decided to stick with asking for the GPs forms for everyone, and the Govt. agreed a sensible fee for this with the GPs representatives, then it might be thought appropriate to increase the statutory fee to cover part of it, as the fee now covers part of the admin. Not the whole lot, of course, for as we've all well aware the certification of firearms is not for the benefit of the certificate-holders, but rather for the benefit of the public at large: so except insofar as certificate-holders are also members of the public and reap the same benefit to safety and the peace that everyone else does from the system, it is actually just an expensive nuisance.

Anyhow...

 

[kes]

Not sure about the medical costs, but did speak to BASC about why no JR on the process and they told me they took legal advice from a QC (?) and that given the firearms act set no scope or boundary on what a chief constable was able to do to ensure a fit and proper person, the advice was they would not win a JR.

If the advice was legally right, why was it never published ? From my viewpoint a short letter from the QC (QC's advice )? which they would have had to inform their decision would have brought all members on side and certainly shut me up.


Mr O'Gorman, I would submit an application but my question still stands, will the byelaws be used to negate my membership? Answer that and we will see.

 

[Muirmains]

I personally have never know basc to fund any appeals. It’s all well to say they do it but evidence would be nice. I have know quite a few members refused or revoked and never anything but an ear to cry on. An example that can be searched like xxxx vs chief Constable of wherever . I have known refusals for things that never happened but the police alleged they did with zero evidence, still basc just gave an ear to cry on , but I could be proved wrong , with an actual case ! That can be searched in the court case law , but I ain’t holding my breath.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

My concern is that BASC seemed to have given their approval, apparently unaware that it is any kind of problem, to a system under which people applying for or renewing certificates to exercise the right to own and use firearms are required to pay fees over and above the the statutory fee as part of the process.

My concerns would be addressed if that plan were abandoned (perhaps because it is unjust and likely unconstitutional which, as I've pointed out previously, it appears to me to be), and we reverted to what you describe above - namely the previous system under which the FLD was given the applicants' permission to contact their GP for relevant medical information, and would then pay the GPs who wanted paying for it. That system worked perfectly well for years.

That system might well have needed looking after the FLDs decided to ask absolutely every applicant's GP for the information. Previously, they did it only when they had particular concerns: so although they had permission from everyone to do it, they actually did in in relatively few cases. That would have raised some interesting points, which the current system has short-circuited:

1. Is it actually useful insofar as it is time/cost-effective to do it for everyone, or does it make more sense to use an intelligence-guided approach and do it only in particular cases?
2. Would the FLD/Police approaching the GPs for information (rather than the applicant) alter the fees charged by the GPs, their attitude to having to do the work, or both? And for better, or worse?
3. If GPs are in any case going to 'tag' medical records of certificate-holders with a view to advising the police of any concerns, would this not apply to historic as well as possible future risk-factors - making the form-filling bit irrelevant anyway?
4. If it were decided to stick with asking for the GPs forms for everyone, and the Govt. agreed a sensible fee for this with the GPs representatives, then it might be thought appropriate to increase the statutory fee to cover part of it, as the fee now covers part of the admin. Not the whole lot, of course, for as we've all well aware the certification of firearms is not for the benefit of the certificate-holders, but rather for the benefit of the public at large: so except insofar as certificate-holders are also members of the public and reap the same benefit to safety and the peace that everyone else does from the system, it is actually just an expensive nuisance.

Anyhow...

Thank you, I will pass that back to colleagues. If the statutory fee were to include GP verification costs do you have any thoughts on what a fair fee would be for that, all things considered?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Not sure about the medical costs, but did speak to BASC about why no JR on the process and they told me they took legal advice from a QC (?) and that given the firearms act set no scope or boundary on what a chief constable was able to do to ensure a fit and proper person, the advice was they would not win a JR.

Thanks - the QC (now KC) was Alan Maclean - this was covered on SD back then.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Mr O'Gorman, I would submit an application but my question still stands, will the byelaws be used to negate my membership? Answer that and we will see.

Please phone the BASC membership team on Monday and apply for your membership and let us know how you get on - the number is 01244 573 030.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

I personally have never know basc to fund any appeals. It’s all well to say they do it but evidence would be nice. I have know quite a few members refused or revoked and never anything but an ear to cry on. An example that can be searched like xxxx vs chief Constable of wherever . I have known refusals for things that never happened but the police alleged they did with zero evidence, still basc just gave an ear to cry on , but I could be proved wrong , with an actual case ! That can be searched in the court case law , but I ain’t holding my breath.

There have been plenty of cases and as I explained earlier we used to do updates on these as case studies in our monthly 'BASC Bites' and I hope we will see more comms on this in due course.