BASC firearms licensing related updates

Conor O'Gorman

Well-Known Member
Official Member
Two recent updates that may be of interest to forum members.

1. BASC's Bill Harriman blog on the conscientious objection displayed by some members of the medical profession in firearms licensing.


2. Interview with BASC's new head of firearms Martin Parker on firearms licensing in BASC's latest podcast (episode 12).

 

Dalua

Well-Known Member
There needs to be a UK-wide list of GP's who either refuse or charge (in some cases, to the point of extortion) to fill out and sign a check-box form.

Name and shame.
This would be interesting, but I think it's missing the main point,

It would be better if BASC recognised what they've (apparently without noticing) let us all in for, apologised, and at least tried to restore the previous system where the GPs invoiced the FLD for the relevant form-filling.

The HO/police nationally could then negotiate with the BMA/GPs and agree a price , and all would be sorted. And if it wasn't sorted it (quite correctly) wouldn't be the applicants' problem to sort out.

The FAC/SGC process is meant to cost the statutory fee. It would be helpful to reverse dangerous precedent set by BASC, that applicants can be made on the whim of the FLD to pay unspecified amounts of money to medical practioners as part of the process.
 

Rewulf

Well-Known Member
The FAC/SGC process is meant to cost the statutory fee. It would be helpful to reverse dangerous precedent set by BASC, that applicants can be made on the whim of the FLD to pay unspecified amounts of money to medical practioners as part of the process
There's more chance of BASC negotiating a 5 year 'transition phase' where we all start handing our tickets in for an end to private firearms ownership in 2026.

Its embarrassing.
 

long_range_rob

Well-Known Member
It wouldn’t be a day on SD without the obligatory BASC bashing. You never hear about the NRA and how it threw semi-autos and pistols under the bus. You don’t hear how a medical certification process was agreed with HO, shooting organisations and the GMC and the GP’s then ignored the agreement completely.
 

DavyG

Well-Known Member
I’m not on here to bash any particular shooting organisation. But…it’s the licensing authorities who are requesting the information. All the FAC holder/applicant is doing is giving permission to ask for it. In the past the police would only request additional medical information where the applicant declared an existing condition which would give cause for concern.
We have been let down by EVERY shooting organisation to whom we pay a subscription.
DG
 

Greenmist

Well-Known Member
It wouldn’t be a day on SD without the obligatory BASC bashing. You never hear about the NRA and how it threw semi-autos and pistols under the bus. You don’t hear how a medical certification process was agreed with HO, shooting organisations and the GMC and the GP’s then ignored the agreement completely.
The very reason I have nothing to do with the NRA or Bisley shooting club as it should be known. As to the GMC and GP's ignoring the agreement, we don't seem to have an organisation that is willing to fight it
 

Liveonce

Well-Known Member
What was the result of “Statutory guidance to police on firearms licensing Government consultation”
The consultation ended on 17 September 2019

Yet as far as I know nothing has happened as a consequence, did they not like what we told them? Or is the pandemic and BREXIT an excuse for nothing happing?

 

Eddie P

Well-Known Member
It wasn't the GMC, it was the BMA, a union. Unfortunately they don't speak on behalf of all doctors and their recommendations aren't binding at all.
 

Dalua

Well-Known Member
It wouldn’t be a day on SD without the obligatory BASC bashing. You never hear about the NRA and how it threw semi-autos and pistols under the bus. You don’t hear how a medical certification process was agreed with HO, shooting organisations and the GMC and the GP’s then ignored the agreement completely.
While I'd be delighted to harp on about NRA standing for 'No Rifles Anymore', as we did back in the day, the bus the SLRs were thrown under has well and truly departed.

Eddie's right about the medicos' trade union (BMA) being involved, rather than the GMC. Aside from that, though, the problem for certificate-holders here is not that the FLD want comments from applicants' GPs. They've had the right to ask for those for decades.
The problem is not even that they decided to exercise that right indiscriminately for all (or nearly all) applicants.
The problem is that the FLDs have managed to get fees for these 'reports' considered as chargeable to the applicants - whereas before they were paid quite correctly (it is a public health matter, ostensibly, after all) by the requesting FLDs.
The principle underpinning the reassigning of fees to the applicant - no doubt to the delight of the Police and HO, because it's cheaper for them and costly to shooters - was approved by BASC when they welcomed the initial scheme whereby most shooters wouldn't have to pay anything, but the unlucky few (ones unfortunate enough to have this or that bit of medical history) would have to pay unspecifed for reports beyond the intitial questionnaire.

Having got the principle that some applicants must pay fees to medical practitioners approved, of course, why shouldn't all applicants pay?

And here we are, paying: and if it wasn't for us paying, none of it would matter to us - we'd just pay our statutory fee, and the FLD would have to sort it all out themselves with the GPs just like they did before they decided to 'check' everyones' medical history with their GPs.
 

Liveonce

Well-Known Member
Interesting how the police justify change by their Impact Assessment.

Has not the mandatory medical reporting been running long enough across the country for the shooting organisations to do likewise?
Show the cost of the medical reports vs the impact on how many firearm applications are revoked or refused at application due to medical issues to see exactly what the impact has been and hence if the process is justifiable.

The police impact assessment details a cost of some £44 million per year so how many have had a certificate revoked or application refused?

 

NullMac

Well-Known Member
Show the cost of the medical reports vs the impact on how many firearm applications are revoked or refused at application due to medical issues to see exactly what the impact has been and hence if the process is justifiable.
You are on a loser there.

The argument you will get back is not cost but potential lives saved. Public Sector precautionary principle, rightly or wrongly. So ultimately you are left trying to argue that it would be ok not to revoke the certificates of a handful of people that have been assessed as having mental health issues that could be a danger to the public.

Difficult to see a publicity campaign based on that.
 

Liveonce

Well-Known Member
You are on a loser there.

The argument you will get back is not cost but potential lives saved. Public Sector precautionary principle, rightly or wrongly. So ultimately you are left trying to argue that it would be ok not to revoke the certificates of a handful of people that have been assessed as having mental health issues that could be a danger to the public.

Difficult to see a publicity campaign based on that.

But even before the current practice where the mandatory medical report is obtained by the applicant at the time of application the process was that the police after issuing the certificate notified the applicants registered GP that they now own firearms and hence any such mental health issues, now or in the future, should be been notified to the police.

Just like now if an applicant uses medcert to handle the report, medcert are unable to add the marker to the applicants medical records that they own firearms, so the police continue to notify the applicants registered GP, which is why if you do not have a registered GP you cannot even make an application.
 

Gameking

Well-Known Member
Will BASC admit to being ' Marshed' ( EX CC Andy Marsh , now retired, I think , on full pension, following scandal with moving to force employing his wife ( high ranking plod :rolleyes:) and stating that as CC of the employing force he did NOT line manage her:-|.

FAC fees were raised at that time ...................... with the promise of continuous medical monitoring in 'real time' being the green light for 10 year certs :rolleyes:.

Still waiting... all FAC holders now need to pay for their own medical ...when only a very small % had a declared medical issue that they paid for --- Police paid for rest if plod requested.


Before BASC fans winge, I was a member - fully paid up for 38 years !!!!!! and they betrayed us on this, lead and all other things in that period.
The £8M mythical 'fighting fund- never used managed by 'shifty Swifty' - - non lead consultant !!!!!

Look at the BASC pictogram of GL before WJ and after - was green and now all red --- but this is a victory lads ! (subscriber mugs )

And look how the body count has risen - lots of ex- plod, ex- firearms types and now Firearms Director neds a new bagman ( to carry copper bullets o_O:mad:)
 

kes

Well-Known Member
I think anyone who was honest and weighed BASC pros and cons would find the inevitable. I have, whoever I am ?



Published by Garry Doolan on 26th July 2016​


BASC cartridges



IN response to John Swift’s blog on Mark Avery’s website regarding lead ammunition, BASC has highlighted the science which supports its continued use. This follows Defra’s decision to rule out a ban despite a recommendation to do so from a rump of the Defra-sponsored Lead Ammunition Group (LAG).
LAG continues as a lobby group for campaigners – some of whom are anti-shooting. In her letter to John Swift, Liz Truss, then Secretary of State for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said that, with the group’s report, LAG’s existence was at an end.
BASC continues to believe that risks should be managed and that any risk from lead ammunition can be mitigated by complying with current laws, following the advice of the Food Standards Agency (FSA) and by proper processing of game meat. For these reasons, neither Defra nor the FSA are proposing a ban.
Dr Matt Ellis, BASC’s scientific advisor, said: “BASC’s policy has always been no sound evidence, no change. There is no scientific evidence of population-level impacts outside of wetlands and we believe the current legislation effectively and proportionately targets risk.
“There is no need to change the law. What the science tells us is that we must comply with legislation, follow official advice on consumption and process game meat effectively.”
BASC chairman Peter Glenser said: “Government has examined the evidence and, quite properly, taken time for analysis before producing a considered response which says that the impacts of lead ammunition do not justify changing current policy.
“Risks are there to be managed, which is why we use seat-belts rather than banning cars, and have banned smoking in enclosed public spaces rather than banning tobacco. The use of lead ammunition is effectively managed by current laws and advice. The fact of the matter is – and, crucially, government agrees – there is no need to go any further.”

Just an example
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rewulf

Well-Known Member
Definitely Kes
Im not bothered who it is , I would very much like to know what caused such a massive U turn by BASC on lead.
Not only that , why no consultation with the membership, before deciding on the 'voluntary' direction it has taken ?

If BASC is the really the voice of shooting, why not ask the actual shooting membership what they thought about it all ?
It stinks of corruption to me, and along with the legal cover 'they couldnt afford' is the main reason I , and many others left.

Its not until you stand back and look at the whole picture, you realise just how much BASC have shafted us.
 
Top