BASC response to Firearms Licensing Guidance Consultation

[Conor O'Gorman]

BASC's firearms team is drafting a response to the consultation and if any forum members have suggestions on amendments that should be made to the draft guidance feel free to either comment below or email me at conor.ogorman@basc.org.uk

I will ensure that all suggested amendments are considered during the drafting of our response.

BASC's initial position is here
https://basc.org.uk/blog/politics/government-could-land-shooting-community-with-48-million-bill/

The consultation documents can be downloaded here:
Statutory guidance to police on firearms licensing

 

[Woodsmoke]

'BASC wants to see a statutory obligation on doctors to participate in the licensing process in the interests of public safety'.

Oh well, thanks for that. We're all very glad that BASC is disappointed, and all that. I'm also very heartened to read that BASC is so focused on reducing the burden on the police. That's really helpful to us all, that is.

 

[Dalua]

As I recall, BASC supported the principle that shooters should have to pay for medical reports requested by the FLDs.

Admittedly, BASC expected these reports to be required only for a minority of applicants (those with certain medical conditions) - but the principle appears to have been established, and there we have it.

I hope that a lesson has been learned, and that the organisations who purport to represent the interests of the shooting public take note. It is important for them to recognise the bodies with whom one can successfully negotiate (assuming a sufficient level of skill and experience): and those who must be kept at arm's length and opposed, preferably via Parliament; since the two Houses seem the only force with any power to resist the Police and the HO in their slow and steady war of attrition against us.

As far as I can see, the only thing that matters here is that applicants for renewal or grant of FAC/SGC should not have to pay any more for the process than the stautory fee set by Parliament.
We already give the FLD authority to contact our GPs, and have done for decades. This is absolutely fine, sensible and proportionate in the context of the process of certification.

How the applicants have ended up in the midst of an argument about medical practitioners' professional fees for reports requested by the Police is far from clear.
The FAC/SGC process is for the public good, not the good of the applicants. It seems entirely reasonable that the FLDs should be funded to pay the medical fraternity for the work required of them in this context if the usual tests of the proportionality of the cost to the benefit for public expenditure are met. However, I'm not sure anyone has actually looked at it from that perspective.

 

[Benelli m2]

This really is getting a tiresome load of b/shite crimes are out of control
What is being done **** all
What not have a consultation cars are the biggest killer so let's have a car consultation no we can't do that
Legally held firearms are far more easily to attack
Plod wants to see empty gun cabinets
Mark my words

 

[Benelli m2]

A knife consultation no much to hard

 

[libensvolenspotens]

I have been to my GP once in the last 10 years, In fact when I did visit I had to ask the receptionist if I was registered at the clinic as my previous GP had retired. I did not know then nor do I know now the names of the doctors in the practice.
I cannot see what possible value a report from one of these doctors would be in deciding whether my possession of a firearm poses a potential hazard to the General Public.
By all means tag my records to indicate my possession of firearms, so that if my circumstances change and the Doctor is concerned, he may inform the Police.
I have given permission for the Police to view my records so what on Earth is the need for a medical certificate?
It's only value is to pass the buck, offering the Police a means to reduce their perceived liability in the case of an incident. Much the same as the idea of a "Mentor"!

 

[Woodsmoke]

did not know then nor do I know now the names of the doctors in the practice

I reckon it's only a matter of time before some bright spark decides it's appropriate to have an in-depth examination in front of a panel of doctors as part of the process . . .

 

[Benelli m2]

I have been to my GP once in the last 10 years, In fact when I did visit I had to ask the receptionist if I was registered at the clinic as my previous GP had retired. I did not know then nor do I know now the names of the doctors in the practice.
I cannot see what possible value a report from one of these doctors would be in deciding whether my possession of a firearm poses a potential hazard to the General Public.
By all means tag my records to indicate my possession of firearms, so that if my circumstances change and the Doctor is concerned, he may inform the Police.
I have given permission for the Police to view my records so what on Earth is the need for a medical certificate?
It's only value is to pass the buck, offering the Police a means to reduce their perceived liability in the case of an incident. Much the same as the idea of a "Mentor"!

I read somewhere on the consultation paper that if something goes wrong like self harm etc the police will take responsibility and not the doctor

 

[Fiadh]

Yes the GP process is a shambles but seems we're now stuck with it. At the very least the Home Office need to implement a 'reasonable' maximum fee that GP's are allowed to charge for the service, implement penalties for any medical practise that refuses to engage with the process, whether the conscientiously object to shooting or not and tie it all in with a FAC or SGC which is valid for 10 years.

 

[Mick Miller]

I've already responded thanks. Stating several points but the main thrust being that as crime with firearms represents 0.2% of all recorded crime, and as the proportion of that committed by licensed firearms holders is even less any perceived benefit to public safety that results from these additional checks is likely to be so inconsequential as to be utterly pointless. Therefore I see it as of no benefit at all.

If there is an insistence that these additional processes are still implemented (I think we all know they will) then as it's for the benefit of public safety then the public, not private, purse should meet any additional costs entirely.

 

[kes]

I read somewhere on the consultation paper that if something goes wrong like self harm etc the police will take responsibility and not the doctor

It will be a fine day before any Chief Constable openly takes responsibility, even for the officers tea money. I think risk averse is best used to describe Chief Cons, along with aspirations for the dictatorship of their beloved NPCC.

 

[DuncanR]

This is probably the wrong place to ask this question but seems to me to be as good a place as any other!

How many staff members of “the voice of shooting” are in possesion of an FAC or SGC or both?

If a proportion of them don’t possess either or both then is it perhaps the reason for there being no real passion/aggression in the way they go about defending our cause? Perhaps they have nothing to lose? They get their salaries paid by the dues that we, perhaps misguidedly, pay. So the gravy train rolls on!

If you have “no skin in the game” then what can be expected?

There is no way in the world that we have any chance of beating the antis and obtaining fair and reasonable regulations if we are being represented by people who do not have the same level of passion and enthusiasm as we do and at least equal to the antis!

I really hope that I am wrong in this way of thinking but it does concern me.

If this is the case what do we do about it?

 

[Orion]

If you have “no skin in the game” then what can be expected?

Or maybe too much of the wrong "skin in the game" might influence matters.

Have you seen the proportion of ex-police service employees in the BASC Firerams Department?

(Not to mention those previously in management positions who went under a cloud in the recent past).

 

[DuncanR]

So who said that they are the voice of shooting? I know - them!

Just a little presumptuous or not?

They are not supported by any majority, certainly not when you look at the number of FAC and SGC holders there are!

How is this to be fixed? As others have already said our sport and some livelihoods will have disappeared in the next 10 to 20 years unless something is done! Soon!

It does not look as if “the voice of shooting” actually wants too listen or change. A new chairman was appointed, I have not seen or heard anything significant since then!

If anything has been said then it is pointless publishing on the “voice’s” website. I want to hear and see it in the public domain where non shooters and non BASC members can see and hear the message! Including the antis!

We need more than a couple of threads being opened and comments and suggestions called for. What we need is a very serious look into what is happening and a willingness to change!

What about bringing concerned people together and looking for solutions face to face? Not too difficult to find them. Just look at this site for starters! And I am not looking for free drink and food on my dues!

This is going to need serious work and commitments from a lot of people! Both from within the “voice of shooting” and the wider community.

I am now starting to rant!

 

[Mick Miller]

That's why I cancelled my sub. It's not a pot into which I want to **** any longer.

 

[DuncanR]

I agree with your sentiment totally.

The problem as I see it is not resolved by us leaving in dribs and drabs.

The reason I say this is that this organisation will carry on representing us as the official “voice of shooting” and keep on proposing “stuff” that we do not agree with but which will be implemented in law.

There are a number of ways forward as I see it;

Get “the voice” to represent us correctly and effectively.

If this does not work then there needs to be a mass exodus of members. To do this there needs to be an effective and worthwhile alternative.

We need to be represented by a body that is effective and proactive.

Does such a body exist? If so this body needs to make its self better known. We will need some sort of sensible commitment from them to the shooting community.

If such a body does not exist then we are left to take one of a number of options, stay as we are, move to just as ineffective organisation, bail out and do nothing or try to set something up that will work the way we want it to!

We cannot just sit and complain and do nothing further. I am not pointing a finger at anyone in particular. I consider myself as a member of this community too.

My preference at the moment would be to try to work with an existing body. I.e. a living one would help!

 

[reiver]

That's why I cancelled my sub. It's not a pot into which I want to **** any longer.

I am intending to cancel mine at renewal as well after over 35 years membership

 

[Harry mac]

This really is getting a tiresome load of b/shite crimes are out of control
What is being done **** all
What not have a consultation cars are the biggest killer so let's have a car consultation no we can't do that
Legally held firearms are far more easily to attack
Plod wants to see empty gun cabinets
Mark my words

Once they've banned guns, gun cabinets will be next. If you've nothing to hide you don't need a steel cupboard.

 

[kes]

And meanwhile those who represent us are fiddling with the political route. just beyond credibility.

 

[User00009]

Please excuse my ignorance, how much is this GP report? My coterminous ticket is due in12 months.

I have had a, what can best be described as a tiff with my wife’s doctor, over treatment. I am now worried if he gets to write a report it might not be favourable.
RS