BASC response to Firearms Licensing Guidance Consultation

[Dalua]

A fundamental issue here seems to be that some blame BASC for the police wanting compulsory medical check, this is simply not the case. As I have posted before, our stance and the history of this issue is here: https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2019/07/BASC-Response-to-Nick-Hurd-MP.pdf , exactly what part of this response do you not agree with?

Sadly I can't open that document just now.
Am I wrong in thinking that BASC approved the principle that applicants would have to pay for medical reports requested by the FLD?

 

[enfieldspares]

Thank you. But please confirm, or deny, the oft posted belief that BASC "traded", "linked", "welcomed" call it what you will input from GPs in return for ten year firearm and shotgun certificates? Yes or no?

I seem to recall this from Richard Ali back in 2013:

Shotgun and firearm certificates should be valid for ten years, rather than the current five, in order to improve enforcement, boost public safety and cut the administrative burden and cost for police forces, according to the UK’s largest shooting organisation, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC)

Then there's this form Pigeon Watch 26 May 2014

I have made it as clear as I possibly can what BASC are doing on a national level.

I have made it as clear as I possibly can that the police can only request a GP check if , after they have risk assessed the applicant, there is clear evidence that one is required.

I have made it as clear as I possibly can that blanket requests for a GP report is NOT allowable and have and will be fully challenged at national and local level by BASC.

David

And this, same Forum, same date, same thread:

I am not aware of any blanket policy on the horizon that there must be a medical report with every application / renewal over and above the self declaration on the current form.

In the vast majority of cases there will be nothing on the form that alarms the police that would necessitate any further medical investigation.

If the applicant puts on their form something along the lines of them suffering from some mental illness, then its probable that the police will contact the GP to ask about that condition in specific regard to that persons fitness to possess firearms - ie is their condition one that if they had access to firearms run a risk of them harming themselves or others.

BASC's view is and has always been that this level of investigation should be at no cost to the applicant. We await and keep asking for members to get in touch if the police are asking them to pay for this.

The BMA have the same view, ie the police should pay and the BMA are clear in their guidance that if GP believes an applicant is a danger than the question of 'who pays' is far less important then telling the police of their concerns.

If, in even rarer cases the police are still undecided and ask for the applicant to go for a further check with their GP them as far as I can see under current treasury rules the applicant pays, there are no fixed feed for what a GP may charge in this case.

BASC maintains dialogue with ACPO, the BMA and the Home Office over this with the aim of coming to a conclusion that we are all content with, this is still very much a live issue and as it develops we will do our best to keep all members advised.

Well it didn't work did it, this "dialogue" from the authoritative voice for shooting. We haven't got ten year FACs nor SGCs et we have got a creeping request for medical certification.

So a fundamental issue is that you are asking people to pay for political officers, a media centre and God knows what else yet when push comes to shove and there's a chance for Charlie Jacoby to have a "dialogue" with Packham on other matters that might affect shooting you pull the shutters down.

You talk a good talk but as to actions you fail to deliver. It's just so much hot air, blather, bluster and wordy promises that you'd think you followed the Boris Johnson model.

Rather than keep cutting and pasting here's a link to the thread. Which as said is but May 2014:

FAO BASC - Medical reports

BASC, I, along with others, want to know what you are doing to tackle the issue of police forces demanding the applicant to supply (and pay for) medical reports as part of their application for a shotgun/firearms certificate. What are you doing about this? I ask this on an open forum as you won't...

forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk

 

[Orion]

Thank you. But please confirm, or deny, the oft posted belief that BASC "traded", "linked", "welcomed" call it what you will input from GPs in return for ten year firearm and shotgun certificates? Yes or no?

Here it is.

Certainly got the current ball rolling, didn’t it!

 

[Uncle Norm]

jimbo 1984. I am curious as to why you should post a 'laugh' at my post as it is a statement of fact. I would be interested to learn what other issues you have, that are not covered in the BASC letter ?

 

[Mick Miller]

Perhaps this requires a legal challenge. On what basis I have no idea, it's out of my pay grade and I have to buy my own gilets from the paltry amount I earn. However, if Gina Miller can legally challenge British Parliament and win, Wild Justice can challenge NE and upset the apple cart forcing a complete review of policy in the GL's come 2020, then it is not incredible that some form of challenge to this procedure, on the basis of reforming the Firearms Act to make it workable, enforceable and above all fair, is possible? Even better if that action forces government to rethink the application of firearms licences, removing the involvement of local constabularies, other than to approve or otherwise dependent on the applicants record.

My original point still stands however: a medical check for an applicant or encoded reminder can be in no way regarded as a 'benefit to public safety' where the risk, as evidenced by successive years of data, is already disproportionately small to begin with and when the thankfully few incidences where the general public have been put at risk were, in no small part, down to policy and policing failures of local constabularies.

 

[Uncle Norm]

Here it is.

Certainly got the current ball rolling, didn’t it!

That looks very much like a 'yes' to the original question posed by enfieldspares. With the benefit of hind sight, a most unfortunate error of judgement methinks.
Lessons must be learned and more robust action taken in a whole range of issues. If that is not to be so, with a new CEO, I shall join the exodus too.

 

[enfieldspares]

It's all Emperor's new clothes. Pay a lot. Apparently get what?. Yet maintain the illusion until someone that isn't reading from the same script shouts out the reality and so challenges the pretence. That is how I have come to feel about any benefits deriving from subscribing to BASC re ten year certificates and medical reports.

I'll repeat it. For the benefit of the selectively deaf. Regarding ten year FACs and SGCs and this medical certification it's a guinea paid for little different in terms of results and successes in the last five years than by saving my money and just paying half a crown, as I have done, to one of the many alternative associations.

BASC's record on both is failure. Not even an offer, and I mean this in faith, of, say, six year certificates from the Home Office.

 

[David63]

My statement was honest and correct back in 2014, things have moved on as you all know , no BASC has not 'traded' anything, yet another false accusation without anything at all to back it up!
So lets work together and move forwards

 

[enfieldspares]

So where then was the judicial review that the practice of demanding a medical certificate was "ultra vires"?

And where are the ten year certificates?

So we've now gone from the Boris Johnson model about No Deal to the Theresa May model about the leaving date form the European Union "My statement was honest and correct back in XXX things have moved on as you know..."

Yes. Things move on. And they move on because they aren't challenged. Or passively allowed to develop that way. So where was the judicial review? And where are the ten year...even six year...certificates?

 

[finnbear270]

Consultation survey completed.

 

[jimbo1984]

jimbo 1984. I am curious as to why you should post a 'laugh' at my post as it is a statement of fact. I would be interested to learn what other issues you have, that are not covered in the BASC letter ?

Because if like basc your the “ welcoming “ sort then you clearly deserve all you get sir

 

[Uncle Norm]

Because if like basc your the “ welcoming “ sort then you clearly deserve all you get sir

Unfair and insulting Jim. Simply diminishes you and detracts from some of the more legitimate statements and opinions that you post. Most unfortunate that you simply cannot tolerate any expression or view that does not comply with your own.

 

[David63]

We made it clear many months ago that the legal advice was that a JD was not going to success or make any difference, regarding 10 year certificates, this is clearly referred to in the letter I posted above.
Now please all, remember that when those who oppose shooting make up 'facts' to support their weak argument , you rightly condemn them...but then some of you choose to do exactly the same things to target the very organisation that's working to try and help you, and indeed, many who do this are not members!
It would have been great me meet and greet some of you at the Game Fair so you could have had a chat with our CEO, or Exec Director of Comms who looks after our political programme, some of our political officers, or head of media to discuss this or other issues and express your concerns, which we could have answered...

 

[jimbo1984]

Unfair and insulting Jim. Simply diminishes you and detracts from some of the more legitimate statements and opinions that you post. Most unfortunate that you simply cannot tolerate any expression or view that does not comply with your own.

Not my intention to insult at all just to open peoples blinkers for the “ voice of shooting “ as for not accepting any but my own opinion You mean like basc does ? “ bascwelcomes “ the “ political route “ “ lobbying “ I’m relatively sure most basc members don’t want this .... ( I didn’t when I was a member ) but yet basc ignores them and does it’s own thing anyway ... maybe I’ll ask them for a job

 

[jimbo1984]

[QUOTE="David BASC, post:
Now please all, remember that when those who oppose shooting make up 'facts' to support their weak argument , you rightly condemn them...but then some of you choose to do exactly the same things to target the very organisation that's working to try and help you, and indeed, many who do this are not members!
[/QUOTE]
But it doesn’t seem basc is “ working “ to help us though David that’s the point ! That’s why I and many others went elsewhere ,

 

[Highlandsjohn]

Sorry David, BASC lost its way some years ago and has to get its priorities correct and get back on track,representing the needs of the ordinary members.
The fiasco of huge legal costs, your membership footing the bill,for your employees employment tribunals all, reeking of poor management practice.
Ignoring the membership by leaving us to be singled out on medical fees, unannounced home visits, licensing of air rifles, feo's making up the rules as they go, etc. This will all come back to you with the loss of members. No doubt when it affects your bottom line you may take notice and once again become the voice of shooting..

 

[Mick Miller]

I've gone away and had a little think, why do I resent the idea of having to have a GP to sign off on my application for a firearm? Is it because I believe it is a worthless nod in the direction of 'increased public safety'? Well, yes. But that isn't the main issue.

Is it because this was seen as a trade off to get ten year certificates, which I now acknowledge will never happen? Yes, but that's still not the reason I'm finding myself so annoyed by this.

Is it because its a complete drain on already stretched medical and policing resources? Yes again, but still the root cause of my ire is not addressed.

I think its this; in a country whose law and legal system is based on the idea of habeus corpus (sp), of innocence until proven guilty, the idea of a GP having to attest to my mental or physical fitness to own firearms before my application is approved turns this cornerstone of democracy on its head. We are all now deemed nutters until we can prove otherwise. The problem is we have to ask people that barely know us, may not approve of us for their sign off and they can charge us any amount they deem fair or appropriate or, worse still, simply refuse to engage.

I can live with the idea of an enduring marker, I can see the benefit, however slight in fact it is, of that one concession. But the rest is simply an affront.

 

[Orion]

That looks very much like a 'yes' to the original question posed by enfieldspares. With the benefit of hind sight, a most unfortunate error of judgement methinks.
Lessons must be learned and more robust action taken in a whole range of issues. If that is not to be so, with a new CEO, I shall join the exodus too.

Yes, an error of judgment perhaps, but a major one that hasn’t really been acknowledged and has laid the foundations for the fiasco we are now facing. But let’s just move on from that.

Maybe worth quoting an extract from that press release to get a flavour of the personnel that were in post at the time.

“Gary Ashton, BASC’s director of firearms operations, said: “BASC has been at the vanguard, ensuring certificate holders were protected from the original disproportionate and expensive proposals.”

Would that be Gary Ashton, ex-North Wales Police Superintendent who was suspended along with Ali after the infamous ‘threats to kill’ farrago? Was he involved in negotiations between the interested parties which resulted in the medical evidence fiasco?

Anyway, some confusion there between ‘vanguard’ and ‘rearguard’.

 

[enfieldspares]

But the whole point about the judicial review is that it WASN'T tried. So we'll never know if that legal advice was or wasn't correct. No doubt there would have been counsel who would have told Wild Justice that a judicial review of the General Licence was a gamble. And some that told Gina Miller the same about Brexit. She'd fail.

Yet NE surrendered on the mere threat of it. And Gina Miller won her court case. Now we will NEVER ever know if the threat of a judicial review would have halted this march to medical certification BECAUSE IT WASN'T EVER TRIED! Effectively you've fled and surrendered the battlefield without even standing and firing a shot in defence.

AND EVEN IF A "FORLORN HOPE" BASC DIDN'T THEN EVEN FLOAT TO ITS MEMBERS AND TO THE WIDER SHOOTING COMMUNITY THE IDEA OF CROWD FUNDING SUCH A JUDICIAL REVIEW.

 

[CarlW]

I've gone away and had a little think, why do I resent the idea of having to have a GP to sign off on my application for a firearm? Is it because I believe it is a worthless nod in the direction of 'increased public safety'? Well, yes. But that isn't the main issue.

Is it because this was seen as a trade off to get ten year certificates, which I now acknowledge will never happen? Yes, but that's still not the reason I'm finding myself so annoyed by this.

Is it because its a complete drain on already stretched medical and policing resources? Yes again, but still the root cause of my ire is not addressed.

I think its this; in a country whose law and legal system is based on the idea of habeus corpus (sp), of innocence until proven guilty, the idea of a GP having to attest to my mental or physical fitness to own firearms before my application is approved turns this cornerstone of democracy on its head. We are all now deemed nutters until we can prove otherwise. The problem is we have to ask people that barely know us, may not approve of us for their sign off and they can charge us any amount they deem fair or appropriate or, worse still, simply refuse to engage.

I can live with the idea of an enduring marker, I can see the benefit, however slight in fact it is, of that one concession. But the rest is simply an affront.

100% agree.