BASC response to Firearms Licensing Guidance Consultation

[Brno2e]

All of this saddens me and having had dual membership of BASC and the NGO I did not renew my BASC membership many years ago after they rounded on the NGO over the national pigeon day. As an ex member I voted with my feet and have thought until recently that BASC members should be the ones entitled to complain not I. How ever I do resent BASC being "the voice of shooting" though as it belittles a lot of the other ORGS that do more but don't have a pot to **** in.
My local NGO branch work really hard as does the NGO organisation in general but lack that slick airbrushed image of BASC with all its assets. BASC is a business, they need to make money and have lost the way, they are not enthusiasts who would fight, more keep assets intact and wages paid while sprouting hot air.

 

[Uncle Norm]

Dalua,

Where is your evidence that the HO Guidance is written (in part) by the police, because my sources tell me that they have hitherto had very little input into this document. Perhaps Uncle Norm with his previous experience in licensing management could tell us if his force was ever consulted about this document?

F

It is seven years since I retired Frank, so cannot help with the current round.
In the past there was extensive consultation. One huge piece of work was created when the Blair government promised a whole new firearms act to sort out the mess that we had then and still have today.
Shooters would be amazed (and delighted) at the response sent to the HO from the Eastern Region firearms licencing managers (Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex,Herts, Cambs, Beds) as it contained many streamlining and beurocracy-reducing measures, most of which we are still trying to achieve today.
Sadly Mr Blair embarked on his wars and nothing came of it. Firearms control is a political football. All too often the outcome has no relation to the actual facts.

 

[Dalua]

....a whole new firearms act to sort out the mess that we had then and still have today.

Fortunately I can't see any prospect at all of this kind of wholesale change occurring. I say 'fortunately' because I do not share Uncle Norm's optimism regarding any likely emergent benefits. The precedents for changes to legislation improving things for the shooting public are vanishingly few - more generally the result is the opposite.

I am not at all persuaded that the Firearms Act of 1920 was a mess. The later amendments seem not altered the fundamentals of it in terms of FAC administration, at least.

The undeniable mess therefore does not seem to be a product of primary legislation, but rather of something else - most likely the Police and the Home Office. Sorting the mess out should therefore probably start there, rather than with more primary legislation; and giving the HO Guide the authority of statute seems in this context an even odder idea.

I try to refer to 'the Police' in this context rather than 'the FLDs', because I am aware that a significant number of FLDs (like those mentioned by Uncle Norm) actually do have sensible ideas for improving efficiency without either increasing the burden on the public or introducing unnecessary further restrictions or inconvenience. I get the impression that FLDs with a reputation for unreasonableness (with respect to overly-numerous 'discretionary conditions', for example) might well behave like that at the behest of the next level up from the FLD Manager.

 

[Orion]

I get the impression that FLDs with a reputation for unreasonableness (with respect to overly-numerous 'discretionary conditions', for example) might well behave like that at the behest of the next level up from the FLD Manager.

Or, as has and is happening in certain FLDs, an inexperienced manager brought in for 'admin' reasons is influenced by a/the senior FLO who has 'issues' with certain aspects of sporting firearms usage and then any 'alignment' with HOG goes out of the window.

 

[Orion]

I went into the BASC tent on Friday at the Game Fair.....................................................

BASC reps seemed more put out that Jacoby had gone out and done his own thing getting this debate off the ground. To stick one to Jacoby seemed to be a big win to them.

Perhaps Charlie Jacoby and the Fieldsports Channel guys should give some serious thought to setting up an organisation representing shooters?

He/they certainly come across as having their finger on the pulse of current affairs affecting us all, and a much more focused and practical approach to matters than some - not to mention their obvious ability to engage via the favoured media forms of the day.

I'd give it support.

 

[Mick Miller]

Perhaps Charlie Jacoby and the Fieldsports Channel guys should give some serious thought to setting up an organisation representing shooters?

He/they certainly come across as having their finger on the pulse of current affairs affecting us all, and a much more focused and practical approach to matters than some - not to mention their obvious ability to engage via the favoured media forms of the day.

I'd give it support.

I actually wondered about this myself. An amalgamation of NGO, BDS (perhaps, no experience of them personally) with FSB guiding the media, with its more current approach to social media and open discussions with those opposed to shooting, would seem to cover most shooting in the UK.

 

[kes]

ME too, I'd help by working for them for a year for nothing.

 

[Highlandsjohn]

ME too, I'd help by working for them for a year for nothing.

 

[kes]

I have been retired for a few years now and literally have nothing better to do with my time than help wildlife and protect shooting.

 

[Orion]

I actually wondered about this myself. An amalgamation of NGO, BDS (perhaps, no experience of them personally) with FSB guiding the media, with its more current approach to social media and open discussions with those opposed to shooting, would seem to cover most shooting in the UK.

I think you can remove BDS from the equation as the organisation doesn't really fit with the 'fieldsports' model. The problem with amalgamation of any or all of the existing smaller independent orgs might be an unwillingness to give up on their already established status - it's human nature.

Perhaps Fieldsports Channel might already have enough of a supporter base to set up on it's own if it chose to go in that direction? Something radical needs to happen if we are not to see private firearms use and country pursuits in general disappear in the medium to long term, (maybe sooner), and they just might be the people to provide the breath of fresh air that's needed in our stale environment?

 

[Mick Miller]

This may be worth a read: https://www.justiceinspectorates.go...ads/firearms-licensing-targeting-the-risk.pdf

 

[Orion]

This may be worth a read: https://www.justiceinspectorates.go...ads/firearms-licensing-targeting-the-risk.pdf

Worth noting that since publication several of the recommendations have been enacted. However:

2.8. In our inspection, however, we assessed the way in which forces dealt with firearms licensing in the light of the guidance and the practice. We were not advised in any instance of specific consideration being given to not complying with them as being the best way of dealing with any given case.
2.9. Accordingly, we take the view that a failure to abide by the guidance and the practice are signs that a force is not doing as it should.

Yeah, right, and what happens then? Sweet FA.

 

[enfieldspares]

What happens, then, ORION, is that on that basis someone...maybe some organisation that claims to be an authoritative voice for shooting...takes out a judicial review against that particular force. Yet as we now know instead they do sweet FA. As I said we've fled and surrendered the field without even standing to fire a shot in our own defence.

 

[Mick Miller]

I think we need to put down the collective paddle for a bit though. It's quite exhausting beating that particular drum. If the message isn't clear by now it never will be!

Conor asked what we comments we would like to make, I'd like to suggest the following.

• Whilst, broadly, most people accept the 'enduring marker', this should only be added if we are to move to the 10 year licence and, along with that, a reduced burden for the firearms teams, not a reduction in staffing levels. The aims should be threefold; increased public safety, reduced workload, increased efficiency in application/ variation/ renewal turn arounds.

• The GP's assessment should be unbiased and honest based on a patients record. Due to the addition of the 'enduring marker' this should be a one-time only affair. On application a GP's referral is requested. This request should be from the licencing authority, not the individual. Once the GP signs off that there is no reason, from the medical records and not from personal bias, for refusal the relevant licence should be issued and the marker added to a patients records. There should never be a further requirement for GP involvement throughout the lifetime of the individual, not the lifetime of the certificate.

• As this is touted as 'increasing public safety' then the majority, if not all the costs involved should be met by the public purse. As this is essentially a box ticking exercise then the costs should be reasonable (£20-£50), fixed and consistent across all areas. There should be no deviation or facility to 'invent' charges by either constabularies or GP's, that is to say that rather than having 'regard' to costs they should be clear, fixed and transparent.

• Should a GP refuse to reply on moral or personal grounds then there should be a national facility of GPs to whom referrals can be made, these should be at the same cost as a regular referral and should not take longer than average to process; no waiting month upon month for a reply. The applicant should not deem to be 'punished' if their own GP's surgery refuses to assist.

• The idea of consulting with neighbours, partners, wives is a non-starter I'm afraid. This needs to be scratched completely. The process of application relies on two referees of good standing and no criminal record. This is sufficient and there is no evidence that any other additional processes will increase the thoroughness of the check. Once the initial application is approved any subsequent renewals WILL NO LONGER REQUIRE the referees. There is no point if there have been no additional offences committed by the applicant. All that is required is good reason (land authority, club or both).

• Further to this last point, contacting of neighbours is a complete compromise to security. It also is biased toward refusal. Pick 10 people at random and ask them whether they would be happy for their neighbour to possess firearms and the results I would say with some confidence would be negatively biased.

• Along with fixing the costs of the medical referral so too should the HO guidance be fixed. No longer should local constabularies be allowed to have 'regard' to the advice. It should be law, fixed and not subject to personal interpretation and bias in either direction. This would prevent the postcode lottery of licencing and force constabularies to apply the law evenly and fairly across the UK.

• Whilst we are reforming the licencing it would be positive if we had a little carrot as well as stick. I propose a review of the processes of 'one for one', using the Northern Ireland model or other models with the key principle being freeing up the onerous demands on licensing authorities. The process should be simply to pass on a rifle to a licence holder (either gift or purchase) or RFD, notify the authority and then proceed to replace. This would free up time to do more thorough initial checks of new applicants and security reviews of existing applicants.

• The removal of moderators from licences. They are no different to a magazine, muzzle brake or other accessory and, provided it is allowed for under EU law, should be allowed to be owned freely without FAC requirement. A little carrot to the stick.

• Ideally I would like to see the implementation of a national database, electronically managed and a move away from paper based certification. We have drivers licences that already manage multiple data entries, carry photo ID, addresses etc, I cannot see why a similar digitally based system can not be used. Police could quickly check a persons credentials when stopped in possession and it would allow the FAC holder to access his records and record and changes in circumstance (firearms added/ sold, requests to vary etc.)

That's it I think..

 

[David63]

Thank you ever so much for that Mick
David

 

[Greenmist]

BASC is a business, they need to make money and have lost the way, they are not enthusiasts who would fight, more keep assets intact and wages paid while sprouting hot air.

Sad but unfortunately true

 

[enfieldspares]

And crowdfunding a judicial review if BASC isn't prepared to risk any of its supposed 8M "Fighting Fund"? What of that suggestion I've made? Would BASC be prepared to oversee a crowdfunded judicial review of the insistence of certain police forces of compulsory medical reports? I did ask this a day ago...but maybe the question got overlooked, or missed? Anyway here's another chance to address it.

Here it is:

And crowdfunding a judicial review? What, please, is the response to that question? Conor asked for ideas. That's my idea. What says BASC then?

 

[jimbo1984]

Thank you ever so much for that Mick
David

Amazing you can see some replies but not all........ I still don’t see anyone from basc admitting there are huge problems in the organisation .... is the official basc line that everything is ok David ?

 

[jimbo1984]

I think we need to put down the collective paddle for a bit though. It's quite exhausting beating that particular drum. If the message isn't clear by now it never will be!

Conor asked what we comments we would like to make, I'd like to suggest the following.

• Whilst, broadly, most people accept the 'enduring marker', this should only be added if we are to move to the 10 year licence and, along with that, a reduced burden for the firearms teams, not a reduction in staffing levels. The aims should be threefold; increased public safety, reduced workload, increased efficiency in application/ variation/ renewal turn arounds.

• The GP's assessment should be unbiased and honest based on a patients record. Due to the addition of the 'enduring marker' this should be a one-time only affair. On application a GP's referral is requested. This request should be from the licencing authority, not the individual. Once the GP signs off that there is no reason, from the medical records and not from personal bias, for refusal the relevant licence should be issued and the marker added to a patients records. There should never be a further requirement for GP involvement throughout the lifetime of the individual, not the lifetime of the certificate.

• As this is touted as 'increasing public safety' then the majority, if not all the costs involved should be met by the public purse. As this is essentially a box ticking exercise then the costs should be reasonable (£20-£50), fixed and consistent across all areas. There should be no deviation or facility to 'invent' charges by either constabularies or GP's, that is to say that rather than having 'regard' to costs they should be clear, fixed and transparent.

• Should a GP refuse to reply on moral or personal grounds then there should be a national facility of GPs to whom referrals can be made, these should be at the same cost as a regular referral and should not take longer than average to process; no waiting month upon month for a reply. The applicant should not deem to be 'punished' if their own GP's surgery refuses to assist.

• The idea of consulting with neighbours, partners, wives is a non-starter I'm afraid. This needs to be scratched completely. The process of application relies on two referees of good standing and no criminal record. This is sufficient and there is no evidence that any other additional processes will increase the thoroughness of the check. Once the initial application is approved any subsequent renewals WILL NO LONGER REQUIRE the referees. There is no point if there have been no additional offences committed by the applicant. All that is required is good reason (land authority, club or both).

• Further to this last point, contacting of neighbours is a complete compromise to security. It also is biased toward refusal. Pick 10 people at random and ask them whether they would be happy for their neighbour to possess firearms and the results I would say with some confidence would be negatively biased.

• Along with fixing the costs of the medical referral so too should the HO guidance be fixed. No longer should local constabularies be allowed to have 'regard' to the advice. It should be law, fixed and not subject to personal interpretation and bias in either direction. This would prevent the postcode lottery of licencing and force constabularies to apply the law evenly and fairly across the UK.

• Whilst we are reforming the licencing it would be positive if we had a little carrot as well as stick. I propose a review of the processes of 'one for one', using the Northern Ireland model or other models with the key principle being freeing up the onerous demands on licensing authorities. The process should be simply to pass on a rifle to a licence holder (either gift or purchase) or RFD, notify the authority and then proceed to replace. This would free up time to do more thorough initial checks of new applicants and security reviews of existing applicants.

• The removal of moderators from licences. They are no different to a magazine, muzzle brake or other accessory and, provided it is allowed for under EU law, should be allowed to be owned freely without FAC requirement. A little carrot to the stick.

• Ideally I would like to see the implementation of a national database, electronically managed and a move away from paper based certification. We have drivers licences that already manage multiple data entries, carry photo ID, addresses etc, I cannot see why a similar digitally based system can not be used. Police could quickly check a persons credentials when stopped in possession and it would allow the FAC holder to access his records and record and changes in circumstance (firearms added/ sold, requests to vary etc.)

That's it I think..

Very sensible replies mick ! Good suggestions , however the problem about putting the paddle down as you put it is that they then think everything is ok ...

 

[Dalua]

A few comments in orange...

I think we need to put down the collective paddle for a bit though. It's quite exhausting beating that particular drum. If the message isn't clear by now it never will be!

Conor asked what we comments we would like to make, I'd like to suggest the following.

• Whilst, broadly, most people accept the 'enduring marker', this should only be added if we are to move to the 10 year licence and, along with that, a reduced burden for the firearms teams, not a reduction in staffing levels. The aims should be threefold; increased public safety, reduced workload, increased efficiency in application/ variation/ renewal turn arounds. What the FLD and the GP sort out between them is their business, really - not ours.

• The GP's assessment should be unbiased and honest based on a patients record. Due to the addition of the 'enduring marker' this should be a one-time only affair. On application a GP's referral is requested. This request should be from the licencing authority, not the individual. Once the GP signs off that there is no reason, from the medical records and not from personal bias, for refusal the relevant licence should be issued and the marker added to a patients records. There should never be a further requirement for GP involvement throughout the lifetime of the individual, not the lifetime of the certificate. As above.

• As this is touted as 'increasing public safety' then the majority, if not all the costs involved should be met by the public purse. As this is essentially a box ticking exercise then the costs should be reasonable (£20-£50), fixed and consistent across all areas. There should be no deviation or facility to 'invent' charges by either constabularies or GP's, that is to say that rather than having 'regard' to costs they should be clear, fixed and transparent. The fees payable by the applicant are set by Parliament. Additional fees over and above those are not appropriate. If GPs need paying for what the FLDs want, then the FLDs should be funded to be able to pay. Other than that, it's a matter for the GPs and the FLDs, not the applicant.

• Should a GP refuse to reply on moral or personal grounds then there should be a national facility of GPs to whom referrals can be made, these should be at the same cost as a regular referral and should not take longer than average to process; no waiting month upon month for a reply. The applicant should not deem to be 'punished' if their own GP's surgery refuses to assist. Again, this is the FLD and the GPs business - not the applicant's

• The idea of consulting with neighbours, partners, wives is a non-starter I'm afraid. Agreed! This needs to be scratched completely. The process of application relies on two referees of good standing and no criminal record. This is sufficient and there is no evidence that any other additional processes will increase the thoroughness of the check. Once the initial application is approved any subsequent renewals WILL NO LONGER REQUIRE the referees. There is no point if there have been no additional offences committed by the applicant. All that is required is good reason (land authority, club or both). I can't see referees not being needed for renewals.

• Further to this last point, contacting of neighbours is a complete compromise to security. It also is biased toward refusal. Pick 10 people at random and ask them whether they would be happy for their neighbour to possess firearms and the results I would say with some confidence would be negatively biased.

• Along with fixing the costs of the medical referral so too should the HO guidance be fixed. No longer should local constabularies be allowed to have 'regard' to the advice. It should be law, fixed and not subject to personal interpretation and bias in either direction. This would prevent the postcode lottery of licencing and force constabularies to apply the law evenly and fairly across the UK. As I've repeatedly pointed out in the past, there are things far worse than inconsistency; consistently more-restrictive FLDs being one of them. I can't believe I'm the only one who thinks giving a document prepared by the Home Office the authority of statute without the its having been through the usual procedures for law-making is exceptionally dangerous to the ongoing public ownership of firearms.