BASC response to Firearms Licensing Guidance Consultation

[Mick Miller]

I can't do anything about that though can I? Other than vote with my feet, which I have. You know, sometimes you have to hope that something good will come out of it, I would imagine the depth of feeling is palpable at 'mill' though and if not, well God help 'em.

 

[David63]

This thread is about the HO consultation, I am trying not to detract from it, but since you ask....are you suggesting that BASC runs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,? or how many JD's against individual firearms dept's while the consultation is running, a consultation that may well go a long way to establishing consistency etc?

As to huge problems within the Association, I cant see it, based on the fact that I have been here for almost 24 years and to be honest BASC has never been in a stronger position, nor has it ever had as high a membership number and the Council of elected members and the Senior management team have never worked more closely and productively than they are doing now. Add to that the huge increase in team working with some of the other leading organisations. I accept fully that in the last 24 years I have never seen shooting come under such sustained pressure, and I understand your anger an frustrations, but although we may disagree on some issues and points, we are all on the same side and we all have a 'common enemy' so we will achieve much more by working together than fighting among ourselves.

 

[Mick Miller]

Let's not go round in circles... genuine suggestions would be good from the SD folk. Yes, it may be considered 'widdling into the wind' by many (including me), but let's try and at least get some constructive suggestions going. I must have missed some stuff out surely?

David, to what extent are you working with other orgs on this? CA, NGO, BDS etc as I imagine all would have valid input and a coherent united front is likely better than five differing ones?

 

[Uncle Norm]

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.

Optimism ?? OPTIMISM !! . Not me guv. I am a veritable doom goblin when it comes to politicians and their machinations in general but particularly so in relation to firearms controls. They have proved time and time again that they simply cannot be trusted. We tried hard.... they failed us as ever and did bugger all.
That particular consultation was a huge waste of time. I fear that the current one will be no different. We shall see.

 

[enfieldspares]

No. I'm suggesting...and you fully well know this so please don't obfuscate....and I'm referring to Lincolnshire Police or Thames Valley Police. You've already missed the boat on Police Scotland. And how many years ago now as that? It's a nonsense to suggest that as a review is running that is relevant to a judicial review being taken or not.

Wrong, "ultra vires", outside of the recommended Home Office Guidance is still wrong, still "ultra vires" and still outside of the recommended Home Office Guidance regardless of any review and irrespective of when that review will report. If you haven't counsel who understands this then seek counsel that does.

What comes across yet again is that this more wait and see. Packham and Wild Justice threatened a judicial review of the General Licence. The result was that that protocol was withdrawn and ceased immediately to operate until it was reviewed and sorted. In other words the status quo ante. That's to say no pigeon shooting!

A commencement process to hold a judicial review against a Chief Constable would in my opinion also have resulted in that requirement for medical certification being ceased. Certainly until the review was held. That's what IMHO would have happened if a judicial review process had been commenced. What you advocate, David, waiting for the Home Office consultation is running DOES NOT result in that demand for medical certification being ceased.

Lastly this suggestion of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 is flippant and does yourselves no good as the reality is that you...BASC...the self proclaimed "authoritative voice for shooting" haven't even actioned one judicial review. Not two, nor three, neither four, nor five and not six and not seven but not even one. That is actual the truth of the state of affairs isn't it? Not even one!

 

[David63]

We have an open door policy with other orgs on a range of issues, indeed if you look at the joint / collaborative efforts the BASC and the CA over the General licences. The fact is we all need and now as far as I can see do, sing form the same hymn sheet I was chatting at length with Tim, CEO of the CA at the Game Fair, and one issue is that although there is an overlap of BASC and CA members, and indeed members of other orgs, not everyone is a member of any one organisation, so all the orgs need to use their communications network to get the message out to as many shooters as possible, but therein rests another problem, not all shooters are a member of an organisation!

 

[Mick Miller]

I agree that there is a lack of robustness on response in instances where there has been a clear misjudgment of misapplication of HO guidance. I'm not sure why this is but it could be due to historic relationships or a fear of losing members funds. But we do need an organisation with sharper teeth, as evidenced by the success by WJ; find a loose thread and then commence tugging...

 

[Dalua]

This thread is about the HO consultation, I am trying not to detract from it, but since you ask....are you suggesting that BASC runs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,? or how many JD's against individual firearms dept's while the consultation is running, a consultation that may well go a long way to establishing consistency etc?

As to huge problems within the Association, I cant see it, based on the fact that I have been here for almost 24 years and to be honest BASC has never been in a stronger position, nor has it ever had as high a membership number and the Council of elected members and the Senior management team have never worked more closely and productively than they are doing now. Add to that the huge increase in team working with some of the other leading organisations. I accept fully that in the last 24 years I have never seen shooting come under such sustained pressure, and I understand your anger an frustrations, but although we may disagree on some issues and points, we are all on the same side and we all have a 'common enemy' so we will achieve much more by working together than fighting among ourselves.

I wonder whether the 'huge problem' being alluded to is the one about the input BASC has had into this so far, the results of that input, and the apparent lack of acknowledgement that it was, put delicately, suboptimal?

How does this relate to the consultation? Well, as I see it if the problems with the previous approach are not identified it seems likely that negative outcomes will once again result.

We need to clarify what we actually need to get involved with here:
Not the relationship between FLDs and our GPs, surely? That must be for them to sort out between themselves.
Not the funding of the work done by GPs at the FLDs request - that is part of the certification process, for which we will already have paid the statutory fee.
Not trying to help the HO (as per Mr Graffius' letter) understand the complicated business of Firearms Law - they seem already to understand that well enough to stick it to the shooting public without the input of BASC.

David speaks of 'a common enemy', which is heartening. However, I think more damage might have been done by closeness to that enemy than has been done by 'fighting among ourselves'. Much of the fighting I see here is the fight to stimulate recognition among fellow-shooters of the challenges we face, and more particularly to stimulate them to appropriate responses to those challenges.

 

[David63]

Yes, we took legal advice from an expert in this area of law and it was clear that a legal challenge was not on, as we openly reported months ago, and that is why it did not run.
Scotland ,as I have said many times before was a totally different kettle of fish

 

[Orion]

That particular consultation was a huge waste of time. I fear that the current one will be no different. We shall see.

Sadly, I agree with you on that. I tend to think that the HO and NPCC have already decided on the outcome they desire, and the 'consultation' is simply to keep up the appearance that they're actually engaging with interested parties. It's all been done and dusted by virtue of S55A(5) Firearms Act 1968 so no need to take the concerns of anyone into account, is there?

Now, whether any of the organisations then take it up to seriously challenge the HO or CCs would be a fine thing indeed, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

 

[Orion]

I wonder whether the 'huge problem' being alluded to is the one about the input BASC has had into this so far, the results of that input, and the apparent lack of acknowledgement that it was, put delicately, suboptimal?

I believe that in another culture Seppuku would be an established method of restoring honour? No need for such a dramatic gesture of course, but at least an acknowledgement that being instrumental in jointly formulating such a fatally flawed process just might not have been a good move would help.

 

[kes]

Ok David lets see the legal advice as I have said before.
You defend BASC very well however, I have suggested many things but when it comes down to it, nothing happens.
BASC and you personally, have argued black was white that J Swift was behind the "no evidence no change mantra" on lead shot - look how that turned out and the number of people who were belittled for suggesting Swift had gone over to the dark side was a fair indication of how BASC are live to issues.
I am taking a bit of legal advice myself about the validity of JR and will post as soon as I get it.
I do NOT believe legal advice was taken - I believe Mr Glenser had a chat with someone. The only way I will accept the political route was better was if you publish the legal advice BASC received even if its published only to members.
Words are fine but we have had too many with no visible success.
Yes, BASC was involved in the discussions about 10 year licences and were willing to give ground on the medical issue but nothing happened except as we KNOW it.
BASC are now apparently willing to go with Police access to firearm owners homes without prior arrangement and without warrant. This was also something BASC accepted timidly, as you said in many of the threads about 'access'. Now we have the police able to construe unsuitability if access is not freely granted - or was BASC not involved in the discussions at all?
Sorry, but selective praise for comments is obvious - Connor may have asked for input - which he plainly should not have - he's paid to create a strategy that is both flexible and successful, involves the steel hand in the velvet glove but again - I see neither. The 'seeking of advice' is just another placatory gambit.
By all means say BASC is doing well - we have no way of checking membership but positive talk is cheap advertising - I would bet the picture isnt as 'rosy' as you suggest and certainly from what I have seen it doesn't deserve to be.
I could go on but what really is the point? BASC have to openly accept they have been very wrong on a number of issues but that also will not happen since someone in BASC thinks time will heal all wounds - they are wrong.

 

[enfieldspares]

Lawyers give different advice. You are the one that accepts that opinion or rejects it. You make the decision. Not counsel.

Ten plus years plus ago I was prosecuted for amongst other things unlawful manufacture of s5 weapons. My barrister advised...before pleas were to be entered...that if I plead guilty then the prosecution would not ask for a custodial sentence. But that if I plead not guilty and was convicted they'd ask for five years imprisonment.

So I asked my solicitor who of course was also attending the trial what she thought. Her response was simple, "If you don't think you've broken the law then don't plead guilty." So I took her advice, we went back into the court and Judge Morrell comes in and throws out eight (half) of the charges and says to the prosecution, before any pleas are even entered "Now go away and think carefully, very carefully, about what's left. Case is adjourned and I'll see everybody back here in three months."

And three months bar one week later my solicitor telephones me to tell me that the prosecution have conceded and will offer "no evidence" on the eight charges left. So opinions of lawyers are there to give the client that counsel's opinion. It is for the client to decide if he or she wants to accept that advice or reject that advice.

Counsel advises. Gives an opinion. You are the one that accepts that opinion or rejects it. You make the decision. Not counsel.

 

[croslanda]

Whether we like it or not shooting in all forms is under pressure from all angles. We as shooters know that what we do is necessary and provides benefits in numerous ways, we do not need convincing.
What we do need to do is stick together and applaude all those who are trying to help and support them whenever we can.
I think we will also have to accept that the legislation governing our actjvities will always be under pressures to change. Our world is now more visible and open to all to see and comment upon, we can't avoid it.
I think that we have already lost the argument with medical declarations, we are going to pay for them, what we now need to do as suggested by other in reply to this post is try and get the best deal we can, I suggest the following:-

1 We need a national format to provide the medical declaration, to my mind this would be better done by applicants rafher than the police licensing bodies. There is no reason that a nationally agreed medical declaration form can't be provided by applicants as part of the process.

2. There needs to be a nationally agreed cost of GP's providing this service. The issue of non coterminous certificates could be easily resolved by the inclusion of shotguns on firearms certs leaving shotguns only as a seperate cert. Less cost and bureaucracy.

3. Try and negoiate other benefits as part of the process such as moderators, nationally agreed service standards for licence provision, rewriting of certain sections of the act that allow different interpretation by different forces, in effect by us agreeing to fund these changes let's get something for our money and applaude our brilliamt politicians for thinking of it???????

 

[jimbo1984]

As to huge problems within the Association, I cant see it, based on the fact that I have been here for almost 24 years and to be honest BASC has never been in a stronger position, nor has it ever had as high a membership number and the Council of elected members and the Senior management team have never worked more closely and productively than they are doing now. Add to that the huge increase in team working with some of the other leading organisations. I accept fully that in the last 24 years I have never seen shooting come under such sustained pressure, and I understand your anger an frustrations, but although we may disagree on some issues and points, we are all on the same side and we all have a 'common enemy' so we will achieve much more by working together than fighting among ourselves.

There you have it gents ! No big problems with the association at all in fact they’ve NEVER been in a stronger position !
Thank you David I needed a giggle today

 

[kes]

Whether we like it or not shooting in all forms is under pressure from all angles. We as shooters know that what we do is necessary and provides benefits in numerous ways, we do not need convincing.
What we do need to do is stick together and applaude all those who are trying to help and support them whenever we can.
I think we will also have to accept that the legislation governing our actjvities will always be under pressures to change. Our world is now more visible and open to all to see and comment upon, we can't avoid it.
I think that we have already lost the argument with medical declarations, we are going to pay for them, what we now need to do as suggested by other in reply to this post is try and get the best deal we can, I suggest the following:-

1 We need a national format to provide the medical declaration, to my mind this would be better done by applicants rafher than the police licensing bodies. There is no reason that a nationally agreed medical declaration form can't be provided by applicants as part of the process.

2. There needs to be a nationally agreed cost of GP's providing this service. The issue of non coterminous certificates could be easily resolved by the inclusion of shotguns on firearms certs leaving shotguns only as a seperate cert. Less cost and bureaucracy.

3. Try and negoiate other benefits as part of the process such as moderators, nationally agreed service standards for licence provision, rewriting of certain sections of the act that allow different interpretation by different forces, in effect by us agreeing to fund these changes let's get something for our money and applaude our brilliamt politicians for thinking of it???????

Whether they admit it or not BASC tried this and failed - it does not run with the grain of Police thinking or rather prejudice so I would counter - contest everything unless the public or we benefit - we have done nothing wrong as the stats amply prove. When thinking about paying more remember how you got into the sport and how simple and reasonably priced it was - there is a reason for making it more complex and expensive - our representatives need to fight not concede with dubious benefits.

 

[Orion]

3. Try and negoiate other benefits as part of the process ........

Can you give an example of a positive benefit to shooters that has come with any firearms legislation in the last 50 years? *

I doubt the HO or NPCC would comprehend the term.

* Expanding ammo being removed from S5 doesn’t count as it simply corrected previous bad legislation.

 

[enfieldspares]

Actually a few. Like what Romans did for the Monty Pythons back in Judea. Sorry Orion! Couldn't resists that.

Coterminous FAC and SGC.
Estate rifles,
The seventy-two hour loan for a shotgun.
E-Mail notification of acquisitions, disposals or transfers.

BUT! And here's the point. Past gains are past gains.

Today is 2019! Not then. But now.

And you are right to take upset and umbrage and, as I am, and others, to be disappointed as to how what is happening now is not being challenged.

 

[David63]

Dear all
You can do as Conor asked and join in with the consultation response or you can keep having a pop at BASC on this forum, which ever you think is best for Shooting.
Whether or not you agree with all of the decisions BASC have made, I can't honestly see any other organisation we work alongside taking a different tack.
Sustaining shooting is what we aim for, increasing participation on shooting is what we aim for, maintaining high standards is what we aim for, and that's what we intend to deliver.
As I have said countless times before BASC is run by the Executive Directors under the overall strategic management of the elected BASC members on Council.
If you are members and want to engage with BASC staff or Council you are free to do so, if you want to stand for election to Council you are free to do so, but ultimately BASC is run by the due process of the Constitution.
Feedback on forums such as this is useful of course and I thank you for it.

 

[Brno2e]

There you have it gents ! No big problems with the association at all in fact they’ve NEVER been in a stronger position !
Thank you David I needed a giggle today

Stronger position financially or the number of bums on seats in the office ?