BASC response to Firearms Licensing Guidance Consultation

[reiver]

The QC’s advice was that political action was the better route in the short term.

So why not let us members see the written advice seeing as it is our money you are spending/ or wasting ? Or are you just peeing down our backs and telling us it is raining again !!!

 

[User00025]

So why not let us members see the written advice seeing as it is our money you are spending/ or wasting ? Or are you just peeing down our backs and telling us it is raining again !!!

Told you my friend its a CON, look at the name, they are blowing smoke up the members fundamentals.

 

[Everlong]

So why not let us members see the written advice seeing as it is our money you are spending/ or wasting ? Or are you just peeing down our backs and telling us it is raining again !!!

They can't because quite clearly it doesn't exist.

 

[Orion]

We are challenging it by writing to the Police and Crime Commissioner, Chief Constable, and local MPs to raise our concerns about the change in policy.

No direct action then. Hardy a ‘challenge’ if it consists solely of ‘raising concerns’ about a policy is it? I’m certain the CC & PCC will give it the consideration it deserves.

SNAFU for shooters as usual.

 

[merlin]

We are challenging it by writing to the Police and Crime Commissioner, Chief Constable, and local MPs to raise our concerns about the change in policy.

....and what stance has been taken by BASC? What wording has been used by BASC? I am a BASC member, and as such feel that there needs to be full transparency of communications such as this - after all, isn't BASC there not only for, but because of, its members?

I am becoming increasingly exasperated with the seeming unwillingness to grasp the nettle, or if you are doing, to give sight of that. Certain posts give an increasing perception that there isn't really much of an appetite to get on the front foot (....and the occasional tone of condescension doesn't give people the comfort they ought to have that there is much of an appetite to engage with what is intended to be constructive criticism in the majority of cases). Why not publish the QC evidence - if it is under a non-disclosure agreement, then say so; getting into elliptical discussions about what advice was given is not helpful, and is actually counter-productive, shooters want to see for themselves. What are the Political Officers doing each day - I saw that BASC had written to 80 moorland MP's outlining the benefits of grouse shooting - why only those 80, why not every MP? What was the rationale behind not engaging with every MP..? It is things like this that make me roll my eyes..... I had a very lengthy discussion with one of your colleagues (Paul W) over the GL fiasco, and told him that BASC seemed to be increasingly out of touch with grass-roots shooters, and in a perverse way I hoped the GL issue would light a fire under BASC... they had a mountain to climb, but with a new Chief Exec, had the chance to do so............... I am not seeing much evidence of that seismic change, and the window of opportunity for BASC to convince me why I ought to remain a member is rapidly shrinking.

Get some fire in your belly, acknowledge that things need to be done differently, give shooters reasons to believe.

None of those 3 are unrealistic or incapable of being achieved . But all 3 are needed.

 

[Liveonce]

So what is getting up peoples backs then
The thought of having to pay your doctor or the thought of losing your guns if the practice refuses to do the forms?

You do not lose your guns if your own GP refuses. You will be told by the police to go get a s GDPR SAR printout of your medical report/history from your own go which Legally they must give you, then go and find another GP, any GP (an alternative) who is willing to review the printout and send a letter as per the example the police have on their website which asks if you have EVER suffered from certain medical conditions/illness.

So you have the printout and opportunity to amend/retype it, you take it to a GP you have never met and will never meet again, or may be in five years. He spends a few minutes looking at it and then emails the police.
And if it is like my printout the online records are only for 1/3 of my life so 2/3 are still on paper held by my own/registered GP so totally unavailable to the alternative GP. But hey the alternative GP “signs” to say you have never had one of the medical conditions. And as it is mandatory for the GP report the opportunity for fraud or and error is now massive ie for Kent per year an approximate increase of around 115 under the HOG 2016 to nearly 6000 but the GP is getting rich and in the event of mass shooting the Chief Constable will be on TV holding the medical report letter in his hand shouting not my fault !

But not a problem according to the response to my complaint against the chief constable of Kent made to the crime commissioner and investigated by an independent police inspector.
Because they said the alternative GP would compare the printout to a national central medical database and spot any errors and see your entire life’s medical history.
Which is total BS as no such national database exists according to primary care support England at best it will be 2025 before it does and 2022 before all records are digitalised within all GP surgeries but these dates keep slipping.
Then their is the issue of a GP who is not your own GP having access to your medical records for non medical care that requires your consent the consent of the data controller who is your registered GP and possible other issues.
Their is the ability for you to share your online medical records with a third party but again currently they are very unlikely to be your complete medical history.
Not even a hospital can currently access you online medical records for direct medical care without your consent, keep spreading the BS Kent.

Hence seriously considering an appeal to the IOPC.

P.s the only records PCSE does keep on a centralised database is for the dead they are kept for ten years perhaps it these Kent are using giving how long it takes them to process an application.

Sorry for the long posts.

 

[kes]

Well, now we are getting to the truth - BASC is ineffectual - time for us to take over maybe ?
The only semi commercial organisation which is growing, despite doing incredibly little. Yea , right.

 

[Dalua]

So what is getting up peoples backs then
The thought of having to pay your doctor or the thought of losing your guns if the practice refuses to do the forms?

I imagine both of those points are rather annoying.

However, the questions that need to be asked under the current circumstances are IMO as follow:

1. The police have routinely asked for and been given applicants' authority to contact GPs for at least two decades. Why is it now considered proportionate not to issue a certificate until the information from the GP is on hand?

2. The Firearms Act says that certificates are issued on payment of a fee set by Parliament. There is no provision in the Act, nor is there any precedent historically, for the Police being able to increase the effective cost to the applicant of issuing a certificate by insisting that the applicant before grant furnish the FLD with reports of any kind. As firearms ownership is a right, and the statutory fees must in that context be reasonable and proportionate, are there grounds to challenge the Police on the basis that effectively increasing the cost makes it less reasonable and proportionate than expected under the Firearms Act? This position might be seen as aggravated by the apparent risk that applicants with illnesses/disabilites will end up paying more than those without.

3. It does not seem unreasonable for the police to be in touch with applicants' GPs, if that is shown to be a proportionate measure in the safe adminsitration of the Firearms Act. If it is a propotionate measure, should the FLD not be funded adequately to pay for the work required from GPs?

That's it, really.

 

[Benelli m2]

You do not lose your guns if your own GP refuses. You will be told by the police to go get a s GDPR SAR printout of your medical report/history from your own go which Legally they must give you, then go and find another GP, any GP (an alternative) who is willing to review the printout and send a letter as per the example the police have on their website which asks if you have EVER suffered from certain medical conditions/illness.

So you have the printout and opportunity to amend/retype it, you take it to a GP you have never met and will never meet again, or may be in five years. He spends a few minutes looking at it and then emails the police.
And if it is like my printout the online records are only for 1/3 of my life so 2/3 are still on paper held by my own/registered GP so totally unavailable to the alternative GP. But hey the alternative GP “signs” to say you have never had one of the medical conditions. And as it is mandatory for the GP report the opportunity for fraud or and error is now massive ie for Kent per year an approximate increase of around 115 under the HOG 2016 to nearly 6000 but the GP is getting rich and in the event of mass shooting the Chief Constable will be on TV holding the medical report letter in his hand shouting not my fault !

But not a problem according to the response to my complaint against the chief constable of Kent made to the crime commissioner and investigated by an independent police inspector.
Because they said the alternative GP would compare the printout to a national central medical database and spot any errors and see your entire life’s medical history.
Which is total BS as no such national database exists according to primary care support England at best it will be 2025 before it does and 2022 before all records are digitalised within all GP surgeries but these dates keep slipping.
Then their is the issue of a GP who is not your own GP having access to your medical records for non medical care that requires your consent the consent of the data controller who is your registered GP and possible other issues.
Their is the ability for you to share your online medical records with a third party but again currently they are very unlikely to be your complete medical history.
Not even a hospital can currently access you online medical records for direct medical care without your consent, keep spreading the BS Kent.

Hence seriously considering an appeal to the IOPC.

P.s the only records PCSE does keep on a centralised database is for the dead they are kept for ten years perhaps it these Kent are using giving how long it takes them to process an application.

Sorry for the long posts.

Thanks for that but the Thames valley police form states that if something goes wrong with the licence holder the it will be the police that takes the blame and not the GP

 

[Benelli m2]

I imagine both of those points are rather annoying.

However, the questions that need to be asked under the current circumstances are IMO as follow:

1. The police have routinely asked for and been given applicants' authority to contact GPs for at least two decades. Why is it now considered proportionate not to issue a certificate until the information from the GP is on hand?

2. The Firearms Act says that certificates are issued on payment of a fee set by Parliament. There is no provision in the Act, nor is there any precedent historically, for the Police being able to increase the effective cost to the applicant of issuing a certificate by insisting that the applicant before grant furnish the FLD with reports of any kind. As firearms ownership is a right, and the statutory fees must in that context be reasonable and proportionate, are there grounds to challenge the Police on the basis that effectively increasing the cost makes it less reasonable and proportionate than expected under the Firearms Act? This position might be seen as aggravated by the apparent risk that applicants with illnesses/disabilites will end up paying more than those without.

3. It does not seem unreasonable for the police to be in touch with applicants' GPs, if that is shown to be a proportionate measure in the safe adminsitration of the Firearms Act. If it is a propotionate measure, should the FLD not be funded adequately to pay for the work required from GPs?

That's it, really.

The renewal forms ask you if you ever had depression etc if you say no to any of these then that should be good enough

 

[Dalua]

Thanks for that but the Thames valley police form states that if something goes wrong with the certificate holder the it will be the police that takes the blame and not the GP

I think there would only be any blame to attribute if the original decision to grant the certificate was unreasonable, or the Police failed to act after grant on information which should have lead to revocation.

If the GP gave incorrect information to the Police leading to an unfit person being granted a certificate, then I think the GP would have a case to answer.

The renewal forms ask you if you ever had depression etc if you say no to any of these then that should be good enough

Well, it certainly used to be until a year or two ago; and that was backed up by applicants giving permission for the FLD to contact the GP if they felt it appropriate.

 

[Liveonce]

The renewal forms ask you if you ever had depression etc if you say no to any of these then that should be good enough

Under HOG 2016 if you declare no relevant medical condition then no GP report was required.
However after the certificate is granted the police will write to your registered GP and request that they place an encoded marks on your medical records that you own firearms, this is for the ongoing monitoring of your health re the relevant conditions. Also the police will request the GP to review your records and within 21days notify them if you do have any. You will then have to explain why you did not declare them and could be in serious trouble.
However not all GPs are engaging in this process either.

Unfortunately TVP have found cases at renewal where applicants had previously not declare a relevant medical condition
How many cases I don’t know but basc might, hence the police do not trust us.

 

[Liveonce]

I imagine both of those points are rather annoying.

However, the questions that need to be asked under the current circumstances are IMO as follow:

1. The police have routinely asked for and been given applicants' authority to contact GPs for at least two decades. Why is it now considered proportionate not to issue a certificate until the information from the GP is on hand?

2. The Firearms Act says that certificates are issued on payment of a fee set by Parliament. There is no provision in the Act, nor is there any precedent historically, for the Police being able to increase the effective cost to the applicant of issuing a certificate by insisting that the applicant before grant furnish the FLD with reports of any kind. As firearms ownership is a right, and the statutory fees must in that context be reasonable and proportionate, are there grounds to challenge the Police on the basis that effectively increasing the cost makes it less reasonable and proportionate than expected under the Firearms Act? This position might be seen as aggravated by the apparent risk that applicants with illnesses/disabilites will end up paying more than those without.

3. It does not seem unreasonable for the police to be in touch with applicants' GPs, if that is shown to be a proportionate measure in the safe adminsitration of the Firearms Act. If it is a propotionate measure, should the FLD not be funded adequately to pay for the work required from GPs?

That's it, really.

1. Yep before HOG 2016 the Police contacted the GP not the applicant but the Police I think did not like that because then they had to pay the fee to the GP, not the applicant.
So say for Kent around 115 application that they had to pay the GP for.

2. Which is probably why they asked the HO when the HOG 2016 was issued to state the applicant had to request the GP report and pay for it.
I think only a Shot gun certificate is a right to own, ie unless the Chief Constable can justify a reason to refuse then he must grant it. A Firearms certificate is only issued if you can justify a use for the firearm and are a fit and proper person etc.

3. Nobody should have a problem with medical intervention in the process but it should be done in a quality way and fair to the applicant. One day when the super massive all singing and dancing medical database is up and running it will be easy but not so at this time.

To me we are in the mess we are for two reasons one because the police do not want to pay for GP reports and funny how the fee is mentioned in the first paragraph of the police medical template letter not the last and the second reason is to cover their backside. So god for bid if a mass shooting happened the CC would be on TV holding the medical report saying not my fault and then the normal reaction would follow in the media to ban yet more guns.

 

[Benelli m2]

Going off the subject I am waiting for this packam creature to see if his successful in the courts banning grouse shooting
And see what the basc does about it you know the mute sound for shooting

 

[Dalua]

I think only a Shot gun certificate is a right to own, ie unless the Chief Constable can justify a reason to refuse then he must grant it. A Firearms certificate is only issued if you can justify a use for the firearm and are a fit and proper person etc.

You're right that there are slightly different requirements of the Police for grant of FAC and SGC, but the Act says of both that 'they shall be granted' if the criteria are met. You don't have to justify anything beyond showing 'good reason' for FAC - in which case, all other things being equal, the CC 'shall grant'.

Both SGC and FAC are called 'certificate' rather than 'licence'- and that is not without its reason; which is why I feel a bullet going through our collective foot every time a fellow-shooter refers to either as a licence.

Additionally, there is a right to appeal to the courts against refusal to grant either certificate.

 

[Benelli m2]

**** me what a load of extriment we are in I have a family from America coming to stay soon I will show this post to him
You can imagin the response a laughing stock

 

[Orion]

Thanks for that but the Thames valley police form states that if something goes wrong with the licence holder the it will be the police that takes the blame and not the GP

It all stems from the EU Weapons Directive 2017 which absolves the medical profession from any liability. Have a look at (11) & (12) here.

 

[kes]

The interesting question is - what are those we are members of doing about any of this - at the moment it seems to be a number of intelligent stalkers saying what might be done or should be done but BASC (for one) fiddles whilst Rome burns around their ears. What about the the agglomerate body they usually say is working for all the different orgs? BFSS or something similar ?

(it will never happen, head in the sand in case it does)

 

[Dalua]

It all stems from the EU Weapons Directive 2017 which absolves the medical profession from any liability. Have a look at (11) & (12) here.

To be fair, I don't think 'not presuming liability' is the same as 'absolving' from any liability. If the GP accurately supplies relevant information to the Police, I can't see how they could be held liable for anything, EU Directive or not. The Police make the decision to grant or not based on the information.

If the information given by a medical practitioner is wrong, I can't see that the EU directive could absolve that practitioner from liability.

 

[Orion]

To be fair, I don't think 'not presuming liability' is the same as 'absolving' from any liability. If the GP accurately supplies relevant information to the Police, I can't see how they could be held liable for anything, EU Directive or not. The Police make the decision to grant or not based on the information.

If the information given by a medical practitioner is wrong, I can't see that the EU directive could absolve that practitioner from liability.

Not sure about that. Para 12 appears to hand a pretty sound ‘get out of jail free’ card to the medicos who might be offering their opinion on an applicant - it’s not just a read through of the medical record that they are asked to provide.