reloader54
Well-Known Member
"I was trying to show my kinder side"Now that's a first "with respect"
BASC response to Firearms Licensing Guidance Consultation
- Thread starter Conor O'Gorman
- Start date
Benelli m2
Well-Known Member
It will get a lo worse as soon as police realises that this made up crap is not working
They will find other ways to empty your cabinet's
My forecast is
You are allowed one shotgun and one rifle they must be kept at a rfd ammo you may hold 2 boxes of 12 gauge and 50 bullets that is your limit for the year
Laugh if you like but it will be reality sooner than later
They will find other ways to empty your cabinet's
My forecast is
You are allowed one shotgun and one rifle they must be kept at a rfd ammo you may hold 2 boxes of 12 gauge and 50 bullets that is your limit for the year
Laugh if you like but it will be reality sooner than later
reloader54
Well-Known Member
Orion
Well-Known Member
I heard they were going to make ginger people give up all their guns.
Ed Sheehan was apparently an early casualty when he couldn’t provide evidence to the local Planning Authority that his pond/swimming pool wouldn’t pose an unacceptable ricochet risk.
Rumour has it they want shotgun to be treated like section 1 i.e. each gun must be justified and variations when you sell/buy one.
I think this idea has been on the Home Office's back-burner at least since the 1973 Green Paper on firearms control.
reloader54
Well-Known Member
do you think "a one certificate for all" concept is a good idea? with beneficial "tweaks" to suit ?
The one worthwhile freedom which remains is to have any shotguns you wish.
A shooting man will want SBS an O/U, maybe a magnum for wildfowl. He might have a 'trophy weapon' an old and revered shotgun or from an old manufacturer of note. Some like 12's a lot like 20's some have original .410's from their early days, many game shots use 28's, youngsters often start with a single barrel which is retained for sentimental reason, 16 bores are a gun I have. Why should anyone need to justify this lot - they are secure - as they must be.
It is high time the weapon is regarded as incidental. It is, was and always will be the person using the weapon which needs the closest scrutiny and in that area, on simple issues which should not have gone unnoticed, the police have failed, time and again. The existing system is adequate when used properly and supervised correctly.
I would favour a basic course run by shooting people to train people young and older in their first use, as fathers and grandfathers used to do. They used their weapons in anger and knew the effects far better than many today. A single course for safety in use of rifles and shotguns separately would be useful. Many clay grounds do this already and will refuse unsafe first timers.
Time we all concentrated on what will make apublic - safety difference not salving the public conscience with meaningless measures designed to reassure but which in fact are punitive and do not achieve any intelligence-led objective.
The first people to train nationally are FEO's to eradicate post code lotteries then new shooters. If we were asked on board we could help - this way we have to fight for what we believe in with one hand tied behind our back and the police taking advantage of that.
Sorry, rant over.
A shooting man will want SBS an O/U, maybe a magnum for wildfowl. He might have a 'trophy weapon' an old and revered shotgun or from an old manufacturer of note. Some like 12's a lot like 20's some have original .410's from their early days, many game shots use 28's, youngsters often start with a single barrel which is retained for sentimental reason, 16 bores are a gun I have. Why should anyone need to justify this lot - they are secure - as they must be.
It is high time the weapon is regarded as incidental. It is, was and always will be the person using the weapon which needs the closest scrutiny and in that area, on simple issues which should not have gone unnoticed, the police have failed, time and again. The existing system is adequate when used properly and supervised correctly.
I would favour a basic course run by shooting people to train people young and older in their first use, as fathers and grandfathers used to do. They used their weapons in anger and knew the effects far better than many today. A single course for safety in use of rifles and shotguns separately would be useful. Many clay grounds do this already and will refuse unsafe first timers.
Time we all concentrated on what will make apublic - safety difference not salving the public conscience with meaningless measures designed to reassure but which in fact are punitive and do not achieve any intelligence-led objective.
The first people to train nationally are FEO's to eradicate post code lotteries then new shooters. If we were asked on board we could help - this way we have to fight for what we believe in with one hand tied behind our back and the police taking advantage of that.
Sorry, rant over.
reloader54
Well-Known Member
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
BASC's response was submitted today. The Home Office proposals could lead to the most significant change to firearms licensing in 20 years. Tomorrow afternoon we will publish our response with a summary of key issues and I hope that this will encourage anyone in this forum who has yet to respond to the consultation to do so. The consultation closes at 11.45pm on 17 Sept.
Benelli m2
Well-Known Member
Sounds very worrying to me
It makes me a little anxious, given their recent form.
I'm going to resist being very worried, though, until I've checked that the actual response warrants it.
Benelli m2
Well-Known Member
Hey **** we are getting a 10 year licence
Or is it a 10 year sentence for holding a legall firearm
Or is it a 10 year sentence for holding a legall firearm
Well the IOPC appeal document is about done and I have another meeting this Friday evening with my MP just to update him.
Waiting to read basc response to the consultation on statutory guidance, then expect to file the appeal next week.
Thinking also of trying to arrange a meeting with Kent PCC to discuss the original local resolution response and the reason for the appeal.
May all come to nothing at the end of the day but it won’t be for the lack of trying and what’s that saying, it is better to have tried and failed then not tried at all, a lesson some orgs could do with learning.
Waiting to read basc response to the consultation on statutory guidance, then expect to file the appeal next week.
Thinking also of trying to arrange a meeting with Kent PCC to discuss the original local resolution response and the reason for the appeal.
May all come to nothing at the end of the day but it won’t be for the lack of trying and what’s that saying, it is better to have tried and failed then not tried at all, a lesson some orgs could do with learning.
Basc response is at
basc.org.uk
Firearms licensing consultation - BASC
Home Office Consultation on Statutory Firearms Licensing The Home Office wants to introduce statutory firearms licensing guidance for England, Wales and Scotland that will lead to even more chaos and confusion for everyone involved. A consultation on the proposals ended on 17 September 2019...
basc.org.uk
Well, having read that it has more backbone than much of the BASC stuff I have read previously.
However, it is eminently ignorable and my guess is it will therefore be ignored.
The stable door is being closed after the horse has bolted.
I will discuss my view with Mr O'Gorman but from this consultation response I can see why BASC did not not use JR (hope rather than sound legal advice springs eternal) but not the justification for that lack of action (their members interests come first everytime - influence is won in many ways but fighting is best).
In truth JR would have been a far stronger signal than this consultation response, it would have confirmed the action was beyond the scope of the HO Guidance which is now being amended to take account of the failure to consult on changes to the current HO Guidance which formerly could not be justified and was challengeable therefore.
One could be forgiven for believing that BASC is looking to re-seat itself at the table, with its casual support for the NPCC firearms lead. The strongest word in this consultation is 'disingenuous'. Much more could have been made of the lack of statistics to justify ANY change.
I would have concluded that the proposed change in Guidance to statutory is to close the stable door on the legal horse which has fled - JR should, and in my view could have returned the offending nag far quicker with far less likelihood it would remain at large - as is likely with this proposal.
I am mortified that the opportunity for JR was lost/ignored/passed -up in favour of 'retaining a seat'. The Police do not care how they achieve their aim of reduction in the numbers of privately held firearms, unlike those they punish with non enacted 'laws' made at the Police Chiefs Parliament.
I am disgusted with the police for proposing this, believe the Home Office to be complicit in a breach of natural justice and lament BASC's late return to reality.
I'll talk to Connor but for me BASC is dying its up to Connor to convince me it is not actually dead and still speaking.
However, it is eminently ignorable and my guess is it will therefore be ignored.
The stable door is being closed after the horse has bolted.
I will discuss my view with Mr O'Gorman but from this consultation response I can see why BASC did not not use JR (hope rather than sound legal advice springs eternal) but not the justification for that lack of action (their members interests come first everytime - influence is won in many ways but fighting is best).
In truth JR would have been a far stronger signal than this consultation response, it would have confirmed the action was beyond the scope of the HO Guidance which is now being amended to take account of the failure to consult on changes to the current HO Guidance which formerly could not be justified and was challengeable therefore.
One could be forgiven for believing that BASC is looking to re-seat itself at the table, with its casual support for the NPCC firearms lead. The strongest word in this consultation is 'disingenuous'. Much more could have been made of the lack of statistics to justify ANY change.
I would have concluded that the proposed change in Guidance to statutory is to close the stable door on the legal horse which has fled - JR should, and in my view could have returned the offending nag far quicker with far less likelihood it would remain at large - as is likely with this proposal.
I am mortified that the opportunity for JR was lost/ignored/passed -up in favour of 'retaining a seat'. The Police do not care how they achieve their aim of reduction in the numbers of privately held firearms, unlike those they punish with non enacted 'laws' made at the Police Chiefs Parliament.
I am disgusted with the police for proposing this, believe the Home Office to be complicit in a breach of natural justice and lament BASC's late return to reality.
I'll talk to Connor but for me BASC is dying its up to Connor to convince me it is not actually dead and still speaking.
Chasey
Well-Known Member
Excuse my ignorance but how would the GP know they were a firearms holder?
I had assumed my GP only found out when I requested a letter?
By the By its now compulsory in Kent. No GP letter no FAC No argument
My GP charged me £30.00
Advice to BSAC: Limit the information requested to specific conditions which we would surely all accept could influence the decision
Fix the fee at say £25 - £30.00
My feeling is, we need to know people are mentally fit to own a fire arm. But on the other hand, I don't want to suffer alone with depression for fear going to get help would mean I loose my FAC. That could make the depression much worse and result in the very thing they are trying to avoid.
If you haven't had a period depression at least once in your life, I doubt if you have lived much
Tough one both ways I supose
Chasey, all of what you say is sensible, if you read back their is a lot of excellent information in this thread.
The GP report process is complex with no simple unified way forward and the fee can vary considerably.
Your GP will know you have firearms if you applied or renewed your certificate since April 2016 after your certificate is granted the Police inform your GP that you own firearms and request a marker be placed in your medical records.
But not all GPs have cooperated in this.
Also If you start to suffer with any of the relevant medical conditions or illness listed on the application form you have a duty to notify the Police, if you do not and it comes to their attention you will certainly lose your firearms as the chief officer will deem you no longer a fit and proper person to own them for failing to inform them.
The GP I believe also has a duty to inform the DVLA if you suffer certain conditions and drive.
However your medical health should always come before owning firearms and appropriate help obtained.
The GP report process is complex with no simple unified way forward and the fee can vary considerably.
Your GP will know you have firearms if you applied or renewed your certificate since April 2016 after your certificate is granted the Police inform your GP that you own firearms and request a marker be placed in your medical records.
But not all GPs have cooperated in this.
Also If you start to suffer with any of the relevant medical conditions or illness listed on the application form you have a duty to notify the Police, if you do not and it comes to their attention you will certainly lose your firearms as the chief officer will deem you no longer a fit and proper person to own them for failing to inform them.
The GP I believe also has a duty to inform the DVLA if you suffer certain conditions and drive.
However your medical health should always come before owning firearms and appropriate help obtained.
Similar threads
