BASC statement on Home Office proposals

[kes]

Which organisation you join is absolutely up to you, all have different packages and benefits.
The CA of which I am long standing member have a very broad remit, BASC more focussed on shooting.
I do not think I have ever ignored you and I have always tried to help members of this forum when I can

David
No-one is suggesting you are directly responsible (I would say) but you pass on BASC's statements - a lot of which are not well received. You are not to blame for that (in my view) but BASC has an awful lot of ground to make up, considering where it should be, for what it is supposed to be.

 

[enfieldspares]

David I think it useful to have yourself on here. I do try not to BASC BASH.

I am just disappointed that there isn't the appetite to takes to a Judicial Review for the reasons that I have explained. Four years or so ago Staffordshire Police had a policy of refusing to issue s7 authority on FACs for historic pistols but, AFAIK, they were threatened with Judicial Review and the mere threat of this caused them to relent and back down.

Staffordshire could refuse some s7, but it could not APPLY that blanket response across the board to allow it to refuse all. I suspect that would be the same with any attempt by Lincolnshires to maintain this blanket across the board medical requirement. As I have written there's no guarantee that the Police and Crime Commissioner for Lincolnshire would authorise Lincolnshire Police spending that money. So it would IMHO still have been worthwhile to pursue the matter.

As said individually this failure will now cost your members much more over their future lifetime of shooting. Finally...and this is my last word. What was the advice given on how much it would have cost BASC to in fact actually take it to Judicial Review?

 

[David63]

If someone feels they are ignored by a BASC team, it will be unintentional, but let me know and I will try to help sort it out.
The legal advice at the moment is to focus on a targeted political resolution and keep legal action in reserve.

 

[kes]

If someone feels they are ignored by a BASC team, it will be unintentional, but let me know and I will try to help sort it out.
The legal advice at the moment is to focus on a targeted political resolution and keep legal action in reserve.

David - who decides that ? If legal action is possible at all with a reasonable chance of success or even just failing, most people would say - do it. We are all sick of being dictated to and even a marker of gross discontent would be well regarded.
You have to admit if legal action is possible, those who are trying to end shooting should be subject to it - they think we will roll over and TBVH BASC needs to show any teeth it has left.
Whilst money should never be wasted. BASC has enough to pursue this with vigour. If this course is a Council decision, then I would say they are completely out of touch with its members.

 

[David63]

Ultimately BASC Council as elected by the members is the answer to your first question, supported by the CEO as per the Constitution
Legal action is not the only or indeed first option. Looking at an individual level, in the past 12 months we have taken legal action in just over 70 cases to support members with firearms appeals, but have had equal success in many more cases when other avenues have been perused and legal action only resorted to when all else has failed.
We are all in this together, BASC member or not, we all want the best possible solution, we all want to see shooting thrive, let's work together
David

 

[kes]

Ultimately BASC Council as elected by the members is the answer to your first question, supported by the CEO as per the Constitution
Legal action is not the only or indeed first option. Looking at an individual level, in the past 12 months we have taken legal action in just over 70 cases to support members with firearms appeals, but have had equal success in many more cases when other avenues have been perused and legal action only resorted to when all else has failed.
We are all in this together, BASC member or not, we all want the best possible solution, we all want to see shooting thrive, let's work together
David

Arguably David, for shooting overall, non of the legal actions BASC has taken previously are anything like as important as the one which is now being advocated by quite a number of members. I suspect BASC has NEVER before referred to a QC for an opinion - BASC knows this is critical. What we are hearing, even now seems like 'spin'.
You are right we are all in this together, I have written to my MP, he has written to the Home Office. I have written to the Permanent Secretary at the Home Office and also to Amber Rudd who may still be Home Secretary.
All I am asking is for BASC to do the equivalent. I have asked whether 'Guidance' envisaged by enabling legislation has any legal derivation, as clearly interpretations are possible, in conflict with the enabling legislation. we shall see what I get. Determination and grit are not what we see from BASC and since BASC is supposedly at the 'top' of the lobbying/professional/funded tree, the effort so far is paltry. - my last comment.

 

[David63]

I will happily give more detail of our lobbying thus far next week, you will see it is far from paltry. Never the less what we have done in the last few weeks is just the start, and we will be encouraging and helping members and others to join in the campaign, together we have the best prospect of the best outcome

 

[kes]

For information only - I have yet to receive my reply from the HO.

Six months ago, the High Court in Ali v London Borough of Newham [2012] EWHC 2970 (Admin) (30 October 2012) ruled on the status of a piece of non-statutory guidance: "The Department for Transport has produced guidance on the use of tactile paving to assist the visually impaired. The national guidance was developed in conjunction with and with the endorsement of Guide Dogs for the Blind and the RNIB."
So the guidance emanated from the executive, with the input of non-government expertise. The court ruled it had to be followed:
"As to the principal contest between the parties, namely, the status and effect of non-statutory guidance, I recognise some force in [counsel’s contrary] submission that the court should be circumspect and careful so as to avoid converting what is a non-binding guidance into, in effect, mandatory rules. To do so would tend to subvert the intention of the guidance and would risk undermining the autonomy of the primary decision maker upon whom Parliament has conferred ultimate responsibility for discharging the function in question. However, this does seem to me to be yet another area which bears out Lord Steyn’s famous dictum that “in law, context is everything”.
"In my view, the weight that should be given to particular guidance depends upon the specific context in which the guidance has been produced. In particular (without intending to create an exhaustive list) I believe that it is necessary to give due regard to the authorship of the guidance, the quality and intensity of the work done in the production of the guidance, the extent to which the (possibly competing) interests of those who are likely to be affected by the guidance have been recognised and weighed, the importance of any more general public policy that the guidance has sought to promote, and the express terms of the guidance itself. In my view, it would be unwise for the court to descend into the intrinsic merits of the guidance, unless it was seriously contended that it was unlawful or very obviously defective." [my emphasis]
The caselaw has arrived at a significant point in relation to non-statutory guidance: we may be bound by guidance because it is authoritative and expert, rather than because of its label.


Let us hope the QC takes this on board.

 

[FrenchieBoy]

As the statement clearly reads, political action is the best route at this stage. And that is exactly what we will do, building on the work that has already taken place and developing this further, and calling on shooters to join the political campaign and do their bit along with BASC, more details will be available of course and I will post on here when I can

That's all well and good David but what if this so called "political action" (Whatever that Political Action involves) comes to nothing? What if anything will BASC and all the other "Shooting Organisations" do then? Will they just expect their members to say "OK, if that's the case we'll just roll over and accept it and continue to pay our rather high membership fees so that the fat cats at the top can get even fatter at the members expense while we the members don't seem to be getting anything in return". (In saying that I am referring to all of the Shooting organisations and not just BASC)

I'm sorry David but it seems to me that BASC (And quite likely all of the other "shooting organisations") just sat on their back sides while this happened rather than trying to fight it as soon as the fist sign of this fiasco started. Maybe if "action" had been taken sooner to nip this in the bud then things might not have even reached this stage!
I'm not really into BASC (Or and other shooting organisation) bashing but it does seem that so far they have all let shooters down big time on this one!

Just as an after thought - What about all of these so called "Shooting Organisations" getting together as one major unified and very large body to fight this. Surely if all of these organisations that claim to have their shooting members best interests at heart took action together they would have a much louder voice that the government would have to listen to!

 

[Greymaster]

For information only - I have yet to receive my reply from the HO.

Six months ago, the High Court in Ali v London Borough of Newham [2012] EWHC 2970 (Admin) (30 October 2012) ruled on the status of a piece of non-statutory guidance: "The Department for Transport has produced guidance on the use of tactile paving to assist the visually impaired. The national guidance was developed in conjunction with and with the endorsement of Guide Dogs for the Blind and the RNIB."
So the guidance emanated from the executive, with the input of non-government expertise. The court ruled it had to be followed:
"As to the principal contest between the parties, namely, the status and effect of non-statutory guidance, I recognise some force in [counsel’s contrary] submission that the court should be circumspect and careful so as to avoid converting what is a non-binding guidance into, in effect, mandatory rules. To do so would tend to subvert the intention of the guidance and would risk undermining the autonomy of the primary decision maker upon whom Parliament has conferred ultimate responsibility for discharging the function in question. However, this does seem to me to be yet another area which bears out Lord Steyn’s famous dictum that “in law, context is everything”.
"In my view, the weight that should be given to particular guidance depends upon the specific context in which the guidance has been produced. In particular (without intending to create an exhaustive list) I believe that it is necessary to give due regard to the authorship of the guidance, the quality and intensity of the work done in the production of the guidance, the extent to which the (possibly competing) interests of those who are likely to be affected by the guidance have been recognised and weighed, the importance of any more general public policy that the guidance has sought to promote, and the express terms of the guidance itself. In my view, it would be unwise for the court to descend into the intrinsic merits of the guidance, unless it was seriously contended that it was unlawful or very obviously defective." [my emphasis]
The caselaw has arrived at a significant point in relation to non-statutory guidance: we may be bound by guidance because it is authoritative and expert, rather than because of its label.


Let us hope the QC takes this on board.

Extremely relevant.

 

[finnbear270]

I was willing to step one pace forward over my recent difficulties with Cheshire’s licensing office, I had already booked all my firearms in with an RFD for safe storage, But due to some mediation from BASC firearms team the issue was resolved, .... granted, only by my willingness to give unfettered access to my medical records, as I have no medical impediment to the issue at hand, I can only hope the suggestion of a volunteer in Lincs might give a proper resolution to the problem under discussion.

 

[Greymaster]

I was willing to step one pace forward over my recent difficulties with Cheshire’s licensing office, I had already booked all my firearms in with an RFD for safe storage, But due to some mediation from BASC firearms team the issue was resolved, .... granted, only by my willingness to give unfettered access to my medical records, as I have no medical impediment to the issue at hand, I can only hope the suggestion of a volunteer in Lincs might give a proper resolution to the problem under discussion.

I think the Lincolnshire issue will be the first test in this existential crisis for BASC. BASC has to take Lincolnshire police on through the courts if necessary on behalf of a Lincolnshire shooter, and then I would expect Lincs police to back down under political pressure. The Police & Crime Commissioner will not want to authorise the expenditure. The gambit no doubt backed by the NPCC needs to be fought to the bitter end. Lincolnshire shooters should write to their PCC, Marc Jones, just to let him know there are votes in this. He got elected in 2016 on the basis of 2nd round votes, so he will be sensitive to losing votes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-35993244


https://lincolnshire-pcc.gov.uk/your-pcc/contact-marc-jones/

The other two issues means taking on the HO through the courts once Hurd has moved to impose GP fees, and Licensing fee increases.

 

[kes]

Having read the Newham case above, it seems to me that unless 'anyone' who departs from National Guidance takes full account of the reason why National Guidance was framed and mitigates the effect of NOT following the Guidance then they are found, as in the case of Newham their own Guidance is ILLEGAL.

I am not a QC (not bright enough) but it seems to me, as in the Newham Case, a judicial review yields MORE than a verdict - it takes account of the practice being used and that means, in this case, the practice (charging for GP's services) is outside the National Guidance as currently framed.

 

[rodp]

Having read the Newham case above, it seems to me that unless 'anyone' who departs from National Guidance takes full account of the reason why National Guidance was framed and mitigates the effect of NOT following the Guidance then they are found, as in the case of Newham their own Guidance is ILLEGAL.

I am not a QC (not bright enough) but it seems to me, as in the Newham Case, a judicial review yields MORE than a verdict - it takes account of the practice being used and that means, in this case, the practice (charging for GP's services) is outside the National Guidance as currently framed.

But have you considered that Political pressure is probably far far cheaper than employing the services of the legal profession ? Perhaps it's a case of wanting to keep substantial funds in the pot for "other things" ?

 

[enfieldspares]

Political pressure is probably far far cheaper than employing the services of the legal profession ?

Sadly incorrect. Effective, so properly funded, dynamic political pressure is hugely expensive. Use the wrong people...like shooting did in 1988 and in 1996 by using the same failed lobbying company...and you've wasted vast sums.

 

[kes]

But have you considered that Political pressure is probably far far cheaper than employing the services of the legal profession ? Perhaps it's a case of wanting to keep substantial funds in the pot for "other things" ?

I wonder whether your comment is 'tongue in cheek'.
For my part, I believe a 'stunning reversal' in the lazy (and probably illegal) interpretation of Guidance would send a very, very strong message. Somewhat more valuable to the shooting community than the current 'we continue to work..building on the work that has already taken place and developing this further -(Previous BASC post)..' That is not new and as such probably , as previously, ineffective.
Judicial review - go to court - the political route is great if the politicians have a conscience and a 'moral view'. I think that says it all when it comes to action on this issue.

 

[kes]

Please see previous post -

This on the ten year cert and other things from BASC -

"Our firearms team have been working with the HO for some time now, trying to make the licensing system easier for all. One suggestion from the HO is to alter the layout of the forms, hence our asking which form you think is best.

What next? On line forms? Automatic scanning with OCR like with passports? Well more meetings are to be held in the next few weeks, and we will let you know what happens."

Nothing much and so to Durham, Lincolnshire and the reneging on Guidance. Where next ?

 

[jimbo1984]

Please see previous post -

This on the ten year cert and other things from BASC -

"Our firearms team have been working with the HO for some time now, trying to make the licensing system easier for all. One suggestion from the HO is to alter the layout of the forms, hence our asking which form you think is best.

What next? On line forms? Automatic scanning with OCR like with passports? Well more meetings are to be held in the next few weeks, and we will let you know what happens."

Nothing much and so to Durham, Lincolnshire and the reneging on Guidance. Where next ?

South Yorkshire are doing it too now

 

[JTO]

Perhaps it's a case of wanting to keep substantial funds in the pot for "other things" ?

Like their own pensions?

 

[rodp]

I wonder whether your comment is 'tongue in cheek'.
For my part, I believe a 'stunning reversal' in the lazy (and probably illegal) interpretation of Guidance would send a very, very strong message. Somewhat more valuable to the shooting community than the current 'we continue to work..building on the work that has already taken place and developing this further -(Previous BASC post)..' That is not new and as such probably , as previously, ineffective.
Judicial review - go to court - the political route is great if the politicians have a conscience and a 'moral view'. I think that says it all when it comes to action on this issue.

Correct.

Like their own pensions?

Far be it from me to suggest such a thing