FAO BASC - Medical reports

[David BASC]

I will try once again to spell this out for you in the simplest way I can, so I hope you will understand this time.

 

I am assuming that you have grasped what we are doing at a national level so I won't go over that again.

 

Its is perfectly lawful for the police to ask you for a GP report if there is anything in you application, or anything you say at interview, or if any of your referees state that could lead the police to believe that further checks need to be made to ensure you are safe to be entrusted with a firearm.

 

It is not lawful for the police to send and ask for any additional medical form to be completed with you application or renewal over and above the official form, and you are thus not legally obliged to complete or sent them back.

 

It is not lawful for the police to ask you to go for a GP report if there is nothing on you application form or past forms or any other intelligence that leads them to believe further GP checks are needed.

 

If a person is asked to get a GP report completed they must ask why, and the police must tell them

 

If any member of BASC believes they are unfairly / unlawfully asked to get a GP report they must call us to discuss this, and we will work with that member to uncover exactly what's going on.

 

We will then give that member the best possible advice as what to do next.

 

We will, when ever possible also liaise with the relevant head of the licencing team to uncover what's going on

 

Based on this we can give further advice

 

So far no member, to my knowledge , has been refused due to the advice we have given.

 

At this stage we do not believe a judicial review will make a jot of difference in the short, medium or long term, its if far more likely we will have success with our current national strategy.

 

Of course there will be people on here who will think they have a better idea of how to solve this, and think that the knowledge of BASC staff working on this issue which include: An ex Dep Ch Constable, an Ex Superintendent, an ex firearms licencing manager, and ex firearms enquiry officer supported by two Barristers who are experts in firearms legislation, is insufficient, but I know where my money is.

 

David

[GHE]

I would like to ask - since you seem to have it in for BASC, who are at least doing something - What are SACS, NGO, CA,& CPSA doing about this?

 

But the answer is simple ---sweet ** as usual!!!!

You may be right.

But,from what little I know about most of them,they don't have the resources and they don't claim to represent shooters in general, they tend to specialise in just one area of shooting.

BASC make very grand claims in their advertising, they have a very large membership, high membership fees, royal patronage and are far better placed to make a stand than the other shooting organisations.

 

I think that that's why shooters expect more of them.

 

But, to someone who has extensive professional experience of our legal system and so who reads statements carefully, and sees what is actually promised and committed to (or not), rather than seeing what he wants to see (which is what most people do), it seems to me that BASC are better at dodging direct questions than actually answering them.

 

But I can see that I'm in a minority here.

And anyway, why should I care personally if they don't stand up for shooters, if they allow what little we have left to be eroded away completely over the next few years? I'm an old man, I don't think that their lack of positive action will affect my next renewal, and I doubt whether I will be looking further forward than that.

 

But younger shooters SHOULD care.

[Kes]

You may be right.

But,from what little I know about most of them,they don't have the resources and they don't claim to represent shooters in general, they tend to specialise in just one area of shooting.

BASC make very grand claims in their advertising, they have a very large membership, high membership fees, royal patronage and are far better placed to make a stand than the other shooting organisations.

 

I think that that's why shooters expect more of them.

 

But, to someone who has extensive professional experience of our legal system and so who reads statements carefully, and sees what is actually promised and committed to (or not), rather than seeing what he wants to see (which is what most people do), it seems to me that BASC are better at dodging direct questions than actually answering them.

 

But I can see that I'm in a minority here.

And anyway, why should I care personally if they don't stand up for shooters, if they allow what little we have left to be eroded away completely over the next few years? I'm an old man, I don't think that their lack of positive action will affect my next renewal, and I doubt whether I will be looking further forward than that.

 

But younger shooters SHOULD care.

I would be proud to have written that post - worthy I would call it.

I am seriously impressed GHE- make that minority 2.

[Bazooka Joe]

I would like to ask - since you seem to have it in for BASC, who are at least doing something - What are SACS, NGO, CA,& CPSA doing about this?

 

But the answer is simple ---sweet ** as usual!!!!

 

 

I was at the Kelso Stalking Fair a few weeks ago, & coming from Durham I asked the question at the SACS Stand.

 

Answer was phone us straight away, & if it's not sorted we'll pass it on to our legal team.

 

So, the answer is, SACS will do something about it, cannot speak for the rest though.

[Scully]

Scully, i don't necessarily agree with how things are developing, but I don't take an extremely pessimistic stance either. My approach is to contribute to an organisation, or several, as i feel that my interests are better served by being part of a collective voice.I believed this for years also, but the 'collective voice' has no volume I'm afraid.

 

If i have serious objection to the policies being pursued by those bodies then I will remove my support and seek to do something else, or challenge those policies through the mechanisms open to me through membership. Good luck with that. Akin to ******* into the wind.

 

Being angry at the reality of the world, whether you agree with that reality or not, is just a waste of emotional energy. Agreed, but sitting back and accepting my lot is against my nature I'm afraid. We need to pick the battles to fight that we can win With all due respect that's rubbish. The abolition of the game license is not a victory, and neither is claiming lead shot would by now be banned but for the interjection of BASC. and ultimately it will always be a compromise elsewhere. True. With no real power or real influence we have no choice. We are on the minority side and will always have to compromise more, it is maybe depressing and wrong, but in our society that is where we are.You're correct, that thought is depressing, and I wont accept it. Are you seriously suggesting we sit back, doff our caps with a 'thankee sir' each time we get shafted?

 

Same as people who want drugs that the NHS won't supply, same with people who disagree with public policy around benefits or taxes, etc, etc. With complacent indifference and apathetic acceptance of ones lot in life rather than rocking a few boats we deserve what we get.

[Scully]

 

Of course there will be people on here who will think they have a better idea of how to solve this, and think that the knowledge of BASC staff working on this issue which include: An ex Dep Ch Constable, an Ex Superintendent, an ex firearms licencing manager, and ex firearms enquiry officer supported by two Barristers who are experts in firearms legislation, is insufficient, but I know where my money is.

 

David

They don't have a clue how to 'solve' it David. It was one of these 'ex's whom you hold in such high esteem who brought me up to date with the ongoing issue, and assured me that the interim solution is no solution at all, but yet another compromise, and that the long term prognosis is not good, as I've already mentioned. I know where my money is of best use also, David, and after many years have come to the conclusion that it isn't with BASC unfortunately. A very, very disillusioned and disappointed ex member. I'm out.

[robbiep]

 

 

I was at the Kelso Stalking Fair a few weeks ago, & coming from Durham I asked the question at the SACS Stand.

 

Answer was phone us straight away, & if it's not sorted we'll pass it on to our legal team.

 

So, the answer is, SACS will do something about it, cannot speak for the rest though.

 

I'm pretty sure that the legal team at SACS would then enquire as to exactly what the circumstances were, both from the applicant and the police, before 'doing something about it'. And even then, them starting legal proceedings would be a long way down the road

 

Exactly the same as BASC's approach, I think you'll find.

[David BASC]

I think the SACS legal team would find that the situation in Durham has already been sorted by BASC...we have had face to face meetings with the licencing manager and other senior officers, and he has agreed that although they will continue to send out medical forms, applicants do not need to fill them in and return them, nor will this delay their application or renewal process if the don't.

 

If any FEO in the Durham area tells any of our members differently all they need to do is let us know, together with the name of the FEO and we will get this sorted by a call to the Licencing manager - no need to get lawyers involved...

 

David

Edited May 20, 2014 by David BASC

[GHE]

I think the SACS legal team would find that the situation in Durham has already been sorted by BASC...we have had face to face meetings with the licencing manager and other senior officers, and he has agreed that although they will continue to send out medical forms, applicants do not need to fill them in and return them, nor will this delay their application or renewal process if the don't.

 

If any FEO in the Durham area tells any of our members differently all they need to do is let us know, together with the name of the FEO and we will get this sorted by a call to the Licencing manager - no need to get lawyers involved...

 

David

And how will applicants know that they can safely ignore this form - have you insisted that Durham have given an undertaking to make it clear, in writing, that complying with this request is voluntary? If not, very little will have been achieved because people will still feel that they need to comply and that the request is in fact a demand.

[David BASC]

Yes we instructed Durham to make this clear that complying with this request is voluntary, indeed they go on to say, in the covering letter that goes with the renewal / application forms that it is not a legal requirement to complete the medical form.

 

So perhaps even you may now agree that what BASC has achieved though its face to face meetings at , in this case, constabulary level have been successful...but somehow I doubt you will....

[Scully]

http://forums.shootinguk.co.uk/showthread.php?9095-shotgun-application-past-depression

Make up your own minds on the effect this is having on shooters and shooting.

Edited May 20, 2014 by Scully

[GHE]

Yes we instructed Durham to make this clear that complying with this request is voluntary, indeed they go on to say, in the covering letter that goes with the renewal / application forms that it is not a legal requirement to complete the medical form.

 

So perhaps even you may now agree that what BASC has achieved though its face to face meetings at , in this case, constabulary level have been successful...but somehow I doubt you will....

Au contraire. Praise where praise is due.

 

I just wish that BASC made it possible to praise them more often - and if you ever actually FULLY answer the original question then I will be happy to praise you again, and not even comment on the fact that (so far) there has had to be 160 posts to not get to that point...

[David BASC]

thanks GHE, fair enough

 

David

[wymberley]

I would be proud to have written that post - worthy I would call it.

I am seriously impressed GHE- make that minority 2.

+1=3

[Bazooka Joe]

 

I'm pretty sure that the legal team at SACS would then enquire as to exactly what the circumstances were, both from the applicant and the police, before 'doing something about it'. And even then, them starting legal proceedings would be a long way down the road

 

Exactly the same as BASC's approach, I think you'll find.

 

 

Without doubt,... ...who said different..

 

"I think you'll find"....If you read post 150, I was answering YB assumption, since he was asking a question..

[David BASC]

On a strategic level I think its important that as many organisations as possible do what they can to help get the best result for shooters

Edited May 20, 2014 by David BASC

[bedwards1966]

I would like to ask - since you seem to have it in for BASC, who are at least doing something - What are SACS, NGO, CA,& CPSA doing about this?

 

But the answer is simple ---sweet ** as usual!!!!

 

Perhaps the others are doing nothing, I can think of one organisation who does appear to have a very different attitude to BASC, but I have not asked them what they are doing on this particular issue - I'm not trying to compare the different organisations here. I'm asking 'Britain's largest country shooting organisation' what they are doing about it for the simple reason that they should be in a position to deliver the biggest clout, and they seem to be saying that they're the voice of shooting.

 

 

At this stage we do not believe a judicial review will make a jot of difference in the short, medium or long term, its if far more likely we will have success with our current national strategy.

 

Of course there will be people on here who will think they have a better idea of how to solve this, and think that the knowledge of BASC staff working on this issue which include: An ex Dep Ch Constable, an Ex Superintendent, an ex firearms licencing manager, and ex firearms enquiry officer supported by two Barristers who are experts in firearms legislation, is insufficient, but I know where my money is.

 

David

 

 

They don't have a clue how to 'solve' it David. It was one of these 'ex's whom you hold in such high esteem who brought me up to date with the ongoing issue, and assured me that the interim solution is no solution at all, but yet another compromise, and that the long term prognosis is not good, as I've already mentioned. I know where my money is of best use also, David, and after many years have come to the conclusion that it isn't with BASC unfortunately. A very, very disillusioned and disappointed ex member. I'm out.

 

 

What national strategy - asking nicely in the hope they'll stop doing something that is making them a lot of money?

As Scully says, you (they) don't have a clue how to solve it. A Judicial review would demonstrate two things to the police - that it is not lawful to make any demands, and more importantly, that they will be opposed if they ever try to do something that is not within the rules. That would not only stop this entire thing dead, it would also be a brilliant approach to keeping them in check overall. They will continue to push until they meet actual resistance, ignoring those stood at the side making polite noises hoping they'll stop and listen.

Scully's post gives a great way of viewing these 'experts'. I don't think they know what to do, or if they do it appears that BASC don't have the backbone and commitment to actually do it. Is there no interest in protecting your members, or is there too much fear of making waves?

 

Yes we instructed Durham to make this clear that complying with this request is voluntary, indeed they go on to say, in the covering letter that goes with the renewal / application forms that it is not a legal requirement to complete the medical form.

 

So perhaps even you may now agree that what BASC has achieved though its face to face meetings at , in this case, constabulary level have been successful...but somehow I doubt you will....

 

So this means that one of two things will happen:

People see the letter and ignore it - so why is our money wasted printing them off at all?

People see the letter and, even if they notice that they aren't legally required to supply everything (not all shooters are the most observant of folk when it comes to paperwork), they probably still won't be happy not to send it in the fear that it'll delay their application or result in a no. Many people are of the view that they're almost lucky if the police grant an application, not understanding that the police must grant if certain conditions are met. Are these people really going to refuse to complete it, just in case it does cause difficulties?

 

I'll agree that BASC may have achieved something - stopping Durham from making an actual demand - but the gains from this are limited and, more importantly, this is not the point at which you can sit back and tell the world you've solved it.

 

 

On a strategic level I think its important that as many organisations as possible do what they can to help get the best result for shooters

 

So why aren't you challenging this type of action in such a way that would leave the police knowing that they cannot push the boundaries?

This could be a great opportunity to show that shooters will stand their ground.

[David BASC]

Betawards, may I ask you please why you think that two of the UK's top firearms barristers and an ex Dep Ch Constable have not got a clue how to help solve this situation but you and a couple of others do?

 

You seem to think that the police are making money out of this, and that's why they wont stop - how do you work that out?

 

Do you and others honestly think that a judicial review will make any difference on a national level? No it wont and if you and others cant see why this is so, then I am a little surprised!

Edited May 21, 2014 by David BASC

[GHE]

Obviously the police won't be making any money out of forcing shooters to pay for (unnecessary) medical reports - but they will be saving money, and adding to the costs for shooters.

I don't have any problem with them saving money, although I don't buy their claims that funding cuts are causing them problems - funding cuts are causing problems at front line level, and are reducing the service to the public, but some police forces seem to have more than enough money to appoint extra very senior officers, and I don't see how imposing unlawful new requirements on shooters (however they are dressed up) is going to make any difference to police finances.

 

And the police seem to have limitless funds when they go up against shooters.

What it will do however is to create yet another financial hurdle to shooters, and if I was cynical I might wonder whether this is just another of the steps that some police forces are taking to close down our sports.

We have had pointless and unnecessary new hoops to jump through, created by parliament over the years, and some forces seem to be determined to create new ones not sanctioned by parliament, and this is what BASC should be protecting us from.

 

We already have the situation where some forces have appointed Firearms Licensing Managers who are openly opposed to gun ownership. All that I can say about these particular individuals is that at least they are honest about it...

 

If BASC's own staff can't see that challenging the police's actions in one of the highest Courts of the land won't kick this abuse of power into touch, then perhaps BASC needs to review its appointments...

 

Or maybe I'm being unfair to the staff, maybe they can see it but BASC isn't prepared to spend the money.

[Bazooka Joe]

I think the SACS legal team would find that the situation in Durham has already been sorted by BASC...we have had face to face meetings with the licencing manager and other senior officers, and he has agreed that although they will continue to send out medical forms, applicants do not need to fill them in and return them, nor will this delay their application or renewal process if the don't.

 

 

 

 

Hi David, Wether the situation has been sorted by BASC or not, I was assured at the fair that SACS are in contact with Durham FLO/FLM on a weekly basis addressing the same issue, so it looks like an ongoing issue.

 

Just a few weeks ago a lad I know had his FAC/SG renewal, & the medical request was included...!

 

licencing manager and other senior officers, and he has agreed

 

 

 

The last I heard from Durham FLO is the manager is a she, not a he.....has that changed then.?

[phaedra1106]

Effectively yes, the FLM (Larraine) now has Chief Inspector Steve Ball overseeing the firearms department. We had a particularly unproductive interview with him last week regarding the continuing problems of getting them to grant my Autistic son an SGC & FAC despite never having been introuble with the police, safely shooting for over 8 years, having his NRA shooter certification card and being a fully vetted and assessed member of four different shooting clubs. BASC are now hopefully in talks with him about this. To be honest after having this drag on for around 2-1/2 years I'd be quite willing to move to another force area to be rid of them.

[bedwards1966]

Betawards, may I ask you please why you think that two of the UK's top firearms barristers and an ex Dep Ch Constable have not got a clue how to help solve this situation but you and a couple of others do?

 

You seem to think that the police are making money out of this, and that's why they wont stop - how do you work that out?

 

Do you and others honestly think that a judicial review will make any difference on a national level? No it wont and if you and others cant see why this is so, then I am a little surprised!

 

I think that the people at BASC are either simply unable to see that a legal challenge would stop this dead, and help prevent other issues, or that they may have seen this but BASC is not prepared to actually do it for some other reason. Perhaps BASC is too keen to avoid spending. Perhaps BASC has an agenda that would not tie in well with upsetting some people by making huge waves in the form of legal action. I don't know why BASC is inactive.

What I do know though is that a legal challenge would make it rather tricky for the police to continue doing this. Why does BASC say it wouldn't work?

 

To say the police are making money out of this may not be a great way to put it. They are saving money from all this by avoiding paying for medical reports, so it does help them financially. They aren't going to want to drop that as it is helpful to them. It could also be that they are happy to provide extra barriers for shooters, as has been mentioned.

Either way, they're doing this because it suits them, not us, and a Judicial review would deal with it. Of course it would work on a national level - the law does not differ depending on which force you are dealing with. Prove that they're not lawful to make these demands in one area and the others would be know that they could be next to face a legal challenge if they continue.

YOU (BASC) have allowed this to go unchecked and to spread. It seems that it began with Durham, and the others are following. Stopping it would work in the exact same way.

 

So why won't you?

Edited May 21, 2014 by bedwards1966

[subsonicnat]

As it seems it will be on your ticket, EVERY TIME you apply, This means you will pay,, EVERY TIME:

They will argue that circumstances change over your licence renewals, for all the time you hold a licence.

Another way to crack a nut eh.

[Luckyshot]

I've never read so much bull poop on 1 thread, the ones arguing are not even under Durham, where as I am and when I renewed my fac I was given one of these forms which very clearly stated that it was not compulsory to fill in so I cant understand where all this "DEMAND" poop has come from.

[GHE]

I've never read so much bull poop on 1 thread, the ones arguing are not even under Durham, where as I am and when I renewed my fac I was given one of these forms which very clearly stated that it was not compulsory to fill in so I cant understand where all this "DEMAND" poop has come from.

1. It isn't just Durham

2. If nothing is done, it is bound to spread to more areas over time, and perhaps to all of them

3. If nothing is done, it will go from a 'request' to a demand. In fact it has already done so, one licensing authority has threatened to cancel an application unless the applicant complied - despite the fact that there is no such animal as a cancellation.

 

And people expect their shooting organisations to help them and to give an undertaking that they will do so. What a pity that ater 175 posts on this subject, BASC still won't give a clear, plain English promise to do what they hint they might do