BASC instructs Queen’s Counsel to advise on medical checks

[David BASC]

BASC has instructed a specialist barrister to advise on whether a chief constable can insist that medical reports or statements are submitted as part of the firearms licensing application process.

The instruction is in response to a statement issued by Lincolnshire Police earlier this month that said medical checks will be required for the grant and renewal of shotgun and firearm certificates.

The QC, an administrative law specialist, will examine the extent of enquiries that can be undertaken by a chief officer for him to be satisfied that a person can be entrusted to possess a firearm or shotgun without danger to public safety or the peace.

Bill Harriman, BASC’s director of firearms,  said: “We are doing this because Lincolnshire’s policy totally ignores the agreed medical system set out in the Home Office guide on firearms licensing law.

“When we receive the legal opinion, we will make a decision as to whether to apply for a judicial review.”

[panoma1]

David, No real answer then? BASC are getting legal opinion?..........sounds familiar!

[panoma1]

1 hour ago, David BASC said:

BASC has instructed a specialist barrister to advise on whether a chief constable can insist that medical reports or statements are submitted as part of the firearms licensing application process.

The instruction is in response to a statement issued by Lincolnshire Police earlier this month that said medical checks will be required for the grant and renewal of shotgun and firearm certificates.

The QC, an administrative law specialist, will examine the extent of enquiries that can be undertaken by a chief officer for him to be satisfied that a person can be entrusted to possess a firearm or shotgun without danger to public safety or the peace.

Bill Harriman, BASC’s director of firearms,  said: “We are doing this because Lincolnshire’s policy totally ignores the agreed medical system set out in the Home Office guide on firearms licensing law.

“When we receive the legal opinion, we will make a decision as to whether to apply for a judicial review.”

**** the GP report, I've had a SGC for over 50 years, until recently I held a FAC for around 40 years, I have declared on my renewal application I STILL have no criminal convictions NOR medical conditions that would the basis for the chief officer of police to refuse my application......why do I need to pay for a report for a GP to say so?

The police can check anything about me they want to!.......A CRO check to confirm I have disclosed any criminal convictions, a medical records check to confirm I have disclosed any relevant medical condition....it's not particularly about the checks, it's about who the **** pays for it?

Edited April 19, 2018 by panoma1

[Dave-G]

Well I'm just a trusting old bloke from deepest Cornwall but that looks like BASC are weighing up the wisdom of attempting to judicially force a police chief to reverse his determination to change government policy to suit his own agenda before spending - or wasting - membership funds to bring it to a probably satisfactory conclusion. Some things just can't be done and I'd imagine the policeman looked into before changing the policy of his force.

Sounds like a good plan to me: If its unlikely to succeed why throw money at it - but if there is a viable chance of pulling it off go for it.

[Bazooka Joe]

To be welcomed David, at last a move in the right direction.

This should have been rolled out 2yrs ago though for the Scottish Lads.

[wymberley]

34 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

Well I'm just a trusting old bloke from deepest Cornwall Devon but that looks like BASC are weighing up the wisdom of attempting to judicially force a police chief to reverse his determination to change government policy to suit his own agenda before spending - or wasting - membership funds to bring it to a probably satisfactory conclusion. Some things just can't be done and I'd imagine the policeman looked into before changing the policy of his force.

Sounds like a good plan to me: If its unlikely to succeed why throw money at it - but if there is a viable chance of pulling it off go for it.

Well posted. +1

[panoma1]

Moderators....perhaps this thread could be combined with the thread of 29th March on the same issue? In order for interested parties to follow progress and any new posters to get a better perspective?

[Smokersmith]

I'd keep the thread separate .. this is about what BASC are doing ...

I understand the need to be 100% clear on legal position before taking next steps.

[oowee]

Good on BASC a step in the right direction. Get the facts first. 

If we support shooting we should support the bodies that represent us. Good or bad without them we are going nowhere. To live off the goodwill of others and not play a full roll in supporting the community that we rely on, is simply not good enough. For the price of a slab of cartridges, to be a lover and participant in country sports and not support the agencies that seek to protect our freedoms could be compared to benefit scroungers.

If you believe in this sport get behind one of the agencies.

Edited April 19, 2018 by oowee

[Dave-G]

4 hours ago, wymberley said:

Well I'm just a trusting old bloke from deepest Cornwall Devon but that looks like BASC are weighing up the wisdom of attempting to judicially force a police chief to reverse his determination to change government policy to suit his own agenda before spending - or wasting - membership funds to bring it to a probably satisfactory conclusion. Some things just can't be done and I'd imagine the policeman looked into before changing the policy of his force.

Sounds like a good plan to me: If its unlikely to succeed why throw money at it - but if there is a viable chance of pulling it off go for it.

I'd say having lived about 1.2 miles from Cape Cornwall qualifies me as coming from deepest Cornwall. 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Dave-G

[Gordon R]

This is a step in the right direction. The problem is that if you ask ten QCs the same question, you won't get just one or two answers.  

[wymberley]

25 minutes ago, Dave-G said:

I'd say having lived about 1.2 miles from Cape Cornwall qualifies me as coming from deepest Cornwall. 

I'll say! Simply changing one word puts us in total agreement. Best move back, as as yet we're not experiencing any problems - well, at least I haven't.

[point and shoot]

I always thought that the law stated "The chief constable WILL issue a shotgun/firearms licence unless he can show good reason not to!. HE must make the checks he deems necessary and accordingly pay for whatever information he requests.

The applicant is just that. The  responsibility  to check suitability is down to the Police.

[Westley]

2 hours ago, Gordon R said:

This is a step in the right direction. The problem is that if you ask ten QCs the same question, you won't get just one or two answers.  

A lot depends on, if you are getting Legal Aid............................or not   !     

Edited April 19, 2018 by Westley

[drut]

A pleasant surprise although "better late than never" was the first thought that sprung to mind.

[Dave-G]

1 hour ago, point and shoot said:

I always thought that the law stated "The chief constable WILL issue a shotgun/firearms licence unless he can show good reason not to!. HE must make the checks he deems necessary and accordingly pay for whatever information he requests.

The applicant is just that. The  responsibility  to check suitability is down to the Police.

I think that was the case before some police chief pronounced it was a privilege - which got left there as a slippery slope.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Dave-G

[David BASC]

Just for clarity on that point:

In the case of shotguns, : Section 28(1) of the 1968 Act states that ..... 'a shotgun certificate shall be granted or, as the case may be, renewed by the chief officer of police if he is satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to possess a shotgun without danger to the public safety or to the peace".

In the case of Section 1,  Section 27(1) of the 1968 Act (as amended) states that: "A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied that:

(a) the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to which section 1 of this Act applies and is not a person prohibited by this Act from possessing such as firearm;

(b) that he has a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the application is made; and

(c) that in all the circumstances the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace".

[CharlieT]

It's about time this reference to privilege was stamped on.

Firearms ownership is not a privilege and the sooner this misconception was halted the better for us all. It makes my blood boil when I even hear firearms owners spouting its a privilege.

When the Firearms Act was drafted, the wording was specifically and carefully chosen to reflect its intention. It is not for those who have been given the task of implementing the act to put their own interpretation on it.

As long as the criteria is met, anyone can and should be granted a certificate.

Shall - expressing a strong assertion or intention.

Privilege - a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group.

 

[Dave-G]

4 hours ago, David BASC said:

Just for clarity on that point:

In the case of shotguns, : Section 28(1) of the 1968 Act states that ..... 'a shotgun certificate shall be granted or, as the case may be, renewed by the chief officer of police if he is satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to possess a shotgun without danger to the public safety or to the peace".

In the case of Section 1,  Section 27(1) of the 1968 Act (as amended) states that: "A firearm certificate shall be granted where the chief officer of police is satisfied that:

(a) the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm to which section 1 of this Act applies and is not a person prohibited by this Act from possessing such as firearm;

(b) that he has a good reason for having in his possession, or for purchasing or acquiring, the firearm or ammunition in respect of which the application is made; and

(c) that in all the circumstances the applicant can be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without danger to the public safety or to the peace".

Thanks  for the reply David,  I'm still a bit confused about it though as its in the Guide on Firearms Law April 2016 which made me think it became a slippery slope by the way it had been seemingly slipped in. I can't find the statement made - at possibly a meeting of police chiefs and something to do with greater London I think but a bit of a google leads me to think he was quoting from this:

1.1. What is meant by the term ‘firearm’? ‘Firearm’ means a lethal barrelled weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged. See Chapter 2 for further details. 1.2. What are the basic principles of firearms law in the UK? UK firearms policy is based on the fact that firearms are dangerous weapons and the State has a duty to protect the public from their misuse. Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right. Firearms control in the UK is among the toughest in the world, and as a result firearms offences continue to make up a small proportion (less than 0.2%) of recorded crime [ONS 2012/13].

 

 

Edited April 20, 2018 by Dave-G
clarification

[rogcal]

Seeking counsel's opinion was something I would request of our legal department to undertake as soon as I became aware of a government agency, local authority or other public entity acting ultra vires and that their actions were causing our authority additional costs in resources and or inability to exercise a particular right or statutory obligation.

It would normally take one or two days for our legal department to instruct counsel.  

Given that BASC knew of Lincolnshire Police's policy change some weeks ago, I have to ask the question "why so long to instruct counsel"? 

As for making any kind of comment or statement when not in possession of counsel's opinion, well that's just plain barmy.

Edited April 20, 2018 by rogcal

[panoma1]

53 minutes ago, rogcal said:

Seeking counsel's opinion was something I would request of our legal department to undertake as soon as I became aware of a government agency, local authority or other public entity acting ultra vires and that their actions were causing our authority additional costs in resources and or inability to exercise a particular right or statutory obligation.

It would normally take one or two days for our legal department to instruct counsel.  

Given that BASC knew of Lincolnshire Police's policy change some weeks ago, I have to ask the question "why so long to instruct counsel"? 

As for making any kind of comment or statement when not in possession of counsel's opinion, well that's just plain barmy.

Exactly the point I was making in my earlier posting! 

[David BASC]

Council were asked to review almost immediately, there was no significant delay, we have tried to keep people up to date, more to follow soon

[sitsinhedges]

Sounds promising.

[Cumbrian]

I am not a member of BASC, nor necessarily a great admirer, but it seems to me that the organisation has behaved entirely responsibly and sensibly in this matter, especially with regard to its members' money. A Q.C.' s opinion will cost thousands, so it is not to be sought lightly. A judicial review could easily cost £100,000, so, again, it is not something to seek without a very good chance of success. As an owner of several shotguns and rifles, I hope, by the way, that the Chief Constable proves to have been misguided in his action.

Edited April 21, 2018 by Cumbrian
mistake in grammar

[Gordon R]

Whilst I hope it is not the case, I will be genuinely astonished if the QC's advice is that the Chief Constable is acting totally outside the law and that this can be easily challenged and won. The advice will, no doubt, be couched in cautious terms, giving little clear indication of the chances of success. 

Looking at the actual law, it seems that a blind man could spot where he has overstepped the mark, but he will already know that. My opinion is that he has deliberately thrown down the gauntlet, in the hope of making a name for himself. In his shoes, he might view this as a win win situation.

The bottom line is that BASC and the taxpayer are potentially going to pick up a large bill - not the Chief Constable.