BASC instructs Queen’s Counsel to advise on medical checks

[oowee]

But if there are grounds for a challenge at the very least it will highlight the stupidity of the situation we find ourselves in. 

[Piebob]

On 19/04/2018 at 10:45, 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.”

All very welcome news. But given these medicals have been the norm in Scotland for the best part of a year now, it simply highlights BASC's disregard for their Scottish membership, in my opinion. Had a challenge to Police Scotland been carried out last year, Lincolnshire Police might not have even been in a position to introduce their process. 

[Bazooka Joe]

On 4/20/2018 at 18:28, David BASC said:

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

It begs the question why was this not done 2yrs ago for the Scottish membership.?

[Guest stevo]

On 21/04/2018 at 16:52, oowee said:

But if there are grounds for a challenge at the very least it will highlight the stupidity of the situation we find ourselves in. 

But will you act on it that’s the question. 

[clakk]

+1 on that B/J ,seems now members across the shooting forums are screaming i,m off theyre doing nothing, BASC are now doing something to enquire about a challenge.Scotland,s already lost as "Wee Jimmie " will never back down and allow this to be rescinded in Scotland ,likes a bit of power and control does our red friend.

And the people of Durham and Lincs are being rolled over by the doctors charging whatever they want for this ,if a fee must be charged than a standard price must be agreed across Britain .

They should always make an arrangement for people who,s doctors object with a practice that doesnt so people are not punished for a doctors personal opinion .

But it should never have got this far as u say they should have challenged it before Scotland got turned over by political shennanagins and then the doctors went back on what they agreed so this situation would never have developed

[Brodie]

Regarding Scotland surely SACS should have instigated action.

[Bazooka Joe]

Quote

seems now members across the shooting forums are screaming i,m off theyre doing nothing, BASC are now doing something to enquire about a challenge.

If basc contested this as soon as it started in Scotland, maybe what's happening at Lincs wouldn't have got off the ground,

Durham played a massive part in this 5yrs ago requesting voluntary medical forms.

Read on another forum CA has over 100,000 members now, maybe soon to be the "voice of shooting"

 

Edited April 22, 2018 by Bazooka Joe
added info

[stagboy]

12 hours ago, Bazooka Joe said:

If basc contested this as soon as it started in Scotland, maybe what's happening at Lincs wouldn't have got off the ground,

Durham played a massive part in this 5yrs ago requesting voluntary medical forms.

Read on another forum CA has over 100,000 members now, maybe soon to be the "voice of shooting"

 

Many shooters ignored BASC's advice re Durham (which BASC got reworded so that it was clearer it was merely was a voluntary scheme) and that gave the police an excuse to say the shooting public were prepared to participate in pre-application medical checks. 

North of the border SACS discovered, to its dismay, that many of its members did not want it oppose GP fees. So it does not oppose the system - although it wants a consistent fee level.

The CA's membership level has never regained its former glories, and has remained static for years. It's not clear what proportion of CA members see shooting as their main sport, but it's a fair bet that BASC has more shooters than all the other organisations combined, having reached a record level in the two years since the Jarrett/Ali/Curtis regime departed. (The CA was rather cosy with some of that former regime, incidentally). In the end, the market votes with its wallet: BASC has healthy finances, the CA does not. For a clue, consider this: David from BASC frequents this forum, but when was the last time you saw a direct post here from a named officer of the CA?

My own view is that the CA, being much smaller, with a tiny executive, is much more nimble on some media matters and very good at beating the drum. Shooters as a whole are best served when all the organisations are playing to their strengths and sending the same message. And a bit of competition is no bad thing - it blows the cobwebs off any complacency, keeps organisations on their toes and provides new ideas.

But those individuals who deliberately seek to sow dissent and division within the shooting community, for whatever reason,  are effectively aiding the common enemy.

 

   

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by stagboy

[Yellow Bear]

56 minutes ago, stagboy said:

Many shooters ignored BASC's advice re Durham (which BASC got reworded so that it was clearer it was merely was a voluntary scheme) and that gave the police an excuse to say the shooting public were prepared to participate in pre-application medical checks. 

North of the border SACS discovered, to its dismay, that many of its members did not want it oppose GP fees. So it does not oppose the system - although it wants a consistent fee level.

The CA's membership level has never regained its former glories, and has remained static for years. It's not clear what proportion of CA members see shooting as their main sport, but it's a fair bet that BASC has more shooters than all the other organisations combined, having reached a record level in the two years since the Jarrett/Ali/Curtis regime departed. (The CA was rather cosy with some of that former regime, incidentally). In the end, the market votes with its wallet: BASC has healthy finances, the CA does not. For a clue, consider this: David from BASC frequents this forum, but when was the last time you saw a direct post here from a named officer of the CA?

My own view is that the CA, being much smaller, with a tiny executive, is much more nimble on some media matters and very good at beating the drum. Shooters as a whole are best served when all the organisations are playing to their strengths and sending the same message. And a bit of competition is no bad thing - it blows the cobwebs off any complacency, keeps organisations on their toes and provides new ideas.

But those individuals who deliberately seek to sow dissent and division within the shooting community, for whatever reason,  are effectively aiding the common enemy.

 

   

 

Add to this the resounding silence from CPSA and I have yet to find anything from concrete NGO.

Edited April 23, 2018 by Yellow Bear

[andrewluke]

2 hours ago, stagboy said:

Many shooters ignored BASC's advice re Durham (which BASC got reworded so that it was clearer it was merely was a voluntary scheme) and that gave the police an excuse to say the shooting public were prepared to participate in pre-application medical checks. 

North of the border SACS discovered, to its dismay, that many of its members did not want it oppose GP fees. So it does not oppose the system - although it wants a consistent fee level.

The CA's membership level has never regained its former glories, and has remained static for years. It's not clear what proportion of CA members see shooting as their main sport, but it's a fair bet that BASC has more shooters than all the other organisations combined, having reached a record level in the two years since the Jarrett/Ali/Curtis regime departed. (The CA was rather cosy with some of that former regime, incidentally). In the end, the market votes with its wallet: BASC has healthy finances, the CA does not. For a clue, consider this: David from BASC frequents this forum, but when was the last time you saw a direct post here from a named officer of the CA?

My own view is that the CA, being much smaller, with a tiny executive, is much more nimble on some media matters and very good at beating the drum. Shooters as a whole are best served when all the organisations are playing to their strengths and sending the same message. And a bit of competition is no bad thing - it blows the cobwebs off any complacency, keeps organisations on their toes and provides new ideas.

But those individuals who deliberately seek to sow dissent and division within the shooting community, for whatever reason,  are effectively aiding the common enemy.

 

  

 

how many??

Edited April 23, 2018 by andrewluke

[Bazooka Joe]

9 hours ago, stagboy said:

Many shooters ignored BASC's advice re Durham (which BASC got reworded so that it was clearer it was merely was a voluntary scheme) and that gave the police an excuse to say the shooting public were prepared to participate in pre-application medical checks. 

North of the border SACS discovered, to its dismay, that many of its members did not want it oppose GP fees. So it does not oppose the system - although it wants a consistent fee level.

The CA's membership level has never regained its former glories, and has remained static for years. It's not clear what proportion of CA members see shooting as their main sport, but it's a fair bet that BASC has more shooters than all the other organisations combined, having reached a record level in the two years since the Jarrett/Ali/Curtis regime departed. (The CA was rather cosy with some of that former regime, incidentally). In the end, the market votes with its wallet: BASC has healthy finances, the CA does not. For a clue, consider this: David from BASC frequents this forum, but when was the last time you saw a direct post here from a named officer of the CA?

My own view is that the CA, being much smaller, with a tiny executive, is much more nimble on some media matters and very good at beating the drum. Shooters as a whole are best served when all the organisations are playing to their strengths and sending the same message. And a bit of competition is no bad thing - it blows the cobwebs off any complacency, keeps organisations on their toes and provides new ideas.

But those individuals who deliberately seek to sow dissent and division within the shooting community, for whatever reason,  are effectively aiding the common enemy.

 

   

 

I don't know any shooters in Durham that ignored the advice, the medical forms were voluntary (this was not stated on the forms themselves) so no need to fill them in, if shooters did they either didn't know they didn't have to, or Durham's FEO's conned them.

This is the second time you've stated this about Durham/Sacs, how do you know.?

Regardless of how many shooters CA has, they are the only ones with a clear view on how to tackle this fiasco that Linc's has kicked off, basc IMO will hemorrhage members over this & they will be looking for another alternative,  & reading other forums CA is the chosen one.

Others aren't even going to join another Org if they have to pay the Doctor's Fee, the membership fee will pay for it, & insurance can be obtained cheaper elsewhere.

Poor performance by basc all round, Durham's medical forms 5yrs ago was a clue, the FEO's said at the time it would be compulsory soon, the writing was on the wall.

2yrs ago Scotland, no medical no FAC/SG cert, wonder what the Scottish Lads think of basc ..

 

[drut]

"Poor performance by basc all round, Durham's medical forms 5yrs ago was a clue, the FEO's said at the time it would be compulsory soon, the writing was on the wall. "

Unfortunately I totally agree,although I am presently still a BASC member, in this matter BASC(unless they can now pull a rabbit out of the hat)appear either toothless or pointless.I sincerely hope I am 100% wrong.

[Guest stevo]

11 hours ago, stagboy said:

Many shooters ignored BASC's advice re Durham (which BASC got reworded so that it was clearer it was merely was a voluntary scheme) and that gave the police an excuse to say the shooting public were prepared to participate in pre-application medical checks. 

North of the border SACS discovered, to its dismay, that many of its members did not want it oppose GP fees. So it does not oppose the system - although it wants a consistent fee level.

The CA's membership level has never regained its former glories, and has remained static for years. It's not clear what proportion of CA members see shooting as their main sport, but it's a fair bet that BASC has more shooters than all the other organisations combined, having reached a record level in the two years since the Jarrett/Ali/Curtis regime departed. (The CA was rather cosy with some of that former regime, incidentally). In the end, the market votes with its wallet: BASC has healthy finances, the CA does not. For a clue, consider this: David from BASC frequents this forum, but when was the last time you saw a direct post here from a named officer of the CA?

My own view is that the CA, being much smaller, with a tiny executive, is much more nimble on some media matters and very good at beating the drum. Shooters as a whole are best served when all the organisations are playing to their strengths and sending the same message. And a bit of competition is no bad thing - it blows the cobwebs off any complacency, keeps organisations on their toes and provides new ideas.

But those individuals who deliberately seek to sow dissent and division within the shooting community, for whatever reason,  are effectively aiding the common enemy.

 

   

Nope , like I said I will leave it . I have said all I have to say .

Edited April 23, 2018 by stevo

[stagboy]

2 hours ago, Bazooka Joe said:

This is the second time you've stated this about Durham/Sacs, how do you know.?

1. I suggest you get hold of a copy of the original Durham pilot final report. I saw it at the time (it was on a website) but don't have a copy. As for the current situation, just ask around: like it or not, many applicants have been ignoring BASC's very clear recommendation over the past 18 months and paying GPs for the initial medical scan. Personally, I am not intending to pay when my cert comes up - but it seems I (and presumably you) may well be in a minority on this.

The difference is that I am not blaming BASC - the only org that is actually spending money on getting a high level legal opinion.

2. Re SACS: Here are a couple of salient snippets from the SACS website (obviously, these are not in their full context, so please read original, which is detailed and nuanced):

"The matter of GP fees continues to be variable, with many shooters having to pay little or nothing and others being billed £200. The average fee in Scotland is circa £40. A large number of SACS members have been content to pay a lower-end fee to a GP providing helpful medical information during their grant or renewal application." [My emphasis]

And (from earlier in the same explanation):

"There has been much speculation about what shooting organisations can do about this. The shooting forums, which can at times be a source of helpful information, contain sometimes ill-informed and speculative information in respect of what the legal position is and how it can be challenged. It is fair to say that those who shout loudest are often not affected by the changes. To be clear, SACS continues to engage directly with those who can actually change the system, namely the Governments of the UK and Scotland who control the introduction of legislation. We have challenged Police Scotland and others directly in respect of the GP system and we will continue to do so until we have a meaningful solution, and we feel that we are close to a short-term workaround."

Edited April 23, 2018 by stagboy
clarity

[Bazooka Joe]

Quote

The difference is that I am not blaming BASC - the only org that is actually spending money on getting a high level legal opinion.

You are in a minority then, plenty are, & time will tell with the membership, basc are well aware of this.

 

[Graham M]

http://www.cddlmc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Firearm-Licensing-GP-Guidance.pdf

[stagboy]

After the Durham pilot scheme was completed, the force did a report, in which they made a number of contentious claims and gave the percentage of the applicants who co-operated. I think it was submitted to the firearms consultative committee or something of that ilk. 

Edited April 23, 2018 by stagboy
clarity

[stagboy]

23 minutes ago, Bazooka Joe said:

You are in a minority then, plenty are, & time will tell with the membership, basc are well aware of this.

 

Maybe, who really knows?  But what exactly are the CA actually doing, other than issuing a press release (which indicates they will cave in to GP fees as long as there is consistency of fee and service?) And what are the NGO, SGA, CPSA, SACS etc doing? Are their members all in revolt and threatening to move to another org? Presumably not, as on its own website SACS says a large number of its members are content to pay a lower-end fee (ie about £40). As you say, time will tell.

Edited April 23, 2018 by stagboy
clarity

[Bazooka Joe]

Hopefully CA are going to back this red line with  litigation, your guess is as good as mine, to me they have a more proactive stance than basc.

As for the rest I wouldn't know, this thread is about basc "the voice of shooting"..........................................................!

[figgy]

Any force applying its own rules and agenda should be taken to task. the monetary side should be looked at but not the deciding factor whether to proceed. If more funds are required BASC could ask for donations and or have events auctions etc to raise money.

If we do nothing we will lose out.

[oowee]

1 hour ago, figgy said:

Any force applying its own rules and agenda should be taken to task. the monetary side should be looked at but not the deciding factor whether to proceed. If more funds are required BASC could ask for donations and or have events auctions etc to raise money.

If we do nothing we will lose out.

Exactly right. Happy to chip in  if needed.