Jump to content

BASC statement on Home Office proposals


Recommended Posts

Guest stevo
16 minutes ago, webber said:

Sorry folks, not meant as an insult to anyone, but an absolute statement of FACT.

Anyone shooting at R&ASC is covered by the grounds insurance for the time that they are attending; however, the cover is very basic.

We support and promote both BASC & CPSA, the ground is an Affiliated Member, we encourage members to join one of the organisations, preferably both, but this depends on the members leaning either to clays only or both clays and game; no one is put under any pressure.

We do require shooters to produce their SGC whilst booking on; many proudly also present their (usualy) BASC or CPSA membership card although not requested by the clerk.

webber

So if they decide not to take you up on YOUR recommendation about joining  do you not remind them that there just free riding ? Cos you don’t seem to have much of a problem reminding people here . 

I shoot clays. I belong to the CPSA 

I ride/own horses. I belong to the BHS and CA 

i still occasionally stalk. I belong to the BDS 

i believe I’m more than paying my way towards my sports and orgs 

i don’t shoot game birds  and I don’t believe are **** on many issues. So why the ... should I pay them ? What are they doing for me and others ? 

It feels to me it’s like your saying I should join the caravan club.  Even though I don’t own a caravan but because I use the same roads. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

23 minutes ago, stevo said:

So if they decide not to take you up on YOUR recommendation about joining  do you not remind them that there just free riding ? Cos you don’t seem to have much of a problem reminding people here . 

I shoot clays. I belong to the CPSA 

I ride/own horses. I belong to the BHS and CA 

i still occasionally stalk. I belong to the BDS 

i believe I’m more than paying my way towards my sports and orgs 

i don’t shoot game birds  and I don’t believe are **** on many issues. So why the ... should I pay them ? What are they doing for me and others ? 

It feels to me it’s like your saying I should join the caravan club.  Even though I don’t own a caravan but because I use the same roads. 

Great; so please bring us up to speed on what your other various organisations are doing with regards to the title of this topic.

webber

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest stevo
4 minutes ago, webber said:

Great; so please bring us up to speed on what your other various organisations are doing with regards to the title of this topic.

webber

Not a lot 

CPSA a total waste of time but I have NO choice  

I shoot competitively

the CA seem to have more fingers and actually engage in a lot more pies than BASC 

the others are more to do with insurance specific to MY pastimes. 

To be fare its YOU that belong to the two main wastes of time and money in most people veiw ?

my post is in response to your comments about free riding. NOT what there all NOT doing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you David Ilsley for the update , I have read the Press release with a lot of interest and can only think that with the many problems that the present Government are currently dealing with , Firearms licensing is a long way down the list , so the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire continues to impose his unlawful restriction on obtaining a SGC , time passes by and it all goes quiet . Then everyone slaps him on the back and says "Jolly good idea , they seem to have accepted it , let us impose it Nationwide."

Sorry David , with me that will not wash , it is about time 'the voice of shooting ' became heard . Your 'experts' have sat on their hands for far too long.

People seem to forget that Parliament make Laws, and the Constabularies should uphold those Laws , not make it up as they go along

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Salopian said:

Thank you David Ilsley for the update , I have read the Press release with a lot of interest and can only think that with the many problems that the present Government are currently dealing with , Firearms licensing is a long way down the list , so the Chief Constable of Lincolnshire continues to impose his unlawful restriction on obtaining a SGC , time passes by and it all goes quiet . Then everyone slaps him on the back and says "Jolly good idea , they seem to have accepted it , let us impose it Nationwide."

Sorry David , with me that will not wash , it is about time 'the voice of shooting ' became heard . Your 'experts' have sat on their hands for far too long.

People seem to forget that Parliament make Laws, and the Constabularies should uphold those Laws , not make it up as they go along

+1 well said that man  if political will isnt there to fight this ,get a 2nd legal opinion from someone unrelated to BASC and publish his report so we all see the actual facts of the argument .Otherwise we are in the same boat as Scotland having been rolled over and dealt the wrong end of a stick used for muck spreading .5 years this slopes been slipping and to little too late seems the order of the day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am with Webber on this. Shooting sports are under threat and if you take part being a member of a supporting organisation is one of the only ways that we can work together to protect what we have. I accept some of the criticism's of the organisations but not being a member of one is another nail in the sports future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you have to remember Home office guidance is not law and the police / courts can ignore it, the only thing that is relevant is the actual Firearms act.

 

The problem we have is clause 27 for firearms or 28 for shotguns

28 Special provisions about shot gun certificates.

[F11(1)Subject to subsection (1A) below, a shot gun 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 shot gun without danger to the public safety or to the peace.

 

It is such a broad brush it gives the chief officer of police the ability to refuse a grant or renewal based on whether he/she is satisfied or not which is completely subjective to the individual.

Cases have gone to court on security issues and the above sections have been successfully used to win those cases for the police.

All it takes is the chief of police to stand up in court and say he/she is not satisfied without a medical check and section 27 / 28 of the firearms act requires them not to grant or renew.

 

Obviously the above is a very very oversimplification of the problem and no QC has any idea which way the judge would go on this.

Judges are going to be very reluctant to give a blanket ban on a chief officer of police having a judgement call to ask for medical reports as they see fit. If this was an individual case for one shooter I would be more confident in it being successful.

The issue is once a ruling is made we are stuck with the consequences which would mean every force would insist backed up with a court precedent.

Changing the actual wording of the firearms act through political means would be the safest option with the least risk.

Just my opinion on it for what it is worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have been sliding down the slope for years, many of us of a certain age will remember the loss of handguns and then semi auto centerfire what next ? Soon the 50cal and Mars rifles?

The problem is we have no single voice to fight the good fight all the shooting organisations just look after their own focused interests and do not stand as one voice. Years ago it was suggested if my memory is correct  that a fighting fund should be created with small but annual contributions paid in by the different organisations and the trade organisations, so each BASC, CA, CPSA, GTA member etc when paying their membership fee contributed to the fund. If that had been done millions would be available now to pay for any legal process. 

To late now as soon their will be little left to fight for.

Divided we fall and fall we have never wanting to fight because we are all decent law abiding gun owners who believe such action looks bad and if we ask nicely they the police and home office will treat us fairly when in reality they would sooner they did not have to deal with the licensing of firearms at all and hence use every which way possible to limit what we can own and make it as hard as possible to own them.

Sadly we can politely talk as much as we want with the politicians but nearly all don't care about our gun ownership only about gun crime and know that at the end of the day we will comply with what ever they tells us to do because historically that is what we have always done.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Timps you are indeed correct in quoting the Firearms Act , but who writes these Acts and Laws?  Committees that usually consist of representatives from various organisations and in the case of firearms it usually involves ACPO, BASC,  BSSC , after much discussion proposals are then sent to Parliament to be voted onto to become Law .

The point I am trying to make is that after being aware of medical certification for five years it seems we are now going to sit on our hands for a good few more years .

 I have to say that in these circumstances I am opposed to ten year certificates , because who can have any idea of an applicants health and mental capacity in ten years time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Timps - thanks for this. I have just taken a step back and had another think. You are correct about the vague wording, which gives the Police more leeway than most imagine - including myself.

Gordon, If you haven't already read this http://shootingshed.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FELWG-21-9-17.pdf it will give a little more insight on the issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Salopian said:

Timps you are indeed correct in quoting the Firearms Act , but who writes these Acts and Laws?  Committees that usually consist of representatives from various organisations and in the case of firearms it usually involves ACPO, BASC,  BSSC , after much discussion proposals are then sent to Parliament to be voted onto to become Law .

The point I am trying to make is that after being aware of medical certification for five years it seems we are now going to sit on our hands for a good few more years .

 I have to say that in these circumstances I am opposed to ten year certificates ,because who can have any idea of an applicants health and mental capacity in ten years time?

But surely that is the whole point of introducing GP markers and continuous monitoring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie , 

Reading your own submittance it is obvious that many GP's do not wish to be involved and also many Chief Constables at September's meeting were not sure that they were on legal ground .

Let's face it the whole issue is a sorry business that is blundering from crisis to crisis .

Only yesterday I heard of an RFD committing suicide and (allegedly) blaming his FLO for it.

Edited by Salopian
Misquotation
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie T - thanks for the link - it makes interesting reading.

Quote

RK made the point that the onus should lie with the applicant to provide a screening letter, however, GW advises this may require legislative change.

The Home Office appear to be of the view that what Lincolnshire Police are doing is outside the current legislation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, CharlieT said:

But surely that is the whole point of introducing GP markers and continuous monitoring.

But if your young fit and healthy you may not see your doctor every year or for many years.

so what then a yearly doctors mot to be paid for by the gun owner and a fee to the police record the mot

it just st goes on and on.

if the principle concern is suidcides then their are many way to achieve that with or without a gun.

what happened to the day we got a shotgun certificate  from the post office, how society has changed.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gordon R,

 Exactly, and what are the 'voice of shooting ' and all the other organisations doing about it ?

'Let us wait and see '.

'Update soon.'

'We will keep you informed '

 'I had a word with a mate , in another office , he knows a mate who knows a QC , I'll ask him what he thinks '

 

Sorry to seem so cavalier about this , but if someone had stood on the Chiefs corns some time ago this would have all been sorted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Charlie T - thanks for the link - it makes interesting reading.

The Home Office appear to be of the view that what Lincolnshire Police are doing is outside the current legislation.

 

Gordon

I read it differently.

The text you highlighted talks about the applicant obtaining the screening letter, which would indeed be outside legislation, whereas what Lincs are doing is refusing to process applications where GP's have failed to respond, for whatever reason, to the medical declaration letter sent to them by Lincs Firearms Dept.

However, that said, Lincs make much on their website of adhering to HO guidelines, but I don't see how that statement holds true when the guidelines state....

10.28 If the certificate holder does in fact suffer from a relevant medical condition or the GP has concerns about their access to firearms, the GP should contact the police by letter or email within 21 days of receiving the letter from the police. If the GP indicates that they have concerns or there are relevant issues but does not provide further details, then the police may request and pay for a medical report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charlie T - point taken. The minutes show that some GPs are refusing to be involved - whether paid or unpaid. What would Lincolnshire Police do then? Tell the applicant to go to another GP, who might know absolutely nothing about him / her?

They have clearly not thought this through and are chancers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gordon R said:

Tell the applicant to go to another GP, who might know absolutely nothing about him / her?

My GP knows nothing about me, other than I had a minor operation and what was already in my files (if they bothered to read them). I've been registered at my GP surgery for 12 years and seen a doctor once to get a referral for the mentioned operation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Charlie T - point taken. The minutes show that some GPs are refusing to be involved - whether paid or unpaid. What would Lincolnshire Police do then? Tell the applicant to go to another GP, who might know absolutely nothing about him / her?

They have clearly not thought this through and are chancers.

 

Maybe that might be the best get out in all of this. Looks like a complete shambles. I also see the part about complete cost recovery???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes far more interesting reading as far as I am concerned.  http://www.countryside-alliance.org/government-must-listen-to-shooters-before-acting-on-firearm-licensing/

BASC have ceased to be relevant to me as a shooter and my membership has not been renewed since the Ali incident occurred when a lot of attention was diverted away from shooter's interests to internal squabbles.  They have been offered every opportunity to be proactive and actually speak for us but at every end in turn have apparently been either appeasing or opposing (delete as appropriate) instead of proactive.  Sorry BASC, but I don't think that the latest statement will do much to prevent the ongoing loss of membership.  I would love to be in the position to eat my words and return to the fold, but have seen little to date that would persuade me to re-join.  Too little, too late.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest stevo
18 minutes ago, Savhmr said:

This makes far more interesting reading as far as I am concerned.  http://www.countryside-alliance.org/government-must-listen-to-shooters-before-acting-on-firearm-licensing/

BASC have ceased to be relevant to me as a shooter and my membership has not been renewed since the Ali incident occurred when a lot of attention was diverted away from shooter's interests to internal squabbles.  They have been offered every opportunity to be proactive and actually speak for us but at every end in turn have apparently been either appeasing or opposing (delete as appropriate) instead of proactive.  Sorry BASC, but I don't think that the latest statement will do much to prevent the ongoing loss of membership.  I would love to be in the position to eat my words and return to the fold, but have seen little to date that would persuade me to re-join.  Too little, too late.

 

And one of the reasons  why I joined the CA , I just get the feeling there on the ball , you actually get some info on what’s going on , everything seems to be a secret with BASC .

Edited by stevo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

So have other shooting and countryside organisations; but I don't see any evidence of them picking up the baton.

The heading of this thread is "BASC statement on home office etc" nothing to do with other organisations,

they claim to be the "voice of shooting"  so posting on a forum they can take the criticism.

Basc knew all about this 5yr ago with Durham, also read Scully's post, so tbh have no excuse.

If your that concerned with what the other org's are doing start another thread............

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very happy to take feedback, that's part of the reason why I post on here.

Situation in Durham was different, and BASC got this stopped if you recall, and on the back almost 3 years of work by BASC  the new guidance was issued in 2016 which stated that applicants were not required to pay a fee to GPs for their response to an initial police medical letter sent on application. It ensured that applicants would not be disadvantaged by a GP’s refusal to provide medical information.

It was also agreed that GPs would implement a system that saw them add an encoded ‘marker’ to the medical records of those who own guns. The shooting community considered this a sensible step towards ensuring public safety.

Sadly the Home Office look to have moved away form this agreed position.  This decision follows a campaign of non-cooperation by the British Medical Association (BMA) to the agreement on improving medical involvement in the licensing system.

This is a new situation in different circumstances, and I promise to keep you updated as often as I can. Lets stick together, regardless of which organisation we choose to support, we are all shooters and must stand together.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...