BASC response to Firearms Licensing Guidance Consultation

[Conor O'Gorman]

BASC's firearms team is drafting a response to the consultation and if any forum members have suggestions on amendments that should be made to the draft guidance feel free to either comment below or email me at conor.ogorman@basc.org.uk

I will ensure that all suggested amendments are considered during the drafting of our response.

BASC's initial position is here
https://basc.org.uk/blog/politics/government-could-land-shooting-community-with-48-million-bill/

The consultation documents can be downloaded here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/statutory-guidance-to-police-on-firearms-licensing

[mick miller]

I'd like to know what the perceived benefits to public safety are from adding a requirement for a GPs report? As far as I can work out, any benefit vs. effort (on behalf of the licensing authority, medical practitioners, applicants) is so trifling as to be utterly inconsequential.

If it gets the rubber stamp that we are all aware it already has been given then a GPs right to refuse on conscientious grounds should be refused, there should be a clear, legal requirement that they MUST respond and that the response MUST be impartial, free from personal bias.

If the proposed changes are in the 'interests of public safety' (which they are not, see above) then any fee should be met from the public purse, through existing taxation or the licence fee itself. Not met by the private individual.

Further, I do not accept that a visit, unannounced, by a member of the local constabulary or the firearms team is acceptable. Any visits should be notified in advance, not 'spot-checks' unless there have been complaints made by other members of the public or concerns for safety.

Well done on securing 10 year certs by the way.

[Dibble]

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of interviewing your neighbours, I don't want them to know what I have in the house and view this a a massive security risk.

[bluesj]

27 minutes ago, Dibble said:

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of interviewing your neighbours, I don't want them to know what I have in the house and view this a a massive security risk.

I can see all sorts of problems with this and with giving doctor an opt out.

What happens when your neighbour says ****** off to the police, or if their waste of space son is in a gang running drugs?

What happens if your doctor will not fill in the paperwork and no other doctors serve your area?

[mossy835]

this all to take to guns off us ,they dont want the public to have them.no one should know you have guns, but buy asking people in the street then they will know,its not getting better is it for us,

[mick miller]

1 hour ago, Dibble said:

I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of interviewing your neighbours, I don't want them to know what I have in the house and view this a a massive security risk.

I must admit, I had missed that on the first read. Yes, agreed. Mine have been bound over to keep the peace and quite mental, frankly, what business is it of theirs what I do in my spare time?

Thankfully we have our orgs fighting our corner with political officers lobbying on our behalf and a large 'fighting fund' (can I take my tongue out of my cheek now?). This is beyond a joke. Why don't we see how many firearms offences are committed on average each year by licensed firearms holders, chuck shotgun owners into that hat if you like, the figures are piffling, trivial and statistically do not warrant this additional affront to personal freedoms under the guise of enhanced 'public safety'. The public are perfectly safe with the level of personal scrutiny that already exists.

Is this legislation or simply persecution?

Edited July 29, 2019 by mick miller

[Dibble]

Whilst the Police might say they won't interview any "Dodgy" neighbours and might swear the ones they do to secrecy all it takes is a bit of playground chatter by their children and some scrote knows.

My children don't tell anyone we shoot.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Dibble

[Dave at kelton]

Just read and responded to this and recommend all other Forum members do likewise. The medical requirements are to my mind unacceptable. If a GP report is not provided you do not get a certificate. That I consider as assuming guilt until proven innocent. Please get behind BASC request and respond so this does not go through on the nod.

[bottletopbill]

Will Doctors sign a form for more cash and as we all know every profession as some one ready to take cash (GREED)

[Scully]

I've given up on this one to be honest. Our org's have had more than enough time to get it sorted, and those that will are still walking all over us and doing as they please. I see nothing new that will stop this. 

[mick miller]

I've gone away and had a little think, why do I resent the idea of having to have a GP to sign off on my application for a firearm? Is it because I believe it is a worthless nod in the direction of 'increased public safety'? Well, yes. But that isn't the main issue.

Is it because this was seen as a trade off to get ten year certificates, which I now acknowledge will never happen? Yes, but that's still not the reason I'm finding myself so annoyed by this.

Is it because its a complete drain on already stretched medical and policing resources? Yes again, but still the root cause of my ire is not addressed.

I think its this; in a country whose law and legal system is based on the principle of habeas corpus, and of innocence until proven guilty, the idea of a GP having to attest to my mental or physical fitness to own firearms before my application is approved turns this cornerstone of democracy on its head. We are all now deemed nutters until we can prove otherwise. The problem is we have to ask people that barely know us, may not approve of us and can charge us any amount they deem fair or appropriate or, worse still, simply refuse to engage.

I can live with the idea of an enduring marker, I can see the benefit, however insignificant it genuinely is, of that one concession. But the rest is simply an affront.

Further, I will state, with some confidence, that unless the British Association of Shooting & Conservation starts dipping into that often lauded '£8 million fighting fund', puts down its pen and puts to bed its platitudes and instead is prepared to don a set of gloves and risk some of those cosy relationships it has formed over the last 50 or so years that, in the words of one fierce opponent to grouse and pheasant shooting, it is well and truly spent.

You want us to 'stop bickering' and support the organisation? Then prove you have the guts and determination to challenge these amendments, to force constabularies to have more than simple 'regard' to HO guidance, put an end to the personal fiefdoms of Chief Constables, to advise on a fair set of laws with a basis in fact and proportionality, to ensure that GP's do not have the freedom to bring their own personal bias to bear, or better still, have no involvement other than to place the 'enduring marker' on an applicants record unless any medical conditions have been highlighted by the applicant in the application. Do that and you may just find you have more support and respect than you will ever need.

Strongly worded letters are lovely, but they are just that. There can be no argument that a fair set of laws, fairly and uniformly applied, is desirable for all parties. For shooters, for the government, for constabularies, for public safety (what little existing risk there is). You just need to find the means to get there but none other is as well placed for the task, but perhaps, not yet well enough equipped?

Your legal advice was that a JD was not going to succeed or make any difference? Find a new legal team. May I recommend the services of Leigh Day?

Edited July 31, 2019 by mick miller

[JJsDad]

56 minutes ago, mick miller said:

I think its this; in a country whose law and legal system is based on the principle of habeas corpus, and of innocence until proven guilty, the idea of a GP having to attest to my mental or physical fitness to own firearms before my application is approved turns this cornerstone of democracy on its head. We are all now deemed nutters until we can prove otherwise. The problem is we have to ask people that barely know us, may not approve of us and can charge us any amount they deem fair or appropriate or, worse still, simply refuse to engage.

I can live with the idea of an enduring marker, I can see the benefit, however insignificant it genuinely is, of that one concession. But the rest is simply an affront.

Further, I will state, with some confidence, that unless the British Association of Shooting & Conservation starts dipping into that often lauded '£8 million fighting fund', puts down its pen and puts to bed its platitudes and instead is prepared to don a set of gloves and risk some of those cosy relationships it has formed over the last 50 or so years that, in the words of one fierce opponent to grouse and pheasant shooting, it is well and truly spent.

You want us to 'stop bickering' and support the organisation? Then prove you have the guts and determination to challenge these amendments, to force constabularies to have more than simple 'regard' to HO guidance, put an end to the personal fiefdoms of Chief Constables, to advise on a fair set of laws with a basis in fact and proportionality, to ensure that GP's do not have the freedom to bring their own personal bias to bear, or better still, have no involvement other than to place the 'enduring marker' on an applicants record unless any medical conditions have been highlighted by the applicant in the application. Do that and you may just find you have more support and respect than you will ever need.

Strongly worded letters are lovely, but they are just that. There can be no argument that a fair set of laws, fairly and uniformly applied, is desirable for all parties. For shooters, for the government, for constabularies, for public safety (what little existing risk there is). You just need to find the means to get there but none other is as well placed for the task, but perhaps, not yet well enough equipped?

Your legal advice was that a JD was not going to succeed or make any difference? Find a new legal team. May I recommend the services of Leigh Day?

I really and sincerly hope that someone, or anyone,  at BASC HQ is reading this post from mick miller and others of a similar vein. I am not a BASC knocker and I have been a member for some considerable time; since well before the name change. I have no intention, as some have,  in voting with my feet and yet I couldnt agree more with Mick Millers remarks above. I spent 20 minutes last Sunday discussing the current firearms licencing fiasco with a BASC rep at the Game Fair, explaining in some detail why I am being forced to change my medical practice because my current senior GP has a practice policy of not responding to  Police requests for information or the now required GPs letter. While I got a lot of platitudes and soothing words, it slowly dawned on me I might as well have been talking to a loaf of bread. With an ex-military man having recently taken over the reins, I thought we might see some positive moves for them to go on the attack and address some of the problems currently being expienced by members, sadly at present this does not appear to be the case. Come on Brigadier, the old adage still applies; the best form of defence is attack. Soothing words to a frustrated membership is alright up to a point; but it would be nice to see a bit more attacking going on.

Edited July 31, 2019 by JJsDad

[panoma1]

What a load of testicles this "consultation" is! It's like a chief officer of police's wish list! Far from improving public safety it compromises the safety of the public! By plod asking friends, neighbors in fact anyone and his dog, whether you are suitable to have a gun.....great news for anyone in the pub who hears your neighbors etc disclosing there are guns at your house innit!......

No legislative requirement for plod to follow HO guidance......why should they? They didn't last time!

And a licence for GP's to make as much money as the like......off you! No legislative requirement for them to cooperate, if they don't you don't get a certificate.....and if they do, they can charge what they want.....because there is no mention in the "guidance" of how much they can charge!

And as someone else remarked, a complete reversal of the law stating you are "innocent till proven guilty"........in this draft  "consultation" you have to prove you are innocent.........if you don't.......your deemed guilty!

 

[Scully]

1 hour ago, mick miller said:

I've gone away and had a little think, why do I resent the idea of having to have a GP to sign off on my application for a firearm? Is it because I believe it is a worthless nod in the direction of 'increased public safety'? Well, yes. But that isn't the main issue.

Is it because this was seen as a trade off to get ten year certificates, which I now acknowledge will never happen? Yes, but that's still not the reason I'm finding myself so annoyed by this.

Is it because its a complete drain on already stretched medical and policing resources? Yes again, but still the root cause of my ire is not addressed.

I think its this; in a country whose law and legal system is based on the principle of habeas corpus, and of innocence until proven guilty, the idea of a GP having to attest to my mental or physical fitness to own firearms before my application is approved turns this cornerstone of democracy on its head. We are all now deemed nutters until we can prove otherwise. The problem is we have to ask people that barely know us, may not approve of us and can charge us any amount they deem fair or appropriate or, worse still, simply refuse to engage.

I can live with the idea of an enduring marker, I can see the benefit, however insignificant it genuinely is, of that one concession. But the rest is simply an affront.

Further, I will state, with some confidence, that unless the British Association of Shooting & Conservation starts dipping into that often lauded '£8 million fighting fund', puts down its pen and puts to bed its platitudes and instead is prepared to don a set of gloves and risk some of those cosy relationships it has formed over the last 50 or so years that, in the words of one fierce opponent to grouse and pheasant shooting, it is well and truly spent.

You want us to 'stop bickering' and support the organisation? Then prove you have the guts and determination to challenge these amendments, to force constabularies to have more than simple 'regard' to HO guidance, put an end to the personal fiefdoms of Chief Constables, to advise on a fair set of laws with a basis in fact and proportionality, to ensure that GP's do not have the freedom to bring their own personal bias to bear, or better still, have no involvement other than to place the 'enduring marker' on an applicants record unless any medical conditions have been highlighted by the applicant in the application. Do that and you may just find you have more support and respect than you will ever need.

Strongly worded letters are lovely, but they are just that. There can be no argument that a fair set of laws, fairly and uniformly applied, is desirable for all parties. For shooters, for the government, for constabularies, for public safety (what little existing risk there is). You just need to find the means to get there but none other is as well placed for the task, but perhaps, not yet well enough equipped?

Your legal advice was that a JD was not going to succeed or make any difference? Find a new legal team. May I recommend the services of Leigh Day?

You are right to be angry. I stated on this very forum some years ago about a conversation I had with BASC’s Mike something or other...Eveleigh? ( I genuinely can’t recall his name, but I do know he was a retired copper ) when he asked me ‘what would you like us to do?’ in response to my question ‘what are BASC doing about this?’ and then told me that this was coming ‘and there’s nothing we can do about it’ and that BASC would push for 10 year tickets as a compromise. That was at least four years ago now, and no one believed me, including DavidBASC.  I mentioned it on this forum many times. I didn’t renew my BASC membership as a result. 

I’m no longer angry, simply resigned to the fact we have organisations with no real clout. It’s not their fault; there simply aren't the numbers we need to lobby effectively. 

 

[ShootingEgg]

Very worried that the police could just rock up and ask anyone(neighbours) about you.. I don't shout about having firearsmsy. Currently I'm lucky that I shoot with one of my immediate neighbours. But still it's mad to think they say this is a good idea, my gp has changed and I don't think I've ever had an appointment with my current GP and can't remember the last time I went into the Dr's. Do again how can they say if I'm fit.. Its a box tick and a Teflon one at that, move the problem to someone else if I did something stupid.. 

Unless as has been said above, this gets fought hard and pushed back. We will just get walked over. Its easy to apply more rules to the ones that follow them. 

 

Yet no additional rule will stop ilegal activities with either licenced or un licenced firearms. Knife laws show that in London almost daily now... 

[panoma1]

Don't worry! I'm sure some GP will tick the box for you, if there's enough money in it? 

[Down South]

Just renewed my coterminous certificates and grudgingly paid a demand for £40 to my GP. Doctors should have to comply with police checks, they should not have the power to veto applications for any reason other than those laid out in the medical check. Discussing my possession of guns with my neighbours, they are good people but no!  More regulation on law abiding people, why?

[Wingman]

Asking neighbours about someone's suitability to posses firearms is utterly ridiculous and contradicts the whole concept of a "need to know" principle of security.  In addition I would suspect that there is some impact on personal privacy rights as I choose not to share this information with my neighbours.

I know a lot of coppers and will be asking them for a view on this. 

[panoma1]

1 hour ago, Down South said:

Just renewed my coterminous certificates and grudgingly paid a demand for £40 to my GP. Doctors should have to comply with police checks, they should not have the power to veto applications for any reason other than those laid out in the medical check. Discussing my possession of guns with my neighbours, they are good people but no!  More regulation on law abiding people, why?

Why? Because it's easy! Kicking the law abiding is easier than catching real criminals, and distracts everyone from their failures in protecting the public elsewhere!

Its interesting to see the reports of the police trying to wriggle out of accountability for the discredited Westminster paedofile ring investigation, apparantly trying to withhold evidence which may reveal the truth, and lying about their reasons for withholding it!  because presumably it may incriminate them!..........it was only recently the police were found in court to have withheld evidence which would prove accused people they had bought to court, were innocent....and the innocent people accused were acquitted because of it!........the police appear to be trying to overturn "innocent until proven guilty" and replace it with "guilty until you prove yourself innocent"

That is what they are doing in the new draft firearms licensing proposals, an applicant has to jump through pointless, costly hoops in order to prove to the police's satisfaction, they are fit to possess a gun........rather than the police having to do their job and investigate the applicant/application to prove they're not!

Edited August 1, 2019 by panoma1

[WestonSalop]

Might be an idea if PW members and other shooters (independent to CA/BASC etc) bombard this bloke with our thoughts on the topic. 

https://www.countryside-alliance.org/news/2019/7/countryside-alliance-chairman-stands-down-followin

[bostonmick]

I would like to think that basc and the other voices of our sport are ready to issue a legal challenge if and when forces start refusing certificates because of a Gp's personal objections to firearms. As for asking neighbours about your suitability are they going to check to see if they are law abiding and criminal record free. This whole thing is bordering on lunacy. But well done to our organisations for sitting back and ignoring all the warning signs yet again. 

Edited August 1, 2019 by bostonmick

[panoma1]

18 minutes ago, bostonmick said:

I would like to think that basc and the other voices of our sport are ready to issue a legal challenge if and when forces start refusing certificates because of a Gp's personal objections to firearms. As for asking neighbours about your suitability are they going to check to see if they are law abiding and criminal record free. This whole thing is bordering on lunacy. But well done to our organisations for sitting back and ignoring all the warning signs yet again. 

Also are the police going to investigate the background, honesty and integrity of every GP "who ticks the box" for an applicant? The profession is not beyond corruption and criminal activity, especially when there's money involved!

[ShootingEgg]

4 hours ago, Down South said:

Just renewed my coterminous certificates and grudgingly paid a demand for £40 to my GP. Doctors should have to comply with police checks, they should not have the power to veto applications for any reason other than those laid out in the medical check. Discussing my possession of guns with my neighbours, they are good people but no!  More regulation on law abiding people, why?

Ive not had anything from go as yet, sent in my renewal in early July, had a call from firearms to confirm a few bits, since then nothing, have a month until it runs out now

[Mickeydredd]

On 29/07/2019 at 16:53, mick miller said:

Why don't we see how many firearms offences are committed on average each year by licensed firearms holders, chuck shotgun owners into that hat if you like, the figures are piffling, trivial and statistically do not warrant this additional affront to personal freedoms under the guise of enhanced 'public safety.

I posted this elsewhere, relates to rifles only....

I attach a pdf which hopefully can be opened, but the highlights relating to rifles are as follows:

In the year to 31/03/2018 there were 92 incidents involving rifles (legally held and otherwise - the reports do not differentiate)
=> 57 of these incidents DID NOT involve the rifle being fired (26 relate to "possession" offences)

Of those fired,
=> 14 caused NO injury or property damage
=> 9 caused property damage only
=> 2 resulted in fatalities
=> 10 resulted in injuries

Compare these stats with Table 3 in the pdf which relates to knife crime. I think perhaps the response to the proposed Guidelines should be that on a risk-based approach, the Guidance should dispense with the requirement for any GP opinion for FAC holders!!

Rifle stats detail.pdf

[mick miller]

Okay, feedback was requested and we have descended into the usual, if not unsurprising, tub thumping (hands up here too). It is dull though, so in an effort to redeem myself these are my thoughts on the consultation proposals.

• Whilst, broadly, most people accept the 'enduring marker', this should only be added if we are to move to the 10 year licence and, along with that, a reduced burden for the firearms teams, not a reduction in staffing levels. The aims should be threefold; increased public safety, reduced workload, increased efficiency in application/ variation/ renewal turn arounds.

• The GP's assessment should be unbiased and honest based on a patients record. Due to the addition of the 'enduring marker' this should be a one-time only affair. On application a GP's referral is requested. This request should be from the licencing authority, not the individual. Once the GP signs off that there is no reason, from the medical records and not from personal bias, for refusal the relevant licence should be issued and the marker added to a patients records. There should never be a further requirement for GP involvement throughout the lifetime of the individual, not the lifetime of the certificate.

• As this is touted as 'increasing public safety' then the majority, if not all the costs involved should be met by the public purse. As this is essentially a box ticking exercise then the costs should be reasonable (£20-£50), fixed and consistent across all areas. There should be no deviation or facility to 'invent' charges by either constabularies or GP's, that is to say that rather than having 'regard', all costs should be clear, fixed and transparent.

• Should a GP refuse to reply on moral or personal grounds then there should be a national facility of GPs to whom referrals can be made, these should be at the same cost as a regular referral and should not take longer than average to process; no waiting month upon month for a reply. The applicant should not be 'punished' if their own GP's surgery refuses to assist.

• The idea of consulting with neighbours, partners, wives is a non-starter I'm afraid. This needs to be scratched completely. The process of application relies on two referees of good standing and no criminal record. This is sufficient and there is no evidence that any other additional processes will increase the thoroughness of the check. Once the initial application is approved any subsequent renewals WILL NO LONGER REQUIRE the referees. There is no point if there have been no additional offences committed by the applicant. All that should be required is good reason (land authority, club or both).

• Further to this last point, contacting of neighbours is a complete compromise to security. It also is biased toward refusal. Pick 10 people at random and ask them whether they would be happy for their neighbour to possess firearms and the results I would say with some confidence would be negatively biased.

• Along with fixing the costs of the medical referral so too should the HO guidance be fixed. No longer should local constabularies be allowed to have 'regard' to the advice. It should be law, fixed and not subject to personal interpretation and bias in either direction. This would prevent the postcode lottery of licencing and force constabularies to apply the law evenly and fairly across the UK.

• Whilst we are reforming the licencing it would be positive if we had a little carrot as well as stick. I propose a review of the processes of 'one for one', using the Northern Ireland model or other models with the key principle being freeing up the onerous demands on licensing authorities. The process should be simply to pass on a rifle to a licence holder (either gift or purchase) or RFD, notify the authority and then proceed to replace. This would free up time to do more thorough initial checks of new applicants and security reviews of existing applicants. Perhaps a series of open slots; 2/3 for vermin, 1/2 stalking, 2/3 target shooting should be the base with provision to revise for specific individuals on request. All should come with moderators added by default  (although, see below).

• The removal of moderators from licences. They are no different to a magazine, muzzle brake or other accessory and, provided it is allowed for under EU law, should be allowed to be owned freely without FAC requirement. A little carrot to the stick.

• Ideally I would like to see the implementation of a national database, electronically managed and a move away from paper based certification. We have drivers licences that already manage multiple data entries, carry photo ID, addresses etc, I cannot see why a similar digitally based system can not be used. Police could quickly check a persons credentials when stopped in possession and it would allow the FAC holder to access his records and submit changes in circumstance (change of address, cabinet size, firearms added/ sold, requests to vary etc.)

I can't think of anything else.

Edited August 1, 2019 by mick miller