BASC response to Firearms Licensing Guidance Consultation

[David BASC]

[Scully]

Despite this being called a consultation, and despite there being many illogical legalities regarding firearms licensing, I haven't  taken part as I believe it is nothing of the sort; it is already a done deal. BASC is claiming it will be taking legal advice on its response  ( am I being cynical claiming that I already know what that advice and response will be ? ) and Nick Hurd is adamant that the applicant will foot the bill. And that's it really. 🙂

Excellent post Mick Miller. 👍

[mick miller]

Well, that might be the case and, indeed, the likely outcome but without any avenue to legal challenge available to myself I thought I would just put my more considered, less angry suggestions forward. I see the outcome, as you do, as not being anything other than more 'stick'.

But you know...🤞

Sadly, there isn't much other than politely requesting that the HO listens to this, without having either a Parliamentary debate or legal challenge.

 

Edited August 1, 2019 by mick miller

[Scully]

3 minutes ago, mick miller said:

Well, that might be the case and, indeed, the likely outcome but without any avenue to legal challenge available to myself I thought I would just put my more considered, less angry suggestions forward. I see the outcome, as you do, as not being anything other than more 'stick'.

But at least you took the time and made the effort, and all valid and worthwhile suggestions. 👍

[mick miller]

Just now, Scully said:

But at least you took the time and made the effort, and all valid and worthwhile suggestions. 👍

Ta.

 

[AdamSouthEast]

So rifles killed 2 people last year, including illegally held ones and could potentially include suicides too as it's unspecified? And all this effort and money has been put in to restrict access further? How about these jobsworths focus their attention on something actually pressing like moped gangs or the seemingly endless stabfests that take place in inner cities? Can't they just **** off and leave us peaceful shooters to it?

/Rhetoric rant

[mick miller]

19 minutes ago, AdamSouthEast said:

So rifles killed 2 people last year, including illegally held ones and could potentially include suicides too as it's unspecified? And all this effort and money has been put in to restrict access further? How about these jobsworths focus their attention on something actually pressing like moped gangs or the seemingly endless stabfests that take place in inner cities? Can't they just **** off and leave us peaceful shooters to it?

/Rhetoric rant

Points I have raised already.

Quote

Why is the system changing?

The new system has been developed following recommendations for change from coroners and the IPCC, and after the British Medical Association voiced concerns about weaknesses in the current process. It has been developed by the police and GP representatives, in conjunction with shooting organisations and the Information Commissioners Office. Further improvements are planned for introduction later this year when police will contact each applicant’s GP during the application process instead of after the certificate is granted. Guidance will be issued prior to introduction of these additional improvements.

I think there has been concerns raised over the lack of honesty when filling in the medical part of the application, although that is just hearsay, I have seen no official documentation to back that claim up (but I would like to!). This is why this new proposal has been added. Voicing concerns though is hardly statistical evidence that the preexisting system was weak or a risk to public safety. BMA voices concerns, BMA generates much needed income for private surgeries (as all GP's surgeries are private, not public/nhs concerns).

To me it just looks like more hoops for hoops sake, with a fat wad of cash thrown in and little genuine increase in 'public safety'.

Edited August 1, 2019 by mick miller

[oowee]

For what it's worth I added a load of stuff that removes the ambiguity re signing off of land, agreeing suitable calibres, ten year tickets, exchanging rifles and the ridiculous variation process and so on. It becomes a very long list of wants when you start to think of all of the issues and concerns.

[panoma1]

There you go Connor, I'm sure there enough written in this thread for BASC to be going on with? With probably more to come?

[panoma1]

20 minutes ago, mick miller said:

Points I have raised already.

I think there has been concerns raised over the lack of honesty when filling in the medical part of the application, although that is just hearsay, I have seen no official documentation to back that claim up (but I would like to!). This is why this new proposal has been added. Voicing concerns though is hardly statistical evidence that the preexisting system was weak or a risk to public safety. BMA voices concerns, BMA generates much needed income for private surgeries (as all GP's surgeries are private, not public/nhs concerns).

To me it just looks like more hoops for hoops sake, with a fat wad of cash thrown in.

The BMA are the doctors trade union, they will do what the doctors bid......didn't the BMA agree (during negotiation with the HO, police and shooting reps) on behalf of GP's that they would participate in the last agreed guidance and place markers on patient records...for free? Until the doctors decided otherwise and started charging! Many GP's reneged and refused to cooperate unless they got paid? The result, is this new proposed system, where guess what? GP's will now get paid to tick a box.....and we all know who will pay!

"The new system has been developed by the police and GP's representatives".....well there a surprise! The police want to restrict and discourage private gun ownership, and regulate it out of existence, and the GP's want to milk the new income stream!

 

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Just checking in to thank all those that have taken the time to post comments in this thread so far - lots of useful challenges and case studies based on in-depth collective experience and expertise. Very much appreciated not only by me but many colleagues on staff, advisory committees and Council - many of whom read relevant threads in this forum.

The OP was "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"

I have also had several emails and replied to those and that is also very much appreciated.

I am assessing all of this feedback and I will be producing a synopsis for the consideration of BASC's firearms team. I will post a draft copy of that on this thread and I hope that it will be an accurate reflection of the collective views and experience of this forum. If there are issues with my synopsis you will have the chance to challenge that synopsis and I will amend it accordingly as best I can.

The firearms team will then consider my report amongst other feedback from other sources in producing a draft response that positions BASC on this extremely important policy issue that will affect every existing and prospective shotgun and rifle owner and RFD in England, Wales and Scotland.

The response that is submitted to the Home Office will be first vetted by BASC executive directors and BASC Council.

The response that is submitted will be published.

Hope that helps give an insight into the aims and objectives of this thread.

[mick miller]

Thank you. 

[harkom]

Same old, Same old....BASC....🤮.

Originally.... TOOK A STANCE AGAINST ..... GP involvement in the certification process. So what has happened since then.... YUP,  They have rolled over ..... and now trying to appear to the membership that they are "doing something" and "trying" to influence ( yeah, I know -- no hope) the introduction of an open ended expense to the licensing process, dictated by the plods.... yes...PLODS.. as in  could not put one foot in front of the other without the assistance of the autonomic nervous system.

A TEN YEAR LICENCE.....Yet again another shot in both feet by BASC. Health issues can change rapidly, notably mental health. And you think that your overworked, underpaid.... sorry, may have got that wrong way round........is going to be so up to date on your NH records that he can alert plod that you represent a risk to public safety. *** get a grip on reality.

Remember BASC promoted the abolition of the Game Licence (£3) .... the number of licences sold were pitifully small... and did they reflect anywhere near the number of "game" shooters.  I think NOT...... So from that data set, how does BASC convince the legislature that there are  10to the6 game shooters rather than 10to the three....as proven by the number of licences sold.

PS... Think they were probably supportive of the abolition of the old dog licence.....look where that went.

YUP, for sure.. led by donkeys. Good Luck to All.

[mick miller]

Until and unless a firearms holder, refused a renewal due to the inability to supply medical information is prepared to (temporarily) offer themselves on the alter of freedom and supply their details to one of the orgs that represent us (PM for details if you wish to know whom to contact) then no legal challenge can be made.

As the consultation is already underway the clock is ticking for some brave soul to do so. I am reliably informed that despite repeated requests by one organisation, from any complainant that has contacted them, to provide themselves and their details in a challenge to the misapplication of firearms law by local constabularies, none have come forward. Wait any longer and it will be too late.

We are all so cowed into submission. Worst case the individual would have to reapply WITH the correct medical information, their application could not be refused.

Edited August 2, 2019 by mick miller

[oowee]

Thank you Conner. 

[Scully]

57 minutes ago, mick miller said:

Until and unless a firearms holder, refused a renewal due to the inability to supply medical information is prepared to (temporarily) offer themselves on the alter of freedom and supply their details to one of the orgs that represent us (PM for details if you wish to know whom to contact) then no legal challenge can be made.

As the consultation is already underway the clock is ticking for some brave soul to do so. I am reliably informed that despite repeated requests by one organisation, from any complainant that has contacted them, to provide themselves and their details in a challenge to the misapplication of firearms law by local constabularies, none have come forward. Wait any longer and it will be too late.

We are all so cowed into submission. Worst case the individual would have to reapply WITH the correct medical information, their application could not be refused.

It won’t be me. Not only are my tickets good for another three years yet, I am one of those who has to declare a historical ( or do I mean hysterical ?) medical condition. Despite this, my last two renewals went through unhindered; no contact from GP and no fee.

A change of GP practise ( haven’t met any of them, but there again, I was a stranger to most at my previous practise!  ) may change this. Interesting times ahead. 

[243deer]

On 29/07/2019 at 14:47, mick miller said:

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.

Unless we get the answer to that very pertinent question based on recorded statistics this whole debacle is based purely on a political whim.

Make the system simple, continuous assessment via a GP marker and a national database can equal licences for life - it works for vehicle drivers so no reason at all in this digital age why it cannot work for firearms. Some control can still be retained via needing good reason for an additional weapon, in fact firearms enquiry officers would have more time freed up for better checks and a far more efficient and user friendly service.

I simply cannot understand why our  politicians, police and  shooting organisations are not collectively seeking a simple cheap system, it makes you wonder whether common sense is dead.

[mick miller]

The idea isn't too simplify the system, or improve it. The idea appears to be to add additional hoops and costs as a deterrent. The ultimate goal, whether anyone states otherwise, is a continual reduction in private (legal) firearms ownership. There is no argument that there any any additional benefits to this, other than increased bureaucracy and revenue generation for the health service.

There was an argument from TVP that certain applicants had falsified medical records. However, the number was tiny, all were detected which underlines the efficacy of existing checks. No argument. Revocations, historically, are so low as to be statistically counted as nil.

The only question remains, do you want tomato sauce with those hoops?

Edited August 2, 2019 by mick miller

[Bazooka Joe]

Quote

Until and unless a firearms holder, refused a renewal due to the inability to supply medical information is prepared to (temporarily) offer themselves on the alter of freedom and supply their details to one of the orgs that represent us (PM for details if you wish to know whom to contact) then no legal challenge can be made.

If I remember correctly when this kicked off a while back (Lincoln) "I stand too be corrected" there was a member who suggested just that & put himself forward....no org took advantage...

[Conor O'Gorman]

In summary, based on all the feedback received so far, I think its fair to say that most people believe that the proposed statutory guidance will not only fail to address fundamental problems with firearms licensing; the proposed statutory guidance will make things even worse. So where do we go from here? That is what we are looking into.

[Scully]

Unfortunately, we go where those in authority wish to lead us. It’s not like we have a choice is it. 

[ShootingEgg]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

In summary, based on all the feedback received so far, I think its fair to say that most people believe that the proposed statutory guidance will not only fail to address fundamental problems with firearms licensing; the proposed statutory guidance will make things even worse. So where do we go from here? That is what we are looking into.

Maybe tell them to stop restricting already law abiding firearms holders would be a start. Knee jerk reactions that put us under so much scrutiny. And make it so that there is a level playing field and all forces impose the same level of legislation and not make it up on a whim or do as they feel. Things like you have to do this to have that, or log everytime you go out and then we'll do this... 

[bluesj]

On ‎01‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 14:55, Mickeydredd said:

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 178.5 kB · 4 downloads

Well it is obvious from the above that the proposed increase in hoops to jump through has nothing to do with public safety, if they can't publish real figures to show how many offences are committed with legally owned rifles they won't know if all the extra rules on lawful owners has made any difference 

[McSpredder]

On ‎01‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 14:55, Mickeydredd said:

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

Is the whole document (rather than just the data about rifles) available to view?

[panoma1]

17 hours ago, bluesj said:

Well it is obvious from the above that the proposed increase in hoops to jump through has nothing to do with public safety, if they can't publish real figures to show how many offences are committed with legally owned rifles they won't know if all the extra rules on lawful owners has made any difference 

Add to this PC plod interviewing your possibly alcoholic, criminal, drug dealing, ex con neighbour and asking him/her whether you are a suitable person to own guns,  is a great contribution to public safety innit? Who the **** thought that one up?