The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Sandgroper wrote:...After having a quick skim of this document http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/pub ... s/cc9.aspx it appears you can be a Charity and Politically active.

D1. Can a charity carry out campaigning and political activity?

The short answer

Yes – any charity can become involved in campaigning and in political activity which further or support its charitable purposes, unless its governing document prohibits it.

RSPCA anyone???
oops, what am I like - I keep forgetting that they're NOT really into charitable activities; JUST political levying and emotional fund raising from OAPs!!

Blackstuff wrote:

rox wrote:
Well it doesn't work at all for a number of us on here for whom it makes no sense to join them (mostly paper punchers). But it would make a lot of sense to support something more along the lines of GOA, and that would be the case for anyone who shoots anything.

..

+1 BASC is not, i repeat NOT only interested in game shooting and deer stalking. They are happy to help with any kind of shooting related query from its members, and as far as i could find at the time, the ONLY association (aside from UKPSA) that would give me any advice on Practical Shotgun when i started. And on that note their insurance policy also covers PSG and all other target shooting disciplines. clapclap

BASC is the biggest organisation and therefore has the most politican clout. Until all of the discipline orientated organisations swallow a bit of pride and merge into one organisation imo they are the best we have.

I see. So those of us who don't need insurance, have no interest in and don't want to pay for a 'Gamekeepers Team', a 'Conservation Team' etc etc, just have to suck it up and STFU and pay-up to subsidise those who can make use of these things. Aren't these the same arguments normally used against the NRA (aside from the stuck record of 'professionalism' BASC blah-blah-yawn ).

Ok, so there is no mileage whatsoever in a discipline independent lobby organisation for all shooters that is cheap enough for everyone to support so that it can get the numbers that would give it real clout. I've got it now.

..

rox wrote:

Blackstuff wrote:

rox wrote:
Ok, so there is no milage whatsoever in a discipline independant lobby organisation for all shooters that is cheap enough for everyone to support so that it can get the numbers that would give it real clout. I've got it now.

..

Rox - NRA costs £70 per annum - 6k members

BASC is £66 per annum - 130K + members

Which is the more cost effective? (since both will cover me for shooting, but only one will cover me for ALL my shooting, game and target)

I am now a member of both though, been a BASC member since 1989

MiLisCer wrote:

rox wrote:
Ok, so there is no milage whatsoever in a discipline independant lobby organisation for all shooters that is cheap enough for everyone to support so that it can get the numbers that would give it real clout. I've got it now.

..

Rox - NRA costs £70 per annum - 6k members

BASC is £66 per annum - 130K + members

Which is the more cost effective? (since both will cover me for shooting, but only one will cover me for ALL my shooting, game and target)

I am now a member of both though, been a BASC member since 1989

Which one is the more cost effective depends what you do, but I don't want to have to join 2 full-service organisations. If there were a cost-effective lobby group like GOA I would support them, but if the replies on here are representative it would have a membership of one (me), so it is clear that there is absolutely no need for anything like that in this country and we already have perfect representation. It just costs $100 instead of $20 because you have to pay for a load of extras you don't necessarily want or need.

..

..

Rox - NRA costs £70 per annum - 6k members

BASC is £66 per annum - 130K + members

Which is the more cost effective? (since both will cover me for shooting, but only one will cover me for ALL my shooting, game and target)

I am now a member of both though, been a BASC member since 1989[/quote]


Just so people know, the NRA insurance does cover both game and target shooting and also includes kit cover at home, on the move, in the field and on the range.

Heather

rox wrote:

MiLisCer wrote:

rox wrote:
Ok, so there is no milage whatsoever in a discipline independant lobby organisation for all shooters that is cheap enough for everyone to support so that it can get the numbers that would give it real clout. I've got it now.

..

Rox - NRA costs £70 per annum - 6k members

BASC is £66 per annum - 130K + members

Which is the more cost effective? (since both will cover me for shooting, but only one will cover me for ALL my shooting, game and target)

I am now a member of both though, been a BASC member since 1989

Which one is the more cost effective depends what you do, but I don't want to have to join 2 full-service organisations. If there were a cost-effective lobby group like GOA I would support them, but if the replies on here are representative it would have a membership of one (me), so it is clear that there is absolutely no need for anything like that in this country and we already have perfect representation. It just costs $100 instead of $20 because you have to pay for a load of extras you don't necessarily want or need.

..

..

I' sorry but I think you have given the reason for the lack of overall representation in your rejection of BASC, you don't want to pay for things that you have no interest in, neither does anyone else! I have zero interest in TR but I a quite happy to have BASC lobby on behalf of TR shooters should that become necessary , because in supporting one set of shooters it supports all shooters! its all very well wishing for a perfect situation with a lobby group that costs very little and supports everyone,but, it ain't going to happen! as soon as someone tries to set such a group up, there will be someone saying "I'm not paying for that it caters to those horrible animal killers/bondage jacket/shotgun paramilitary types!" (add subset of shooting as required) the NRA supports its core membership and that is its remit, the BASC due to its size takes a wider view, neither are perfect but all this wishful thinking isn't going to help either. I agree it would be nice to have the option to join both the NRA and BASC and have a reduction in cost (and cover) due to the duplication of insurance, but that is something you would have to take up with them.

rox wrote: if the replies on here are representative it would have a membership of one (me)

No, I would be interested - however what others have said is valid; in that they don't seem very active, and the web site doesn't inspire confidence (compare it to the BASC site) - If they promoted themselves better and made it clear what their future plans were then I would consider supporting them...and with some support they could be better....

Kennyc: It's not a case of not being interested in other disceplines - I'm not interested in pistols or 'black guns' but am happy to support peoples right to shoot them - I'm not anti-hunting either (I was interested in you photo's from your trip down here in the winter...Purbeck somewhere?)...it's simply a point of principle, in that I have some issues with large scale organised pheasant shooting...so could not join the BASC....

BASC membership doesn't get me anything with the various competitions, which is why I would consider both. BASC is a very helpful thing to have, they are a very decent organisation.

Divide and conquer - old adage but we let it happen to us. BASC isn't perfect, but they do promote all shooting. They do defend target shooting and they are on the news when something bad happens, making the point that just because something bad happens involving a gun, doesn't mean that we are all Thomas Hamilton. I don't see the NRA doing that, but they sure do in America. It would be a good idea for the NRA to liaise with BASC more, and get their name out in the public.

Hint - hiding away behind emails doesn't help this goal!

NB. I am fully supportive of all the NRA folk on the forum and not trying to be negative.

rox wrote:
I see. So those of us who don't need insurance, have no interest in and don't want to pay for a 'Gamekeepers Team', a 'Conservation Team' etc etc, just have to suck it up and STFU and pay-up to subsidise those who can make use of these things. Aren't these the same arguments normally used against the NRA (aside from the stuck record of 'professionalism' BASC blah-blah-yawn ).

Ok, so there is no mileage whatsoever in a discipline independent lobby organisation for all shooters that is cheap enough for everyone to support so that it can get the numbers that would give it real clout. I've got it now.

..

I'm not sure why the teddy came out of the pram with my post, i was not derogatory to the NRA, only defending BASC as an implication had been made that they only cater for game shooting/stalking. emrolleyes

I go game shooting maybe once or twice a year and deer stalking once or twice every other year, it represents about 2% of my shooting, so yes i'm paying for a lot of people/facilities that i don't use, and you know what i'm HAPPY to do it because BASC is the closest thing we have to an organisation that is interested in protecting and promoting shooting not just x, y or z version of it. If there was one organisation that covered everyone i'd happily pay DOUBLE for it, because at the moment i'm paying TRIPLE for it having to be a member of several different organisations.