Countryfile and Firearm Licensing

[Miki]

Sorry, I didn't realise this was a Scottish thread.
So, you won't be signing?

It isn't a Scottish Only thread, it's a 'holy **** this is happening in England now' thread. I was simply pointing out that the rules are not the same in Scotland as they are in England and Wales. The Scottish thread (for want of a better name) has been running for more than a year now and is titled "BASC says don't pay" ...

Scotland has only 1 force (Police Scotland) who introduced the 'No letter = No certificate' rule within weeks of the April 2016 guidelines being distributed - because there is a 'not applicable in Scotland' clause ...

I have done a great deal more than signing this latest petition JTO - you ?

 

[Miki]

Wrong interpretation I'm afraid, also no outrage!

In my book the payment of a reasonable extra fee is the third item of personal concern.
The second being the decision by some Doctors to ignore the agreement made by their representing body.
Firstly my real gripe is the seeming total lack of respect by the Police to The Home Office Guidance, which I understood to be the cornerstone of this issue? Once they tear the book up the real fun will start?
<snip>

My apologies O.M.

Interestingly the Doctors representing body (BMA) did a U turn and currently advise GP's to engage with the 'tick form/Police request' and that 'they are at liberty charge their patients' an undetermined fee.
This was to stop those doctors with concientious objections from not responding at all.

Your first concern is the issue, however, I was told by a Chief Inspector/head of Firearms Licencing that (after all) they are "only guidelines" ... so although there is merit in your direction that thicker part of the wedge would be neutralised if everyone thought that payment was "wrong" and the shooting organisations backed that stance.

In my opinion, so many people have now 'payed up' that the April 2016 HO guidelines themselves will soon be re-issued allowing the 'payment to secure the medical information' to be the accepted norm.

 

[Highlandsjohn]

It isn't a Scottish Only thread, it's a 'holy **** this is happening in England now' thread. I was simply pointing out that the rules are not the same in Scotland as they are in England and Wales. The Scottish thread (for want of a better name) has been running for more than a year now and is titled "BASC says don't pay" ...

Scotland has only 1 force (Police Scotland) who introduced the 'No letter = No certificate' rule within weeks of the April 2016 guidelines being distributed.

I have done a great deal more than signing this latest petition JTO - you ?

I have done a great deal more than signing this latest petition JTO - you ?

JTO has obviously has not been keeping up with your personal commitment to this debacle... Thanks.john

 

[Orion]

I was told by a Chief Inspector/head of Firearms Licencing that (after all) they are "only guidelines"

So why are the shooting organisations not using S.55A(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) to push back with?

See my earlier post at #80 as well for further apparent duplicity by the police.

 

[David63]

BASC are trying to tackle the issue, as I have posted, with constabularies on one a one to one basis such as Links and Thames Valley, and on broader basis too, details on the BASC web site

 

[I. Farticus]

My apologies O.M.

Interestingly the Doctors representing body (BMA) did a U turn and currently advise GP's to engage with the 'tick form/Police request' and that 'they are at liberty charge their patients' an undetermined fee.
This was to stop those doctors with concientious objections from not responding at all.

Your first concern is the issue, however, I was told by a Chief Inspector/head of Firearms Licencing that (after all) they are "only guidelines" ... so although there is merit in your direction that thicker part of the wedge would be neutralised if everyone thought that payment was "wrong" and the shooting organisations backed that stance.

In my opinion, so many people have now 'payed up' that the April 2016 HO guidelines themselves will soon be re-issued allowing the 'payment to secure the medical information' to be the accepted norm.

If a doctor doesn't respond, for any reason including being an anti/conscientious objector, then the certificate should be granted. It's in the HO Guidance!!!!

 

[Orion]

BASC are trying to tackle the issue, as I have posted, with constabularies on one a one to one basis such as Links and Thames Valley, and on broader basis too, details on the BASC web site

Does S.55A(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) provide you with any additional muscle when negotiating or in recourse to legal action in the final instance? If not, what does it actually achieve over and above a continued carte blanche for CCs to carry on with business as usual?

 

[Dalua]

Does S.55A(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 (as amended) provide you with any additional muscle when negotiating or in recourse to legal action in the final instance? If not, what does it actually achieve over and above a continued carte blanche for CCs to carry on with business as usual?

I fear that S.55A is a victory for the Home Office and the Police, since it allows the HO to make legislatively unscrutinised 'Guidance' which the police are lawfully required to 'have regard to'.

What we are seeing is what might well have been anticipated: namely that they have 'had regard to' some Guidance which they don't like and are therefore ignoring.

In like manner, I think we may expect future Guidance, which according to S55A (5) will be issued by the HO in consultation with the Police (both organisations demonstrably inimical to public ownership and use of firearms) which will be markedly to our cost and inconvenience - and to which the Police's 'regard' will be much more favourable. And there'll be scant remedy for it.

 

[Orion]

In like manner, I think we may expect future Guidance, which according to S55A (5) will be issued by the HO in consultation with the Police (both organisations demonstrably inimical to public ownership and use of firearms) which will be markedly to our cost and inconvenience - and to which the Police's 'regard' will be much more favourable. And there'll be scant remedy for it.

And in which, from previous posts and correspondence, some of the shooting organisations were complict in their acceptance. Appears that some are unable to remember the 1972 McKay Report and it's ongoing implications for lawful firearms ownership in the UK eh?

https://ukshootingnews.wordpress.com/2015/06/25/mckay-report-1972-in-full/#more-308

 

[kes]

BASC are trying to tackle the issue, as I have posted, with constabularies on one a one to one basis such as Links and Thames Valley, and on broader basis too, details on the BASC web site

May I ask why ?- does BASC have no clout with the Home Office any longer ? I seem to remember BASC was at the original 10 year/extra medicals meeting and yet each errant constabulary are being tackled individually - a bit pointless I would have thought given the above 'influence' and certainly not what I would expect as a member.

 

[Miki]

If a doctor doesn't respond, for any reason including being an anti/conscientious objector, then the certificate should be granted. It's in the HO Guidance!!!!

Yes, as is a "Not in Scotland clause" ....so Police Scotland (specifically a now retired Chief Inspector who works for SACS...) took the view that the overriding clause is that "The Chief Constable must be satisfied ..." and that without the tick form being returned he had reason to have doubt. So it started.

Underlying all of this is that it was decided, in 2013, in the interests of "public safety", that the medical profession are involved/engaged in the process which came from the Minister for Policing, Fire and Criminal Justice and Victims, the Rt Hon Damian Green MP ie from the very top. If the subsequent 'guidelines' (issued in April 2016) had been followed we wouldn't be in this cluster ****. Obviously if those in the various groups and sub-commitees had said "No" and the Scottish Ministers had issued guidelines similar to the HO and Andy Marsh and his FELWEG team had enough power and the BMA hadn't of done a U turn and several individuals (in Scotland) had not lied on their original FAC/SGC application (saying they were OK but which their doctors subsequently said 'no they are not') and the Scottish certificate holders had en-masse refused to pay their doctors .......

Now we are in 2018 and the rot is spreading...
The desire to have a system in place where the doctors are 'involved' is still there... and to be honest I agree with it (not the implimentation).
Most GP's are not qualified to decide if their patient is fit to hold an FAC or SGC and it is the Police who still hold this responsibility.

Unless the new man at the top, Nick Hurd MP, wants to disegage Doctors from the process (which will probably take as long as it did to engage them in the first place and is highly unlikely) then we are stuck with it, hopefully it will sort itself out.
There is more to this than meets the eye.

link to previous post

 

[Odders]

Old Man, they are together, their membership (majority of) has spoken and said - "No problem, we are happy to pay the doctors" ... (isn't that right BASC David ?)

What is it you want BASC, SACS and the CA to put a stop to exactly ?
If (as I suspect) you are voicing outrage to the 'No pay = No licence/ignoring of HO guidelines" then none of the organisations are adopting that stance. None.
Because their membership has said "we are happy to pay" and the organisations are duty bound to do what their membership wants.

What is wrong is the inequality of the system across the UK both from the Police FELD's and the GP's .... [I should add here that I am not at all happy that we are being forced/blackmailed into paying this additional fee and I am deeply saddened that the majority of SGC and FAC holders have stated that they are 'happy to pay' but I don't know how to get more than 50% of the various organisations membership to agree with me. So unless you do, then we all have to pay this additional cost or give up shooting altogether and the shooting organisations will continue to do what their members ask them too ...)

No we bloody well haven't!

 

[FrenchieBoy]

No we bloody well haven't!

This is what we seem to be hearing all over the place. Maybe we need a poll to find out exactly how many have said that they are happy to pay for a medical certificate compared to how many are not.

Edit: I have set up a poll for this question so please vote with your opinions at:
https://www.thestalkingdirectory.co...re-you-happy-to-pay-for-a-medical-certificate