POLL - Are you happy to pay for a medical certificate?
- Thread starter FrenchieBoy
- Start date
pheasant sniper 1
Well-Known Member
Fair points.
There have been a few threads regarding the handgun ban. Disappointingly a large number of shooters on here made it clear that in their opinion there was absolutely no need or legitimate reason for handgun ownership. Imo this attitude is rife within the shooting community over many different shooting disciplines ie practical shotgun and semi auto .22 ownership etc
What we have historically within the shooting community is little or no solidarity across the board. If somebody isnt affected by a ban on something they dont value they dont give a toss.
Therefore how can anybody lay the blame at any shooting organisation or expect any unity regarding unenforced costs.
Would you say that a shooting organisation should oppose a proposed ban on handguns ?
It would be my point, as with the medical fee that they dont need a poll or a membership revolt to do what should be obvious for an organistation which should support all shooting sports. Hence one questions why you pay membership fees if it is not immediately obvious to a shooting org that what is happening with medical fees is wrong and needs to be opposed vigorously. Bear in mind also that BASC was the 'shooting lead in the original discussions and should have known what it regarded as a reasonable outcome - this is not it. Also please bear in mind that CA doesnt need a poll to take this issue on. Bear in mind also that this started going wrong in Scotland in 2016. I think therefore its fair to lay the blame at BASC's door. I could be wrong but I dont think I am.
It would be my point, as with the medical fee that they dont need a poll or a membership revolt to do what should be obvious for an organistation which should support all shooting sports. Hence one questions why you pay membership fees if it is not immediately obvious to a shooting org that what is happening with medical fees is wrong and needs to be opposed vigorously. Bear in mind also that BASC was the 'shooting lead in the original discussions and should have known what it regarded as a reasonable outcome - this is not it. Also please bear in mind that CA doesnt need a poll to take this issue on. Bear in mind also that this started going wrong in Scotland in 2016. I think therefore its fair to lay the blame at BASC's door. I could be wrong but I dont think I am.
Frank Homes
Well-Known Member
Dalua,
Could you please explain why you think that an SGC/FAC attests to someone's fitness to possess and use firearms and where is there a right in common law to own and use firearms?
F
Could you please explain why you think that an SGC/FAC attests to someone's fitness to possess and use firearms and where is there a right in common law to own and use firearms?
F
My understanding is that right to possess arms is described in the Bill of Rights (1689), and is reasserted in Blackstone's 'Commentaries on the Laws of England' (1765). Also that the latter was raised, and its relevance endorsed, in a debate on what became the Seizure of Arms Act 1820.
The Firearms Bill, which became the Firearms Act 1920 referred to the 'limitation of the right to possess firearms', and this right seems to me still to be implied by the right to appeal through the courts against refusal of grant of FAC/SGC.
Even the use of the term 'certificate' suggests something other than the colloquial use of 'licensing' (as in FLD) - as I've outlines in a previous reply.
In granting the FAC, the COP certifies that he's satisfied as to the good reason to possess, and that the possession will be without danger to the public or the peace.
In granting the SGC, the COP certifies that he's satisfied that the possession will be without danger to the public or the peace; but he must not grant if hasreason to believe that the applicant does not have a good reason to possess.
What do you think?
pheasant sniper 1
Well-Known Member
To be fair Frenchie. I would have paid until reading this thread. Purley to keep my guns. I love shooting. It's what I do. So of course I would pay if I had a letter saying I needed X. I wouldn't be happy. But now I wouldn't after the info from others in this thread.
The thing is as this thread shows time and time again ,that the fee is set and is being abused!! and being shown that quite a few people want to roll over and except it,you wouldn,t think that we are all supposed to be in the same sport/pastime /work/ would you.
Forgive my ignorance what is it set to? I think when I went the docs about 4yrs ago they had a price list of these services. But I'm not sure fac/shotgun was on it. I would ask if your doctor really knows you? They don't know me. I see any of them. I broke my knee so had to see them around 4yrs ago. Before that I found out my doctor had retired years ago. Ha ha. It clear to see if any of us were going mad, we know to not see the doc.
It should be a fixed cost. Or if so. Add it to the application and firearms licensing pay them. They are asking. I don't pay someone for a service I haven't requested in any other part of my life. When I had my hgv I had to go for a medical. Then send in the app with the medical. So I asked the doctor I payed the fee.
Last edited:
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Parliament sets the fees for FAC grants & renewals and the specific circumstances when additional charges are applicable. Unfortunately the BMA it would appear have decided that this isn't good enough for them and want their Drs to charge applicants over and above what the HO requires.
If I understand what they say correctly, that GPs have had new work imposed on them without reward, they should be seeking their payment from either the NHS,HO, or Police FLD rather trying to bully patients into paying. But as has been said before, as the issue has become so contentious it might be better if GP involvement was to cease altogether.
Harry mac
Well-Known Member
Surely, BASC have always advised people not to pay? The org has made this abundantly clear on its website, and issued very strong condemnations of the BMA, Lincs GPs, etc. Just like the CA. The fact that many people are ignoring this advice and are actually paying is hardly the fault of BASC, CA or any other org. P Individuals must take responsibility for their own decisions.
It seems to me that BASC has exactly the same stance on GP payments as the CA. (Not sure about SACs). No shooting org has the power to tell GPs what to do - but remember, if you don't want to pay (in England and Wales, apart from Lincs, perhaps) then you don't have to; the police will still process your application after 21 days without a GP letter anyway.
It seems to me that BASC has exactly the same stance on GP payments as the CA. (Not sure about SACs). No shooting org has the power to tell GPs what to do - but remember, if you don't want to pay (in England and Wales, apart from Lincs, perhaps) then you don't have to; the police will still process your application after 21 days without a GP letter anyway.
Last edited:
Maybe Lincs have declared full on fiefdom?
I don't think the GPs charged by "mistake". It was deliberate. They thought they could, or should, and individual applicants coughed up, despite BASC advice. If individuals wish to ignore BASC advice and strike a private deal with GPs, so be it. They are adults.
Let me point out, yet again, that it seems nobody in England and Wales actually has to pay for a doctor's initial screening letter, because even if such a letter isn't received, after 21 days the police will process the application anyway. (Not sure about Lincs.)
Last edited:
Frank Homes
Well-Known Member
Dalua
I think that possession of firearms/shotguns is governed by statutory law i.e the Firearms Acts 1968 -1997
The Cop certifies a right to possess and use firearms/shotguns he doesn't formally certify that the person has good reason or is not a danger to public safety although i accept that is a prerequisite of issuance.
F
I think that possession of firearms/shotguns is governed by statutory law i.e the Firearms Acts 1968 -1997
The Cop certifies a right to possess and use firearms/shotguns he doesn't formally certify that the person has good reason or is not a danger to public safety although i accept that is a prerequisite of issuance.
F
My understanding is that as statue law is not passed in a vacuum, so the Firearms Act of 1920 was passed in the context of the British subjects' right to arms. That is why certificates are issued rather than licenses.
IMO the CoP is not granting (or even certifying) a right, because the right is already there. What the CoP is doing is certifying applicants as fit within the terms of the Firearms Act to exercsie their pre-existing (if, since 1920, conditional) right to possess and use firearms.
Frank Homes
Well-Known Member
There is no longer a right to bear arms in Britain because various later statutes controlled their possession including the current legislation. The result is that it is an offence to possess firearms and shotguns without a certificate. And how do you equate the fact that the original Bill of Rights excluded women and catholics?
F
F
I think the evidence suggests that there is still a right to arms in Britain (or E&W, at least) based on the Bill of Rights. Hence, inter al., the right to appeal to the court if the CoP denies one a certificate to exercise the right.
My understanding is that the right to arms for subjects 'being protestants' was not restricting that right to protestants, but rather clarifying that the right applied to protestants just as it did already to Roman Catholics: protestants having been unlawfully disarmed under James II.
As to women, I wasn't aware that the Bill of Rights excluded them: but as a member of the Church of England and a male I'm not particularly bothered.
My understanding is that the right to arms for subjects 'being protestants' was not restricting that right to protestants, but rather clarifying that the right applied to protestants just as it did already to Roman Catholics: protestants having been unlawfully disarmed under James II.
As to women, I wasn't aware that the Bill of Rights excluded them: but as a member of the Church of England and a male I'm not particularly bothered.
Last edited:
Frank Homes
Well-Known Member
Which (If women are excluded) makes a nonsense of your argument.
F
F
I don't think it does because English law is based on the principle that everything is legal unless prohibited, and later law laid down that women may not be discriminated against with respect to rights that men enjoy. Therefore if a right previously existed for men, then it now applies to women (and various other "genders") as well. Essentially, later law would have repealed any prohibition tgat may have existed under the Bill of Rights - although i don't believe one does exist because references to men would be deemed to include women.
Similar threads
