GTA challenges Met’s unlawful licence form

[Conor O'Gorman]

The Gun Trade Association (GTA) has challenged a decision by the Metropolitan Police regarding firearms licensing procedures. The issue arose when the Met attempted to issue a new form requiring medical checks for all employees of registered firearms dealers (RFDs), a move deemed unlawful by the Home Office. The Home Office made it clear to the Met that new standards and processes could not be established without following the proper procedures.

GTA challenges Met’s unlawful licence form - ShootingUK

The Gun Trade Association (GTA) has challenged a decision by the Metropolitan Police regarding firearms licensing procedures. The issue arose when the Met attempted to issue a new form requiring medical checks for all employees of registered firearms dealers (RFDs), a move deemed unlawful by the...

www.shootinguk.co.uk

 

[Jh1986]

How about the breadth of difference in conditions then?

 

[finnbear270]

It is most encouraging to see a bit of backbone being shown, in the face of blatant "Make it up as you go along"

 

[cjm1066]

Well done GTA.

 

[Loki]

Jh1986 -

Tis left for us 'mere mortals', individually, to challenge conditions applied to our FC.........................

L

 

[palmer_mike]

To be fair, having worked at a section 5 RFD, where there was easy access to firearms (and with employees who have clear mental issues) I’d welcome medical checks for firearms businesses.

 

[finnbear270]

Rules are OK, If they have been implemented by the correct route ............. not by some jumped up Johnny who is on a power trip.

 

[palmer_mike]

Rules are OK, If they have been implemented by the correct route ............. not by some jumped up Johnny who is on a power trip.

Agreed, just seems odd that a servant of a section 5 RFD can be in possession of all sorts of interesting firearms on and off the premises (if transferring etc) without any official vetting whatsoever

 

[Tugmanade]

I would have thought it’d be more appropriate to vet some of their own officers in light of what some have been charged with these last few years.

 

[palmer_mike]

I would have thought it’d be more appropriate to vet some of their own officers in light of what some have been charged with these last few years.

I would agree that should also be of importance

 

[finnbear270]

The RFD's that I know make sure that anyone they issue a servant letter are well known to them, a new member of staff unknown would not be put in the position of servant.

 

[Liveonce]

Agreed, just seems odd that a servant of a section 5 RFD can be in possession of all sorts of interesting firearms on and off the premises (if transferring etc) without any official vetting whatsoever

Why do you think servants are not vetted? they are named on the RFD certificate do you not think the police do some vetting before putting their name on the certificate as a servant.

As for GP reports for servants, that could become an expensive burden for a business, RFD certs only run for three years so consider a reasonable or large business that potentially could have 15, 20, 30 plus staff all needing the GP report at say £100 each and the nightmare of getting all the reports done such that the RFD certificate can be renewed on time.

 

[palmer_mike]

Why do you think servants are not vetted? they are named on the RFD certificate do you not think the police do some vetting before putting their name on the certificate as a servant.

In my direct experience (having very recently been a servant of a section 5 dealer in Suffolk) i can categorically say with 100% confidence that no official vetting took place at my workplace. In fact the police told us that they are powerless to look into medical records of staff who aren’t fac or sgc holders themselves.

 

[Liveonce]

In my direct experience (having very recently been a servant of a section 5 dealer in Suffolk) i can categorically say with 100% confidence that no official vetting took place at my workplace. In fact the police told us that they are powerless to look into medical records of staff who aren’t fac or sgc holders themselves.

not suggesting they would look into medical records, as access is strictly regulated just visit NHS digital website to learn more. I doubt they can look directly into medical records of FAC or SGC holders hence the enduring medical marker your registered GPs are supposed to add to then monitor certificate holders. No registered GP then no certificate.

However they will i bet checked all the criminal records systems they have access to, sex register, prison records, cautions etc etc. Years back servants names were not even listed on an RFD certificate but they certainly are now in Kent.

 

[palmer_mike]

not suggesting they would look into medical records, as access is strictly regulated just visit NHS digital website to learn more. I doubt they can look directly into medical records of FAC or SGC holders hence the enduring medical marker your registered GPs are supposed to add to then monitor certificate holders. No registered GP then no certificate.

However they will i bet checked all the criminal records systems they have access to, sex register, prison records, cautions etc etc. Years back servants names were not even listed on an RFD certificate but they certainly are now in Kent.

No, to our knowledge no such vetting took place at all.
Also the new vetting proposed by the Met applies to ALL employees not just servants. At the place I worked the employees with access to firearms on the premises were not necessarily servants. Therefore even IF servants are currently vetted (they aren’t) some employees with access to firearms and ammunition will not have had any vetting carried out officially.

 

[Liveonce]

No, to our knowledge no such vetting took place at all.
Also the new vetting proposed by the Met applies to ALL employees not just servants. At the place I worked the employees with access to firearms on the premises were not necessarily servants. Therefore even IF servants are currently vetted (they aren’t) some employees with access to firearms and ammunition will not have had any vetting carried out officially.

Possibly the situation has moved on see pages 34 and 35 regarding employees and servants.

Guess like a lot it depends on each force’s interpretation of due diligence and what they do to comply with A.7

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/63e284a78fa8f50e89351509/Revised_Firearms_Licensing_Statutory_Guidance_Feb_2023.pdf

 

[palmer_mike]

To be fair I only had a quick scan of the document but didn’t see anything relating to employees of An RFD

Read the bit relating to servants.

 

[Liveonce]

To be fair I only had a quick scan of the document but didn’t see anything relating to employees of An RFD

Read the bit relating to servants.

page 34 A.4 (III) mentions employees which as i read the document are all classed as Servants if they have access to firearms, but Mike as we all know different forces interrupt the document as they like.

 

[tim@tcs]

Years back servants names were not even listed on an RFD certificate but they certainly are now in Kent.

I renewed mine last year and I had no medical to do and I’m not named on the certificate!
Sussex

 

[Liveonce]

I renewed mine last year and I had no medical to do and I’m not named on the certificate!
Sussex

Demonstrates what we all know each force do what they like.
Are you a Servant or the holder of the RFD certificate.