Shotgun certificate revoked due to cancer

[PEM406]

Being diagnosed with Cancer itself is certainly not a cause for revocation.

However, Doctors are under no legal obligation to liaise with police regarding firearms licensing matters, neither are they expected to make judgement on suitability - This is the role of the firearms licensing team, as noted on the medical pro-forma form:

“Please note that the police are not seeking your opinion on my suitability to hold a firearm certificate, as the responsibility for this decision lies with the police. They require only a factual response, from a suitably qualified* GMC-registered doctor based on my medical record”.

But I fear that there is something missing here though…

Firearms Licensing Departments generally do not conduct ‘welfare checks’ without some sort of reason, so we can assume that the Doctor or other party has passed on some information.

If your neighbour has then failed to engage with the FEO, then I would imagine that this is why the decision to revoke was made…

But the firearms licensing team should provide a clear reason for the revocation in writing…

And as cancer itself is not a ‘relevant medical condition’ as per the notes on the application form, then a failure to notify the police of this wouldn’t be a usual reason for revocation unless there are other factors

I hope that helps…

Thanks. Does give me things to check.

I wondered about this welfare visit as other posts have said. The way my neighbour was speaking about it, it sounded random but maybe I have the info out of sequence. I’ll clarify with them as I can’t imagine FEOs have time to dip test certificate holders like that.

I also said she should have details of the reason for revocation in writing.

As @Mick9abf says, I won’t have all the details after one conversation. What I’m going to do is give them a list of things to consider, thanks to all your replies. They can then decide how they want to proceed and how much to talk to me about it.

 

[TringSaint]

Thing is, there is cancer and cancer.
I have had pre-cancerous tissue removed and it’s all gone. My wife has had a melanoma removed - stage 2b, all gone.
There would be no reason to notify anyone about those as they are quickly dealt with.

However, if it was stage 4 or something or another degenerative disease them I could understand their concern.
Still, no reason to revoke but maybe just keep a closer eye.

 

[Outandabout-goneshooting]

Sorry to read about your neighbour and their situation. A friend of mine was diagnosed with and ultimately passed away from Cancer.
He told his Feo quite soon after diagnosis and had his shotguns until he passed, I took him out on his last couple of shoot days a couple of weeks before he died.
His Firearms department didn't have any problems with him having his guns , he reckoned that was because he told them as soon as possible after diagnosis, this was with Gmp.
Good luck with whichever route you choose to go.

Sorry for both of you. I had a very similar situation where a friend of friend was going through investigations for a possible brain tumour/ growth of blood vessels within the brain.He told licensing straight away, and they were remarkably good around the whole thing. He kept all of his guns, and thankfully is now fine, but they made the point that he could keep the guns as he told them straight away and his judgement could not reasonably be forseen to be in question. Had they have found out through other means, they would have revoked whilst they got a doctor's opinion. He agreed with the feo that should it get to a point here he felt his judgement was impaired for whatever reason, he would lodge the guns with an rfd, didn't come to that in the end though. So I think you may be right in terms of a sort of "honesty test".

 

[PEM406]

Thing is, there is cancer and cancer.
I have had pre-cancerous tissue removed and it’s all gone. My wife has had a melanoma removed - stage 2b, all gone.
There would be no reason to notify anyone about those as they are quickly dealt with.

However, if it was stage 4 or something or another degenerative disease them I could understand their concern.
Still, no reason to revoke but maybe just keep a closer eye.

sorry to hear about your situation but glad it all seems clear now.

Makes sense. My wife has a FAC and had pre-cancerous cells removed with no other treatment and didn’t even occur to us to inform anyone. Had she had to go on serious meds it would have been another story completely

 

[palmer_mike]

The most telling part of the OP may be

“They had a cancer diagnosis some time ago (not sure when). They just had their shotgun certificate revoked for not telling the local firearms team about this.”

Over 10 years ago I had a cancer diagnosis which (following treatment) now thankfully seems fully resolved. I informed my FLD of the diagnosis at the time and there were never any issues whatsoever over me continuing with my FAC and SGC.

Maybe the unfortunate gentleman in the OP is having the difficulty with his licences as a result of not informing his FLD rather than the actual diagnosis itself?

 

[wytonpjs]

There is more to this I’m afraid. When I received my first cancer diagnosis I initially wasn’t in a good place as my immediate research suggested a less than 5% survival rate. That was 14 years ago and whilst it cost my half my gut, I’m still here and technically signed off in full remission. I did play my joker about a possible reoccurrence a few years back and that sadly found a completely unrelated cancer that cost me a kidney! As a consequence, I’m determined to live my life to the full - we take good health very much for granted! Stalking gives me great pleasure being out in the countryside doing what I love, with a renewed passion for the wealth of nature and the landscapes I’m so fortunate to enjoy. My new FEO enquired about my health at our first meeting on my renewal last year but it was only in passing conversation that covered a lot of ground as our family domestics are a little more complicated than most - both my live at home children have certificates too. Openness is key is this relationship and, as certificates are granted on a risk-basis with the underlying presumption being to avoid risk, I suggest that there is concern over that relationship.

 

[Dunwaters]

I don’t have a problem with the police visiting and having a chat.
I definitely do have a problem with the revocation of certs as a matter of policy when a serious health concern affects the holder or a member of their immediate family.
The police are not qualified healthcare professionals, they have neither the training nor expertise to assess complex mental health issues.

 

[Norfolk Muntjac]

Have you tried contacting Field sports Britain as they have done several media pieces and have their own in house legal person. Also try contacting directly the Fire Arms legal person at BASC from a different region if the one in your area isn't interested.

 

[PEM406]

Thanks for all the recent replies. Will read and reply properly in due course. All this feedback, experience and advice is what makes this forum so good. Thank you.

 

[TringSaint]

sorry to hear about your situation but glad it all seems clear now.

Makes sense. My wife has a FAC and had pre-cancerous cells removed with no other treatment and didn’t even occur to us to inform anyone. Had she had to go on serious meds it would have been another story completely

Ahh, if only.
My wife has also been diagnosed with PPMS and is due to start her Ocravus treatment which is lifelong and really unpleasant, but hopefully it will keep her out of a wheelchair for another decade or so.

 

[bluesako]

it seems you get your ticket revoked now if you get sick

 

[12gsnapcaps]

she refused to tell them about the details of their condition. They are in the NHS and this is a private medical matter and they didn’t want to discuss

When we apply for and are then granted our SGC's/FAC's, the 'small print' means that anything health related which goes through a government body or NHS is not at all private. It's there in the documentation that we forgoe our right to privacy and we sign on the dotted line as such.

We sign up for this and have to accept it, even if we don't agree with it.

I would surmise this attitude (Quoted text) is what has caused the revocation. It's likely that if the individual in question had been open/forthcoming and proactive with the FLD from the get go, none of this would have happened.

However, I don't know the full facts and am just an observer commenting through pixels on a screen via a forum, so I do not wish to judge and I truly wish your friend the best in what must be an awful situation.

Perhaps it's best if they focus on their health. They can still shoot with their partner using their guns, today if they wanted to. The guns are in the house and the partner is also around 24/7, so it's not like its hard to do/arrange/navigate. In reality, all that's happened is A) he/she no longer has safe keys and B) He/she can no longer shoot on their own. That's it, really.

 

[Dunwaters]

When we apply for and are then granted our SGC's/FAC's, the 'small print' means that anything health related which goes through a government body or NHS is not at all private. It's there in the documentation that we forgoe our right to privacy and we sign on the dotted line as such.

We sign up for this and have to accept it, even if we don't agree with it.

I would surmise this attitude (Quoted text) is what has caused the revocation. It's likely that if the individual in question had been open/forthcoming and proactive with the FLD from the get go, none of this would have happened.

However, I don't know the full facts and am just an observer commenting through pixels on a screen via a forum, so I do not wish to judge and I truly wish your friend the best in what must be an awful situation.

Perhaps it's best if they focus on their health. They can still shoot with their partner using their guns, today if they wanted to. The guns are in the house and the partner is also around 24/7, so it's not like its hard to do/arrange/navigate. In reality, all that's happened is A) he/she no longer has safe keys and B) He/she can no longer shoot on their own. That's it, really.

This is not the point. The point is that if you or your partner become seriously ill you are likely to have your certs revoked either because (A) you report the issue and are automatically deemed to be a risk to yourself, or (B). You don’t report it, your doctor dobbs you in and you have your certificate revoked because you didn’t report it.
Either way, your certs are gone.
Given that around 50% of the population will develop cancer at some point in their lives, that’s a lot of revocations, and there is no real justification for it.

 

[palmer_mike]

This is not the point. The point is that if you or your partner become seriously ill you are likely to have your certs revoked either because (A) you report the issue and are automatically deemed to be a risk to yourself, or (B). You don’t report it, your doctor dobbs you in and you have your certificate revoked because you didn’t report it.
Either way, your certs are gone.
Given that around 50% of the population will develop cancer at some point in their lives, that’s a lot of revocations, and there is no real justification for it.

I had cancer. I reported it. My certificates were not revoked and there was never any suggestion that they might be.

 

[wytonpjs]

I had cancer. I reported it. My certificates were not revoked and there was never any suggestion that they might be.

Me too - post 46 above!

 

[Dunwaters]

I had cancer. I reported it. My certificates were not revoked and there was never any suggestion that they might be.

I’m not in the UK, and just finished my second bout of treatment ( not as bad as the first, but definitely not something I wanted to repeat), I also lost my wife suddenly, one of the things that kept me going was being able to get up and go out. Sometimes I needed a little bit of minding and motivation, but being able to get out on my own terms was a huge incentive to just get up and get out.
I would love to see the research backing your police policy position.
My guess is that there is none, it evolved as a response to a largely non existent problem.
People who are inclined to self harm are in need of help, not a boot on their heads to push them further down by taking something they love away from them.

 

[patrickt]

The police are trying to prevent your neighbour from killing themselves with a firearm.

Well, what about their car, spade, kitchen Knife, and anything else you care to mention. My take on this is if a doctor has not flagged this up with the FA dept, and the condition does not appear on your DVLA renewal, and it does not!!, then I believe the Police are wrong, it's like saying your going to die.....sometime..so we had better take your firearms off you!!. Incidentally if your friend has "surrendered their firearms voluntarily" they are all but stuffed, on the other hand if they have been given a sec 12 letter at least they can appeal the decisioni.

Good Luck

Patrick

 

[12gsnapcaps]

Well, what about their car, spade, kitchen Knife, and anything else you care to mention. My take on this is if a doctor has not flagged this up with the FA dept, and the condition does not appear on your DVLA renewal, and it does not!!, then I believe the Police are wrong, it's like saying your going to die.....sometime..so we had better take your firearms off you!!. Incidentally if your friend has "surrendered their firearms voluntarily" they are all but stuffed, on the other hand if they have been given a sec 12 letter at least they can appeal the decisioni.

Good Luck

Patrick

We have to remember the police only have limited discretion, and they work within a set of guidelines, including set risk parameters which are built into a matrix/document. A large amount of situations are entered into this matrix and then come out colour coded. We ourselves and either applicants and licence holders are also literally colour coded within this risk matrix. I've seen the documentation.

I agree, that anyone can commit self harm with anything, but Firearms licencing deal with ..... firearms - and their jobs rely on managing said firearms, so whilst the fact that anyone could do themselves harm with a kitchen knife ... firearms licencing staff dont work in kitchen knife licencing departments.

The police are, to a great extent , good and decent fellow people trying to do (and keep!) their jobs to the letter of the law, laws which they do not create but must enforce.

This is - In my opinion - unfortunately the 21st century we live in today, and this mindset permeates all aspects of life and especially policing. If you want to blame anybody, blame politicians who have allowed the state of our country as a whole to become overcrowded, post modernist and spiritually barren. We have lost the strong glue of cultural hegemony to the disaster of 'diversity'.

The reason Firearms Licencing was so different even 30 years ago, was because we were a different society 30 years ago.

 

[patrickt]

We have to remember the police only have limited discretion, and they work within a set of guidelines, including set risk parameters which are built into a matrix/document. A large amount of situations are entered into this matrix and then come out colour coded. We ourselves and either applicants and licence holders are also literally colour coded within this risk matrix. I've seen the documentation.

I agree, that anyone can commit self harm with anything, but Firearms licencing deal with ..... firearms - and their jobs rely on managing said firearms, so whilst the fact that anyone could do themselves harm with a kitchen knife ... firearms licencing staff dont work in kitchen knife licencing departments.

This is unfortunatly the 21st century we live in today, and this mindset permeates all aspects of life and especially policing. If you want to blame anybody, blame politicians who have allowed the state of our country as a whole to become an overcrowded dump and society to become utterly post modernist and societally and spiritually alienated.

The reason Firearms Licencing was so different even 30 years ago, was because we were a different society 30 years ago.

but we got cancer!!

 

[Chris Richardson]

We have to remember the police only have limited discretion, and they work within a set of guidelines, including set risk parameters which are built into a matrix/document. A large amount of situations are entered into this matrix and then come out colour coded. We ourselves and either applicants and licence holders are also literally colour coded within this risk matrix. I've seen the documentation.

I agree, that anyone can commit self harm with anything, but Firearms licencing deal with ..... firearms - and their jobs rely on managing said firearms, so whilst the fact that anyone could do themselves harm with a kitchen knife ... firearms licencing staff dont work in kitchen knife licencing departments.

This is - In my opinion - unfortunately the 21st century we live in today, and this mindset permeates all aspects of life and especially policing. If you want to blame anybody, blame politicians who have allowed the state of our country as a whole to become overcrowded, post modernist and spiritually barren. We have lost the strength of cultural hegemony to the disaster of 'diversity'.

The reason Firearms Licencing was so different even 30 years ago, was because we were a different society 30 years ago.

actually i think youll find they " interpret " those guidelines to suit quite a bit .........