Word of warning, Grant or renewal information.
- Thread starter spforrest
- Start date
8x57
Distinguished Member
+1 on that.
Also as ex-submariner says there but for the grace of God. I am wondering about my recent illness but have spoken to my local FEO a few times since then and he was aware of my illness but has not mentioned any problems so far.
HotDogsForTea
Well-Known Member
What was the outcome of this enquiry then?
Patterdale Terrier
Well-Known Member
This all sounds quite strange to me but an interesting debate. Never has a story changed so much with each chapter revealing another twist of information which would have been better revealed from the start. Sound advice has been given for each angle as it came to notice with expert detective analysis from 8x57 and Wrens Mews who have given honest assessments. But after all said and done I have to follow Mungo's opinion. 63 entries later and no result. I do not believe the police, whether it be the FEO or uniform, have not acted without some good cause and there must be something to make them act as they did. We accept now (I think) that an interview of some sort (when the caution was given) took place and that would have outlined the reason for the verbal caution, and yet we do not know what their grounds for doing so were?? To be interviewed by a Superintendent (when did you last see one of them). After all that I am more with Mungo.
Having gone through this item again, there may be some support for the actions taken to date. I am aware some FEO's are PACE authorised and could act as aforesaid but I think we should look to where the information came from about the medical issues to have the response it did. G.P.'s (I thought nationally but may be wrong) would be expected to correspond with the authorities should they have concerns about licence holders on their books and have we given consideration to other sources of information such as referees, spouses, family etc?
Like many others I look forward to an early conclusion.
Having gone through this item again, there may be some support for the actions taken to date. I am aware some FEO's are PACE authorised and could act as aforesaid but I think we should look to where the information came from about the medical issues to have the response it did. G.P.'s (I thought nationally but may be wrong) would be expected to correspond with the authorities should they have concerns about licence holders on their books and have we given consideration to other sources of information such as referees, spouses, family etc?
Like many others I look forward to an early conclusion.
Virbius
Well-Known Member
By signing the FAC application form you 'declare that the statements made on this form are true', and it also states that 'It is an offence for any person to knowingly or recklessly make a statement which is false in any material particular for the purpose of procuring himself the grant, renewal or variation of a firearm certificate.'
By not disclosing medical conditions, irrespective as to whether the applicant believes they are relevant, is knowlingly making a false statement. How does the Police Authority know whether any other material particulars may have been omitted? Thus, a check-up process has been instigated.
By not disclosing medical conditions, irrespective as to whether the applicant believes they are relevant, is knowlingly making a false statement. How does the Police Authority know whether any other material particulars may have been omitted? Thus, a check-up process has been instigated.
To attend the interview and give a frank, honest response to the Superintendents concerns. I hope to make this appointment tomorrow, I would also like this matter resolved as soon as possible. I have always been treated fairly by firearms licencing and trust in their judgement. (I’ve had licences issued from two different Police forces, Due to moving counties). At the end of the day, It’s the Police who carry a great burden of responsibility, and I fully respect that.
southern_stalker
Well-Known Member
I don't get it, I really don't.
You take a stalker; claims he has never done anything wrong; they tell him he did not declare an anal abscess etc, they say we are interviewing you under caution, then they are considering whether to take his certificate off him.
A wooly explanation then follows where the stalker says he has no problems with the police and he respects the checks they make.
Apparently BASC say just go to the interview and give them a frank account of what happened.
THIS DOES NOT ADD UP.
Can BASC or David Basc confirm that if I was to be a BASC member and this happened, they would just tell me to go along to the interview and be honest, or would they come with me, as a member or send a legal aid to help me? After all BASC recommend membership to look after your shooting interests, amongst other things and the BASC guidance to filling out an FAC application states only medical conditions relevant to your appropriateness to hold a FAC need adding.
SO BASC would say an anal abscess is not relevant, according to SPforrest his police force say it is, and BASC are haning him out to dry and saying deal with it yourself. If this is all true, and I hardly think it is- just one big wind-up- BASC are allowing what could become some sort of case law meaning we all have to declare anal abscesses.
Again I just think we are all being sucked into complete bull. AFter all, who else is in a position where they are being accused of some sort of fraud in not declaring something on a form, which could end in a jail sentence, and say:
'I have always been treated fairly by firearms licencing and trust in their judgement'
Well, if it is true they are not being fair now are they, but yet you still write that you have not done anything wrong and so are not going to take a legal chap with you to the interview. If this is true and you are not taking anyone then you have no sympathy from me and can only be called stupid.
Firearms Form 101 asks: " Do you suffer from any medical condition or disability including alcohol or drug related conditions"
To me this means current illnesses or conditions and not those in the past that you have been treated and cured of.
I had a broken wrist in 1984, i did not mention this in my last renewal, i had renal collic from 1996 to 2004, i did not mention this in my last renewal.
At the time of my last renewal i was suffering from hypertension and have type 2 diabetes, this was disclosed on my renewal application but nothing else.
I reckon someone is out to get you for some reason.
Ian.
To me this means current illnesses or conditions and not those in the past that you have been treated and cured of.
I had a broken wrist in 1984, i did not mention this in my last renewal, i had renal collic from 1996 to 2004, i did not mention this in my last renewal.
At the time of my last renewal i was suffering from hypertension and have type 2 diabetes, this was disclosed on my renewal application but nothing else.
I reckon someone is out to get you for some reason.
Ian.
Yes the police are being fair, they obviously have information from my Gp that gives them concern. They have allowed me to retain my licenses and guns and are giving me the opportunity to have a meeting so that I can address their concerns. I feel this is reasonable and fair treatment, I mean my fc and sgc could have been revoked and my guns removed.
As for BASC, their legal team have taken the time to advise me (at length) over my situation, for which I'm very grateful, especially since I'm not even a member !!! Something I will be rectifying ASAP.
As for BASC, their legal team have taken the time to advise me (at length) over my situation, for which I'm very grateful, especially since I'm not even a member !!! Something I will be rectifying ASAP.
8x57
Distinguished Member
I'm sorry if this causes offence but this is something that I have an issue with, people not belonging to a shooting organisation and then approaching them for advise when they are in difficulty. I actually think it's a bit of a cheek to approach them if you aren't a member. My personal opinion is that everyone should support and be supported by a shooting organisation. Another question now arises as to who you have been relying on for insurance while shooting up until now or have you also been uninsured?
I'm afraid in my view it's like joining the AA or RAC after you have broken down. BASC may have been very helpful to you on this occasion but if they had simply said "tough, you're not a member so go away" who could have blamed them. Like I said sorry if this offends but this is oh so common and I don't see why those members who pay their membership should support non members when they are in trouble.
P.S. I haven't been a member of BASC for a number of years now but I am a member of the NGO.
Last edited:
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
The fact that you believe that you have done nothing wrong is the very reason why you need good legal support, it is obvious from your post that the police believe otherwise. atb Tim
I wholeheartedly agree with the general sentiments shared so far on this thread.
However, you are being INCREDIBLY naive. The police are not your freinds, and they will have no problem with stripping you of your tickets because you're rolling over.
If you actually believe you've done nothing wrong then bloody well stand up for your self man.
If I was in your shoes I would struggle to afford to bring legal assistance to the interview, but I would find a way to do it - because if it was as innocuous as you seem to think your is then they would send an feo back to your house.
Don't be stupid - take someone with you who isn't such a trusting lamb as you are.
Your faith in our police is nice but totally misguided and you cannot afford to be so trusting.
The other members have given you very good advice - Listen to them.
Good luck with sorting this out, although I don't see this ending well..
However, you are being INCREDIBLY naive. The police are not your freinds, and they will have no problem with stripping you of your tickets because you're rolling over.
If you actually believe you've done nothing wrong then bloody well stand up for your self man.
If I was in your shoes I would struggle to afford to bring legal assistance to the interview, but I would find a way to do it - because if it was as innocuous as you seem to think your is then they would send an feo back to your house.
Don't be stupid - take someone with you who isn't such a trusting lamb as you are.
Your faith in our police is nice but totally misguided and you cannot afford to be so trusting.
The other members have given you very good advice - Listen to them.
Good luck with sorting this out, although I don't see this ending well..
Last edited:
Hornet
Well-Known Member
I also wish you well and hope for a happy ending,however I cannot help feeling as do others that there is something lurking in the shadows that is not being disclosed,how on earth could having suffered a lump on your a--e be detrimental to your suitability to own firearms,if the truth be told I would guess every single member on here could have their ticket revoked if you truly have to put down every single ailment you have ever suffered,perhaps a childhood illness that you were too to young to remember, but is on your medical history could be used against you, no I am sorry this does not add up,there is more to this than a boil on your butt fella.
Good to know that the BASC's legal team are available to all, even non members, even less reason to contribute to the Marford Mill cocktail fund.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Who needs antis when we are quite capable of self destruction?
8x57
Distinguished Member
Who needs antis when we are quite capable of self destruction?
My thoughts entirely. I think that's a bit unfair to criticise BASC when they have actually done more than they should have to help out a fellow shooter.
I agree. I'm diabetic, have angina, had a replacement hip and got odd bits of sharpnel in me. All slightly more serious than a boil on the butt or a dose of flue. None of these have prevented me from obtaining a certificate and they were declared to the FEO when he came round for a chat and Lancs firearms via my doctor. Something isn't right here, either they got the wrong records or something hasn't been declared that should have been.
Uncle Norm
Well-Known Member
I have been watching the developments on this thread, with interest, for some time. I share Hornet and Dragunov's scepticism, which has similarly been expressed by others. As many on here know, I was a firearms licensing manager for twelve years until I retired last year. So I think I may just have some knowledge of the process albeit, there is unfortunately, much variation between police forces. I can only say that, judging from the information supplied and the absence of any medical condition declared, that is relevant to the licensing process, I do not find the situation, as presented, credible. If the police were to act as stated in the declared circumstances, for the conditions declared, then not many of us, myself included would escape that net. It simply does not add up. A competent solicitor is an absolute must.
Scoff all you like but see how you feel when a shooting associations legal might is used to defend the very worst kind of wildlife criminals and firearms offenders that put at risk not only our sport but the very wildlife that we all claim to love?
I appreciate that this does not appear to be the case here and I wish the gentleman well and hope he gets things sorted out but remember that there are two sides to every story and the vast majority of people who need legal advice in criminal matters require it because they have done something wrong. The Police and CPS have much better things to do than sit around making up allegations against innocent people. Sorry if that doesn't sit well with the Internet conspiracy theorists but that's the way it is.
al4x1
Well-Known Member
I must be missing something but how are they doing the above by giving very basic advice to this guy?
