Shotgun certificate revoked due to cancer

I don’t recall anywhere on a renewal or variation where it’s stipulated you have to tell them of such illnesses, more to do with mental illnesses etc. perhaps he made an off the cuff remark to a nurse or doctor that could have been seen as suffering from depression and was marked and reported. How dare you disclose you are anxious or depressed from
Having cancer! Christ!

To be honest, if he recovers, I’m sure he’ll be able to get his certificate back, it’s not the end of the world, he’s got bigger fish to fry just now than going shooting I imagine.

JonR said:

I think this sort of 'f'd if you do, f'd if you don't' shituation can come across as cruel, but the intention of their internal policies is likely well-intentioned. Perhaps selfishly, but I think the fewer people vulnerable to self-harm with a firearm the better it is for the longer term health of the shooting community.

Click to expand...

Fair point. I’ve been at events and talked to the local firearms team and they have the right intentions and can only act on the info they have, not what we know.

Thinking how we get them the info they need to make the right decision, plus what else can do to help.

Although this action seems unreasonable, we don't know all the facts about your neighbour's cancer or other associated medical conditions. The medical proforma layout covers a wide range of items plus it has a rather open ended last paragraph, see layout below.

It's a tough thing to have your shotgun's taken away due to a medical issue. If your neighbour thinks they are being treated unfairly, I would get a good solicitor and fight this. Not all cancer diagnosis are fatal and people can still live for years.

HonestJohn said:

I don’t recall anywhere on a renewal or variation where it’s stipulated you have to tell them of such illnesses, more to do with mental illnesses etc. perhaps he made an off the cuff remark to a nurse or doctor that could have been seen as suffering from depression and was marked and reported. How dare you disclose you are anxious or depressed from
Having cancer! Christ!

To be honest, if he recovers, I’m sure he’ll be able to get his certificate back, it’s not the end of the world, he’s got bigger fish to fry just now than going shooting I imagine.

Click to expand...

Yep. Not sure how many of us could stand that particular test

Bigger fish to fry indeed. Thankfully I believe they are actually doing v well and the big risk from the cancer was years again but FEO only just found out.

UpNorthMI said:

Although this action seems unreasonable, we don't know all the facts about your neighbour's cancer or other associated medical conditions. The medical proforma layout covers a wide range of items plus it has a rather open ended last paragraph, see layout below.

It's a tough thing to have your shotgun's taken away due to a medical issue. If your neighbour thinks they are being treated unfairly, I would get a good solicitor and fight this. Not all cancer diagnosis are fatal and people can still live for years.

View attachment 476297

Click to expand...

Really helpful. Thank you

In the 2025 Statutory Guidance To Police Document for Firearms there is a requirement in Section 4 with regard to section 4.4 about changes; "including any recent changes in the certificate holder’s mental health or life circumstances." this can impact the persons ongoing suitability to own guns.

4.4 If any new information or intelligence is received relating to domestic abuse, violent conduct, or any of the other most serious matters as described in Chapter 3, or any incident that results in the surrender or seizure of firearms, a full review of the certificate holder’s or RFD’s suitability (and not merely the most recent incident) must immediately take place. If a certificate holder is involved in a violent or abusive offence or there is an allegation of domestic abuse, consideration should be given to interviewing the certificate holder’s partner, ex-partner, family or household members in confidence about their relationship with the certificate holder and any domestic issues or other concerns they may have, including any recent changes in the certificate holder’s mental health or life circumstances. New information or intelligence about other serious matters should also result in an immediate review at the chief officer’s discretion (noting the requirements of paragraph 2.16, above).

I would argue that a simple cancer diagnosis is not enough to revoke a persons SGC and that maybe Section 4.6 would apply.

4.6 Where there is evidence that a certificate holder or RFD presents a higher risk but is not considered to meet the threshold for refusal or revocation, home visits or inspections, interviews or other follow-up enquiries are justified so as to check on the certificate holder’s continuing suitability.

The real question is the actual medical diagnosis and maybe this is a GP overstepping their position.

Full document can be found here:


I wish your friend the best of luck with their health issues but strongly suggest they get some good advice.

6 months ago a mate of mine had been in hospital, found out he had cancer, 6 months to live without treatment, maybe a year with,
went home text his brother then shot himself with his shotgun,
to say people were shocked is an understatement, you would never of guessed he would of done that in a million years, not the sort,
just goes to show,

UpNorthMI said:

In the 2025 Statutory Guidance To Police Document for Firearms there is a requirement in Section 4 with regard to section 4.4 about changes; "including any recent changes in the certificate holder’s mental health or life circumstances." this can impact the persons ongoing suitability to own guns.

4.4 If any new information or intelligence is received relating to domestic abuse, violent conduct, or any of the other most serious matters as described in Chapter 3, or any incident that results in the surrender or seizure of firearms, a full review of the certificate holder’s or RFD’s suitability (and not merely the most recent incident) must immediately take place. If a certificate holder is involved in a violent or abusive offence or there is an allegation of domestic abuse, consideration should be given to interviewing the certificate holder’s partner, ex-partner, family or household members in confidence about their relationship with the certificate holder and any domestic issues or other concerns they may have, including any recent changes in the certificate holder’s mental health or life circumstances. New information or intelligence about other serious matters should also result in an immediate review at the chief officer’s discretion (noting the requirements of paragraph 2.16, above).

I would argue that a simple cancer diagnosis is not enough to revoke a persons SGC and that maybe Section 4.6 would apply.

4.6 Where there is evidence that a certificate holder or RFD presents a higher risk but is not considered to meet the threshold for refusal or revocation, home visits or inspections, interviews or other follow-up enquiries are justified so as to check on the certificate holder’s continuing suitability.

The real question is the actual medical diagnosis and maybe this is a GP overstepping their position.

Full document can be found here:

Firearms licensing: statutory guidance for chief officers of police (accessible)

www.gov.uk

Click to expand...

This is great. Thank you for taking the time to post this. I’m guessing you meant FEO rather than GP?

For me there is a test of reasonableness in this. I am not my neighbour so don’t have all the facts but what they told me makes no sense. They have no history of anything I’d think was of concern. Cancer is a major illness and could trigger thoughts of mortality but I’d have expected a question to the GP as a medical expert not a unilateral decision.

I appreciate so much all the comments and will talk with my neighbour more over the weekend.

Thank you all

My understanding with firearm licenses If a medical issue crops up that otherwise could effect ownership a FEO should be notified within a timely manor, I would agree cancer Is a notifiable cause even If its not outright mentioned, there's been many posts here of people informing FEOs for simple things like medication too treat something else with a medication that Is ocasionally used as Antidepressants

Its **** but as mentioned here but cancer diagnosis Is probably one of the highest death rates by firearms for legal firearm owners, Its unjustified but justified if that makes sense?? might of been slightly different If he informed his FEO but I highly doubt he's lost his guns permanently, I bet he will get them back.

Tikkat1x said:

6 months ago a mate of mine had been in hospital, found out he had cancer, 6 months to live without treatment, maybe a year with,
went home text his brother then shot himself with his shotgun,
to say people were shocked is an understatement, you would never of guessed he would of done that in a million years, not the sort,
just goes to show,

Click to expand...

@Tikkat1x I’m sorry to hear about your mate. I am sorry for you and everyone who knew them as that’s a terrible situation.

From the responses this evening I think there’s a case for another thread on that topic. My feeling for years is there’s not enough support for us, or maybe not a way to talk about such things. However, that’s another thread.

Your post helps a lot, so thank you. I don’t think my neighbour is in that place at all but helps me understand why an FEO who doesn’t know them think that way.

Sol said:

My understanding with firearm licenses If a medical issue crops up that otherwise could effect ownership a FEO should be notified within a timely manor, I would agree cancer Is a notifiable cause even If its not outright mentioned, there's been many posts here of people informing FEOs for simple things like medication too treat something else with a medication that Is ocasionally used as Antidepressants

Its **** but as mentioned here but cancer diagnosis Is probably one of the highest death rates by firearms for legal firearm owners, Its unjustified but justified if that makes sense?? might of been slightly different If he informed his FEO but I highly doubt he's lost his guns permanently, I bet he will get them back.

Click to expand...

Thanks @Sol and it does make sense.

If my neighbour did anything, then the FEO would be on the spot to explain why they didn’t take action. They are also in a tough spot.

Also hope that with more clarification we can get it sorted.

JonR said:

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

Click to expand...

That's a bogus and completely ridiculous piece of nonsense. A flagrant abuse of powers. Not a genuine reason to revoke at all. People with cancer have a 20% higher risk of committing suicide, which is a lower elevation of risk than being male. Further, the elevated risk is higher shortly after diagnosis, which is not the case here.

JonR said:

I think this sort of 'f'd if you do, f'd if you don't' shituation can come across as cruel, but the intention of their internal policies is likely well-intentioned. Perhaps selfishly, but I think the fewer people vulnerable to self-harm with a firearm the better it is for the longer term health of the shooting community.

Click to expand...

Therefore you think we ought to ensure all males have their certificates revoked? It is well established that males are far more prone to committing suicide (which is not a crime) than the average person.

A lot of cancer management can involve a large amount of pretty controlled pain killing drugs to manage the pain. They may manage the pain, but they really eliminate a lot of rational thought and behaviour.

And seeing a loved one suffer is hard, and again loved ones may take matters into their own hands.

I can see why medical staff and FEOs would be concerned if the patient was capable of getting access to a firearm and the consequences thereof.

Apthorpe said:

That's a bogus and completely ridiculous piece of nonsense. A flagrant abuse of powers. Not a genuine reason to revoke at all. People with cancer have a 20% higher risk of committing suicide, which is a lower elevation of risk than being male. Further, the elevated risk is higher shortly after diagnosis, which is not the case here.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the stats, I didn’t know them and that could be a good point if they do write to the people mentioned before.

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…

Heym SR20 said:

A lot of cancer management can involve a large amount of pretty controlled pain killing drugs to manage the pain. They may manage the pain, but they really eliminate a lot of rational thought and behaviour.

And seeing a loved one suffer is hard, and again loved ones may take matters into their own hands.

I can see why medical staff and FEOs would be concerned if the patient was capable of getting access to a firearm and the consequences thereof.

Click to expand...

Thanks, as with others that helps us understand the FEO perspective and concerns.

I will check again with my neighbour but as far as I the FEO didn’t approach the GP or Consultant. If they had, it would be another story completely but it seems to be a decision on medical grounds taken by someone with no medical qualifications and with no real medical evidence.

What triggered the so called welfare visit?
I am aware of a case where Wilts were very determined to remove the FAC from a friend who had terminal cancer.
D

There was an episode on Field Sports Britain where a license was revoked due to a holders wife having cancer.

All circumstances are different but I certainly feel this should not be ‘the standard’ to revoke licenses. If there’s no point in living then what’s the point of carrying on.

Cyres said:

What triggered the so called welfare visit?

Click to expand...

This is probably the most relevant point. The Police FEO won’t do welfare visits, as why would they, unless there has been something highlighted to give them reason.

The fact that they have come knowing about a medical matter would suggest that it has been flagged, assuming there is not a renewal where it has been noticed, by either a doctors surgery or possibly a friend or acquaintance who has concerns for your neighbour. In short, and I’ll choose my words carefully; what you are getting told by your neighbour and what they have maybe said to someone else whether a medical professional or otherwise may be poles apart. As mentioned by another poster one of their friends committed suicide and no one saw it coming, but then maybe someone did but discounted it as ‘they wouldn’t do that’ and that’s the balance I suppose the Police are having to manage.

I don’t agree with revocations without merit and would like to think they don’t happen or are a short term solution until a particular issue is resolved. We can quick to point fingers at licensing departments over failings or perceived failings but I feel that you (the OP) perhaps haven’t been given the full story, one that may have been shared with someone outwith the shooting community which has triggered the visit. Hopefully whatever caused this is identified and mitigated and they can get it sorted one way or the other.

If it has been done just because they weren’t informed well that is wrong. I’ve posted in previous threads in the past that mental health and firearms is badly dealt with by both sides and circumstances like this is why. We don’t know the full story, people are worried to be honest with GP’s and friends as to how they are feeling for fear of repercussions and the Police are always going to be highly risk averse in relation to firearms licence holders.

That said, a real discussion has to be had with both sides which has been spoken about for years but hasn’t ever really come to anything. Just because someone is depressed or have a terminal illness doesn’t mean they should automatically have certificates removed. I recall the gamekeepers welfare trust trying to do a lot about this years ago but think it petered out.