Shotgun certificate revoked due to cancer

PSE Composites Limited - The next level Rifle Stocks
I just got my tickets renewed and looking through my medical documents a letter from the police is there containing amongst other things this paragraph:
• If the patient presents with a relevant medical condition (listed overleaf) or, if there are any other factors which give cause rise to concern, please contact the police immediately so we can
review the person's continued suitability.
 
Chris Richardson said:
actually i think youll find they " interpret " those guidelines to suit quite a bit .........
Click to expand...
I know, i have the new guidelines, and also the FA 1968 and amendments, but this person needs to able to address the problem they face starting with the full circumstances that occurred at the time of removal of their weapon/s
 
rocketdogbert said:
And this is why they revoke. They cannot assess, so take the “safest” option. They always will
Click to expand...
But why is this preemptive assumption only applicable to firearms?
Why do they not revoke driving licenses and confiscate cars and bikes using the same logic?
Some facts, women attempt suicide about twice as often as men, however, men are 4 times more likely to be successful.
When a man decides to “ exit” we are awesomely good at it and the most common tools are a rope, a car or a bike.
How many single vehicle single occupant accidents late at night involving high speed and a solid object can you think of in your own area?
We have quite a few and I have a real problem with treating a lot of them as accidents, they’re clearly not.
Following your logic, if the police policy was to be followed for everyone at risk, damned few of us would be able to get to work tomorrow.
Shooters need to stop accepting blatantly discriminatory and disrespectful behaviour from the police service, we deserve better than to have our jobs and mental health teetering on the results of our next medical examination.
You and your representative organisations do not have a history of actively challenging authority, maybe it’s time to develop a backbone?
 
Dunwaters said:
But why is this preemptive assumption only applicable to firearms?
Why do they not revoke driving licenses and confiscate cars and bikes using the same logic?
Some facts, women attempt suicide about twice as often as men, however, men are 4 times more likely to be successful.
When a man decides to “ exit” we are awesomely good at it and the most common tools are a rope, a car or a bike.
How many single vehicle single occupant accidents late at night involving high speed and a solid object can you think of in your own area?
We have quite a few and I have a real problem with treating a lot of them as accidents, they’re clearly not.
Following your logic, if the police policy was to be followed for everyone at risk, damned few of us would be able to get to work tomorrow.
Shooters need to stop accepting blatantly discriminatory and disrespectful behaviour from the police service, we deserve better than to have our jobs and mental health teetering on the results of our next medical examination.
You and your representative organisations do not have a history of actively challenging authority, maybe it’s time to develop a backbone?
Click to expand...
Not my logic, I don’t agree with it. It is risk-averse U.K. FLD’s logic though
 
rocketdogbert said:
Not my logic, I don’t agree with it. It is risk-averse U.K. FLD’s logic though
Click to expand...
Theres absolutely no logic, and I would bet that there’s no statistical evidence to back it up either.
So why is it happening and why is the practice unchallenged?
This is precisely the type of problem that all your national representative bodies should be opposing, but not a single word.
 
I suspect that there's a good lot of certificate holders that have, or have had cancer. And the overwhelming majority will not have had any problems with their certificates. You don't have to tell them that you have a cancer. What's more, your GP doesn't have to tell them either.

However, if you have cancer (or another serious condition) and there's some indication that as a result you are depressed about it (not just worried, anyone can be worried) and/or have indicated that you might want to take "the easy way out" then that's different.

At the heart of this, I find it hard to believe that your neighbour hasn't given some indication to someone that one option would be to do harm to himself. Whether he actually meant it or not and that has precipitated the actions of the police.
 
Interesting that it might be to protect them from suicide..is this a known phenomenon?

I would imagine for some if they get a terminal diagnosis there could be a temptation to settle "old scores".
 
There is no question about cancer on the online application, or on the form that the doctor has tickets complete. Can’t find any references in the application document at all
 
Maybe the GP is required to let them know if you've had a terminal diagnosis of any kind.
I would imagine the GP would tell you first, though...

D
 
Surely this comment below would include cancer in my opinion? It might not be outright mentioned as a notifiable condition.

"Any other mental or physical condition, or combination of conditions which may effect the safe possession of firearms and shotguns."
Not too mention "This list Is not meant too be exhaustive, doctors may consider any mental, physical, or neuro-developmental condition which may effect the individuals safe possession of a firearm or shotgun, whether now or in the future"

Cancer without a doubt is a life altering condition where FEOs should be notified surely? Its very case by case dependant obviously, but I could see firearms being revoked for not informing them at least?
 
patrickt said:
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
Click to expand...
Ah but no one can wag a finger at chiefly constable if the local bridge is used!

It's nothing to do with welfare and everything to do with mitigation, domination and oppression.
 
The issue really is the neighbour refusing to engage with the FEo and being honest on their condition

The FEO will have their senses raised at this and obvious concerns at cancer diagnosis once that’s come to light

The other issues of concern would be

Is continued ownership of firearm a risk to the holder
(Scuicide)

Other people


I can completely understand the licencing authority removing the certificate and weapons under those circs

I had a friend now deceased who was diagnosed with terminal condition and they retained ownership until death

Simply because they were open about the condition

Having attended and dealt with firearm suicide (and many others ) it’s not a image that you can get rid of easily
 
Hi All
Thanks for all the great comments. Some very hard stories in this thread and I am sorry for those who have been through such experiences but grateful for them being shared. Also good to hear from those who had a positive outcome. Thank you.

I got some more information which I thought I’d share. I’ve also now left it with my neighbour to decide how they want to proceed, based on a summary of points raised here. I still don’t have the full picture but getting more detail would require me going into details they may not want to share with me. Their call, of course and I’ve offered to help if they need it.

Further info is that they had a visit from the FEO last year when their partner’s shotgun cert was up for renewal. At that point they said to the FEO they’d had a tough year due to the cancer and that was apparently discussed.

They had surgery which has since apparently resolved the cancer. Not sure if they are in remission yet but are back working in frontline healthcare, driving, etc. and very active.

The welfare visit was apparently triggered from that visit last year. Partners shotgun cert was renewed without issue and it was just a few weeks ago that the FEO came to see my neighbour.

Shotguns not removed as given into the care of the partner. No written explanation of revocation given nor any formal notification other than visit from armed officers to remove the guns, or hand them to another certificate holder.

Very odd but it’s now with my neighbour to decide how to proceed. Suggested they write a clear timeline of events so they can see if any reason becomes apparent. Also ask for notice of reason in writing and potentially approach their GP to effectively re-do their normal health declaration.
 
Unfortunately as we know it all depends on how risk overt the force dealing is and how they view guidance.
However a couple of points.
For me this should have been reported with a caveat. What type of cancer what treatment and what prognosis. What info has the fld received. Remember the low mood scenario that gp uses. Ultimately who goes to the doctors happy so be careful what you say in jest in front of doctors

I managed lots of people with various types of cancers. They were not revoked but managed especially terminally ill holders. Shooting in general is great distraction and keeping thier certs was vital. Ive found if your open and transparent you shouldn't have any issues.
Back to this there was no need to revoke unless the holder refused to vs. Vs is the best way to procede it gives all involved time to asses and offer solutions.

I know a force that threatened to revoke unless a holder vs whilst he had routine cancer surgery. He wasnt distressed or showed any signs of anxiety. However he was bullied by his force. I wrote a letter highlighting legislation guidance amd process. The reply was shocking" we are more risk overt than other forces". This breached the legislation but they were not bothered.

Ultimately we need the full facts and circumstances.
 
Ronin said:
The issue really is the neighbour refusing to engage with the FEo and being honest on their condition

The FEO will have their senses raised at this and obvious concerns at cancer diagnosis once that’s come to light

The other issues of concern would be

Is continued ownership of firearm a risk to the holder
(Scuicide)

Other people


I can completely understand the licencing authority removing the certificate and weapons under those circs

I had a friend now deceased who was diagnosed with terminal condition and they retained ownership until death

Simply because they were open about the condition

Having attended and dealt with firearm suicide (and many others ) it’s not a image that you can get rid of easily
Click to expand...
Nail on the head 👌
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Firearms certificate
2 3 4
Replies
68
Views
4K
Liveonce
L
Reading between the lines is s2 to s2 already decided?
Replies
1
Views
357
M@tt
M
Shared ownership of firearms. Can it be done ?!
2
Replies
20
Views
1K
nightcrow
N
Impressive performance and attitude from Greater Manchester Police
Replies
7
Views
655
1000kilograhams
1
Bringing back a shotgun via Heathrow
Replies
19
Views
812
M@tt
M
ALLHONE hunting knives designed and made in NZ
Back
Top