They are seeing many f2f, a few are letting the many down
Home Office Firearms Guidance
- Thread starter mealiejimmy
- Start date
Jeff8861
Well-Known Member
Folks bear in mind that from the 1st of November application form 201 is now revised. If you send in the old form in to your licensing department it is highly likely that it will be returned. There is still a backlog so this could cause you problems with late submissions.
The rear pages need to be detached and you send to your gp. Once doctor completes form you collect and send in or your surgery may do this for you. There is no requitement at this stage to see your GP face to face.
Bear in mind timescales.
Also remember that you are now required to document all the serial numbers attach to any part of the shotgun or firearm.
The rear pages need to be detached and you send to your gp. Once doctor completes form you collect and send in or your surgery may do this for you. There is no requitement at this stage to see your GP face to face.
Bear in mind timescales.
Also remember that you are now required to document all the serial numbers attach to any part of the shotgun or firearm.
Last edited:
I'm not sure whether I'm being more than usually obtuse, but I'm not sure that I understand what's going on here.
When 'statutory guidance' was first suggested some time ago, I seem to remember pointing out that giving the two most powerful enemies of public firearms ownership in the country the power to produce 'guidance' which had the authority of statute law might in the long term prove problematic for the shooting public.
My main concern was that the disadvantages of the superficially-desirable goal of 'improved consistency' between FLDs might well be made abundantly clear if the improvement in consistency were to be achieved by forcing all forces to apply the law with uniformly-increased inflexibilty mandated by 'guidance' with power of statute.
However, what we now have appears to be the horribly-named and not altogether-accurately redrawn 'Guide on Firearms Licensing law', which replaces a document which we all thought the FLDs should have been 'having regard to' anyway (for why otherwise did it exist?) as well as the 'FIREARMS LICENSING: Statutory Guidance for Chief Officers of Police' to which they really do now have 'to have regard'.
It is interesting to note that many of the problematic areas (e.g. which calibre for what, 'discretionary' conditions) which gave rise to idea that 'greater consistency' would improve things are still found only in the more-easily-ignorable document.
On the whole, I'm not sure how it's going to help at all in its current form, but I can see how it might in future easily be used to do the opposite.
When 'statutory guidance' was first suggested some time ago, I seem to remember pointing out that giving the two most powerful enemies of public firearms ownership in the country the power to produce 'guidance' which had the authority of statute law might in the long term prove problematic for the shooting public.
My main concern was that the disadvantages of the superficially-desirable goal of 'improved consistency' between FLDs might well be made abundantly clear if the improvement in consistency were to be achieved by forcing all forces to apply the law with uniformly-increased inflexibilty mandated by 'guidance' with power of statute.
However, what we now have appears to be the horribly-named and not altogether-accurately redrawn 'Guide on Firearms Licensing law', which replaces a document which we all thought the FLDs should have been 'having regard to' anyway (for why otherwise did it exist?) as well as the 'FIREARMS LICENSING: Statutory Guidance for Chief Officers of Police' to which they really do now have 'to have regard'.
It is interesting to note that many of the problematic areas (e.g. which calibre for what, 'discretionary' conditions) which gave rise to idea that 'greater consistency' would improve things are still found only in the more-easily-ignorable document.
On the whole, I'm not sure how it's going to help at all in its current form, but I can see how it might in future easily be used to do the opposite.
Hopefully licensing stays pretty muchbas is for longbterm fac holders . By gosh we don't want to go through Al, that expanding bullets thing again!
Doctors ? Basc already have something in hand and I am lucky enough to be a patient at a small very rural practice so shouldn't get any nasty shocks from the gp anyhow
Doctors ? Basc already have something in hand and I am lucky enough to be a patient at a small very rural practice so shouldn't get any nasty shocks from the gp anyhow
The least they could do, really.
Before the recent reinvention of GP involvement as a thing for everyone, the FLDs paid GPs for info when they needed it.
The discussions involving BASC out of which that reinvention came established the discriminatory and unjust concept that applicants themselves would have to pay for these reports, in addition to the fees for applications.
the 'FIREARMS LICENSING: Statutory Guidance for Chief Officers of Police' to which they really do now have 'to have regard'.
time will tell, they can still deviate or cherry pick from the statutory guidance so long as they can justify why, which should they need to do so will not be difficult for them to do, two little words should cover it “public safety”
however given they probably got what they wanted regarding the GP involvement they will possibly run with it, possibly the only situation they do not like as reported in the firearms and explosive working licensing working group minutes is the use of the likes of medcert.
time will tell, they can still deviate or cherry pick from the statutory guidance so long as they can justify why, which should they need to do so will not be difficult for them to do, two little words should cover it “public safety”
however given they probably got what they wanted regarding the GP involvement they will possibly run with it, possibly the only situation they do not like as reported in the firearms and explosive working licensing working group minutes is the use of the likes of medcert.
I think it will be quite difficult for the police to deviate from the Statutory Guidance - if only because they know it will be much easier for a successful challenge to be made if they refuse an application, plus I think most of the solicitors used by police forces to represent them in such legal challenges will be advising them of the same thing.
Time will tell
Cheers
Bruce
Time will tell
Cheers
Bruce
