Thanks Miki
Cheers
Bruce
Cheers
Bruce
Medical form
- Thread starter Benelli m2
- Start date
Millarsru
Active Member
I had my FAO in yesterday regarding my renewal. He has sent me out the forms for my GP and I simply had to drop them in to sign and pay the charge (£30). My FAO told me that this was a one off as once the code was placed on my medical records that I have firearms then it was there until I no longer had them. The whole process wasn’t much more than a mild inconvenience.
I do however agree that some people may encounter doctors who may not be keen on shooting and make people’s application very difficult which is on the whole wrong! It’s jut boiling down to liability if something should go wrong, nobody wants to be blamed.
I do however agree that some people may encounter doctors who may not be keen on shooting and make people’s application very difficult which is on the whole wrong! It’s jut boiling down to liability if something should go wrong, nobody wants to be blamed.
That is the WHOLE POINT !!!!
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Police forces in Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Gwent, Kent, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Nottinghamshire, Scotland and Thames Valley will not progress your shotgun/firearm application without a GP verification letter and in most areas GPs will charge for that letter.
Most police forces follow 2016 Home Office guidance whereby the police contact your GP during your application asking them to verify that you do not suffer from any relevant medical conditions.
Your GP is under no obligation to respond to this police request and your application will proceed after 21 days if the police do not hear back from the police.
If your GP requests a fee for replying to the police request, you are under no obligation to pay that fee and not paying a fee will not prejudice your application.
More information here:
basc.org.uk
If you are a BASC member and need further advice on this please contact our firearms team.
Most police forces follow 2016 Home Office guidance whereby the police contact your GP during your application asking them to verify that you do not suffer from any relevant medical conditions.
Your GP is under no obligation to respond to this police request and your application will proceed after 21 days if the police do not hear back from the police.
If your GP requests a fee for replying to the police request, you are under no obligation to pay that fee and not paying a fee will not prejudice your application.
More information here:
Media
BASC media are responsible for representing shooting and the organisation in the media and educating members and non members.
basc.org.uk
If you are a BASC member and need further advice on this please contact our firearms team.
Police forces in Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Gwent, Kent, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Nottinghamshire, Scotland and Thames Valley will not progress your shotgun/firearm application without a GP verification letter and in most areas GPs will charge for that letter.
Most police forces follow 2016 Home Office guidance whereby the police contact your GP during your application asking them to verify that you do not suffer from any relevant medical conditions.
Your GP is under no obligation to respond to this police request and your application will proceed after 21 days if the police do not hear back from the police.
If your GP requests a fee for replying to the police request, you are under no obligation to pay that fee and not paying a fee will not prejudice your application.
More information here:
Media
BASC media are responsible for representing shooting and the organisation in the media and educating members and non members.
If you are a BASC member and need further advice on this please contact our firearms team.
And the advice from your firearms team will be to just pay up.
Frankly, BASC should have initiated a Judicial Review in April 2016 when Police Scotland started implementing their "No GP letter =No certificate"
At that time there was a real chance of stopping this policy in it's tracks, but BASC just caved in and rolled over.
I've had several "conversations" with Colin Shedden about this issue and he gives the impression that this is a lost cause
Cheers
Bruce
Police forces in Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Gwent, Kent, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Nottinghamshire, Scotland and Thames Valley will not progress your shotgun/firearm application without a GP verification letter and in most areas GPs will charge for that letter.
Most police forces follow 2016 Home Office guidance whereby the police contact your GP during your application asking them to verify that you do not suffer from any relevant medical conditions.
Your GP is under no obligation to respond to this police request and your application will proceed after 21 days if the police do not hear back from the police.
If your GP requests a fee for replying to the police request, you are under no obligation to pay that fee and not paying a fee will not prejudice your application<emboldened by @Miki >.
More information here:
Media
BASC media are responsible for representing shooting and the organisation in the media and educating members and non members.
Conor/BASC
I have to disagree with you. As your list indicates several FELD's have made it "Mandatory" another word for this is "Compulsory", which in my understanding means 'if you don't pay your doctor and/or he/she doesn't return the tick form then your licence will be refused'. Which is prejudicial (harmful to someone or something; detrimental) which is somewhat at odds with your statement (highlighted) above.
Yes you state that you are "strongly opposed to the actions of these police forces and we are challenging these policy changes." and further state that "Whilst we (BASC) are working hard to find a political solution we reserve the right to take legal action as and when appropriate." It is the considered opinion of many (myself included) that a legal challenge is the only way to stop this, however as this challenge has been so mired by procrastination and confused by your organisations desire to see medical involvement, I would probably have to submit that the horse has bolted.
It is my understanding (although I have no 'proof') that in the beginning there were certain individuals that failed to declare any medical conditions on their initial application which were subsequently identified by that applicants doctor and were of such a nature that the Chief Constable was not able to grant. This hopefully is still few rather than many.
As you watched the horse gallop across the landscape you (like Corporal Jones) stood to attention somewhat behind the curve and then did what ?
Nothing ?
Lobbied ?
Wrote a strongly worded letter ?
Had a chat over tea and cucumber sandwiches ?
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Thanks Miki. I should have made it clearer that the second paragraph as regards GP involvement is relevant only for those police forces following 2016 Home Office guidance. Edited version as follows:
Police forces in Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Gwent, Kent, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Nottinghamshire, Scotland and Thames Valley will not progress your shotgun/firearm application without a GP verification letter and in most areas GPs will charge for that letter.
All other police forces in England and Wales are currently following 2016 Home Office guidance whereby the police contact your GP during your application asking them to verify that you do not suffer from any relevant medical conditions. For those force areas your GP is under no obligation to respond to this police request and your application will proceed after 21 days if the police do not hear back from the police. For those force areas if your GP requests a fee for replying to the police request, you are under no obligation to pay that fee and not paying a fee will not prejudice your application.
Police forces in Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Gwent, Kent, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Nottinghamshire, Scotland and Thames Valley will not progress your shotgun/firearm application without a GP verification letter and in most areas GPs will charge for that letter.
All other police forces in England and Wales are currently following 2016 Home Office guidance whereby the police contact your GP during your application asking them to verify that you do not suffer from any relevant medical conditions. For those force areas your GP is under no obligation to respond to this police request and your application will proceed after 21 days if the police do not hear back from the police. For those force areas if your GP requests a fee for replying to the police request, you are under no obligation to pay that fee and not paying a fee will not prejudice your application.
Conor.
Thank you for your clarification.
Perhaps I should have rephrased my reasoning/question...
What are you (BASC) doing about Police Scotland and the Police forces in Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Gwent, Kent, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Nottinghamshire and Thames Valley that will not progress your shotgun/firearm application without a GP verification letter i.e. those Police Forces that are prejudicing applicants (many of whom are your members) and are (blatantly) not following HO Guidelines ?
According to what I can find (Google is my friend here) there are 1.3Million Shotgun certificate holders and 535,000 FAC issued.
This started in Scotland and has now 'spread', as there are 43 Police Forces in England, Wales and 1 in Scotland, this 'disease' effects almost 25% of the country.
I can still see the horse, it hasn't quite got out of the paddock yet (or has it) ?
Last edited:
There is no excuse for the lack of challenge to this policy which has no foundation in Guidance and thus (in my view) the law changing the Guidance and making it statutory with the new policy enshrined it simply confirms that. BASC did nothing will do nothing and the political route has now been exposed for what it is and was - useless.
No excuses, no changing the direction of the question.
No excuses, no changing the direction of the question.
This looks interesting, and if it does what it says on the tin, could solve a problem for lots of people.
I just wonder how long before some police forces figure out a way of saying a certificate from Medcert is not valid.
Cheers
Bruce
.270
Well-Known Member
Your right Bruce.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Thanks Miki,
There are around 159,745 firearm certificates and 572,488 shotgun certificates on issue. The number of shotgun certificates issued to women in England and Wales over the last year has increased by more than 1,000, which is fantastic and this shows that contrary to the stereotypes, shooting welcomes diversity.
However, with proposals afoot we could see a potential loss of tens of thousands of firearms owners over the next 5 years given the Home Office proposals recently consulted on.
For more information on the consultation and BASC's response visit:
Firearms licensing consultation - BASC
Home Office Consultation on Statutory Firearms Licensing The Home Office wants to introduce statutory firearms licensing guidance for England, Wales and Scotland that will lead to even more chaos and confusion for everyone involved. A consultation on the proposals ended on 17 September 2019...
basc.org.uk
The 1968 Firearms Act gives every police force in England, Wales and Scotland wide discretion to decide what requirements applicants need to meet before granting them shotgun, firearm, explosives or dealer certificates.
In April 2018, BASC consulted Alan Maclean QC when Lincolnshire Police declared a new medical checks policy. The QC’s advice was that political action was the better route in the short term.
We have continued to challenge police forces deviating from Home Office guidance. This has involved meetings with police forces, policy advisors, MPs and Ministers to raise our concerns about these and other issues around firearms licensing. We have also been encouraging people to write to their MPs to raise their concerns.
The position of the police forces introducing mandatory GP checks on the medical declaration information we provide in our grant/renewal applications is that their actions are both lawful and reasonable.
While we are working hard to find a political solution we have reserved the right to take legal action as and when appropriate.
reloader54
Well-Known Member
ok enough is enough, 
here's how it's gonna be.
civilians=do as yer told.
gubment=do wtf we like.
civilian gun owners=do as yer told.
police=do wtf we like.
civilians=do as yer told.
doctors =charge wtf we like.
civilians=do as yer told.
supreme court judges= we do wtf we like.
you getting the picture yet.
here's how it's gonna be.
civilians=do as yer told.
gubment=do wtf we like.
civilian gun owners=do as yer told.
police=do wtf we like.
civilians=do as yer told.
doctors =charge wtf we like.
civilians=do as yer told.
supreme court judges= we do wtf we like.
you getting the picture yet.
[QUOTE="Conor O'Gorman, post: 1618456, member: .
While we are working hard to find a political solution we have reserved the right to take legal action as and when appropriate.
[/QUOTE]
Conor,
I'm sorry for chipping in, but many members will want to know why you think it isn't appropriate to take legal action when quite a few police forces across the country are already flagrantly ignoring Home Office guidance (which is quite strongly worded to the effect that deviations from the guidance must be individual and proportionate) and unfairly disadvantaging thousands of your members?
What compelling justification has been given by the relevant chief constables that has convinced you that they are adhering to the guidance or that their behaviour is acceptable?
What is the threshold for legal action to be taken? (Seriously) When every force has decided to withhold licences from anybody who has ever had any illness? (...and ad absurdum).
Does BASC have any concrete achievements on the topic of administration of firearms certificates to report from the past several years of pursuing a course of political action? It doesn't seem to many that it's a winning strategy, and if it's not then how much longer is it appropriate to keep flogging a dead horse?
The legal advice you received may well have said that political action was more likely to be effective in the short term. I have two comments to make on that. Firstly, members don't want a short-term solution, we want a long-term and final solution. Secondly, your counsel may well be an eminent legal expert, but he can't be both a legal and a political expert.
While we are working hard to find a political solution we have reserved the right to take legal action as and when appropriate.
[/QUOTE]
Conor,
I'm sorry for chipping in, but many members will want to know why you think it isn't appropriate to take legal action when quite a few police forces across the country are already flagrantly ignoring Home Office guidance (which is quite strongly worded to the effect that deviations from the guidance must be individual and proportionate) and unfairly disadvantaging thousands of your members?
What compelling justification has been given by the relevant chief constables that has convinced you that they are adhering to the guidance or that their behaviour is acceptable?
What is the threshold for legal action to be taken? (Seriously) When every force has decided to withhold licences from anybody who has ever had any illness? (...and ad absurdum).
Does BASC have any concrete achievements on the topic of administration of firearms certificates to report from the past several years of pursuing a course of political action? It doesn't seem to many that it's a winning strategy, and if it's not then how much longer is it appropriate to keep flogging a dead horse?
The legal advice you received may well have said that political action was more likely to be effective in the short term. I have two comments to make on that. Firstly, members don't want a short-term solution, we want a long-term and final solution. Secondly, your counsel may well be an eminent legal expert, but he can't be both a legal and a political expert.
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Apthorpe - Great points - thank you!
The situation is explored in detail in BASC's consultation response here:
Firearms licensing consultation - BASC
You are right - it may be time to look at alternatives.
There are growing calls for a fundamental review of firearms law to take place with a new consolidated Firearms Act as the outcome; and for firearms licensing to be taken away from the police and administered by a dedicated body designed solely for that purpose.
The pros and cons are explored in this blog post:
What’s the problem with firearms licensing?
Many discussion threads in this forum have been unable to reach consensus on resolving a complex issue.
Happy to discuss further if you PM me and we can take from there.
The situation is explored in detail in BASC's consultation response here:
Firearms licensing consultation - BASC
You are right - it may be time to look at alternatives.
There are growing calls for a fundamental review of firearms law to take place with a new consolidated Firearms Act as the outcome; and for firearms licensing to be taken away from the police and administered by a dedicated body designed solely for that purpose.
The pros and cons are explored in this blog post:
What’s the problem with firearms licensing?
Many discussion threads in this forum have been unable to reach consensus on resolving a complex issue.
Happy to discuss further if you PM me and we can take from there.
Orion
Well-Known Member
And a great number of them have been asking why is it never the time for your organisation to take some constructive action and target one of the Chief Constables who are refusing to abide by the HOG, and for a start make a structured complaint against their actions?
Doesn’t have to be a Judicial Review (initially) but at least push back for once - or does BASC still believe - after everything that’s gone on before - that these people are on the side of legitimate firearms users?
I’m also interested to understand if this medical evidence fiasco is something that must be repeated on every five year renewal cycle? ( We can forget 10 year certificates as that’s never going to happen). If the renewal applicant is now subject to ‘continuing monitoring’ - for which the GPs have in some circumstances been paid handsomely - there is presumably no need to pay again for confirmation of the required ‘no medical conditions apply’? Or will we have to stump up again and again?
Smokedude
Well-Known Member
Just doing mine here in the Thames valley. Cost me £24 so looks like I’m getting off a little bit better than others.
But the instructions from the police are confusing.
On the main notes of how to fill it in it says for the GP to hand it to the police department.
But on the guidance notes and on the TV police web site it says I must hand it to the police with the rest of the paper work.
Have pointed this out to the GP who wanted to post it straight off. The Doc is very good but the his secretary wanted to do it her way.
Not sure if I’ve done the right thing by stamping my foot and saying I’ve just paid for a services, now please give me my medical ticket.
It dose state on the form your in big do do’s if you alter it.
But the instructions from the police are confusing.
On the main notes of how to fill it in it says for the GP to hand it to the police department.
But on the guidance notes and on the TV police web site it says I must hand it to the police with the rest of the paper work.
Have pointed this out to the GP who wanted to post it straight off. The Doc is very good but the his secretary wanted to do it her way.
Not sure if I’ve done the right thing by stamping my foot and saying I’ve just paid for a services, now please give me my medical ticket.
It dose state on the form your in big do do’s if you alter it.
Similar threads
