Shotgun Licence Appilcation Issues
Discussion
I am looking for some legal advice for a friend of mine, with respects to his SGL.
The law was recently amended, so that your GP is contacted for a medical report, if you have certain medical conditions. He received the following letter from the GP:
I have focussed on the last paragraph, for simplicity.
Whilst he has diabetes, he has no other ailments that can justify the last sentence. It would appear to be threatening, in order to gain a fee (£64).
What are other people's thoughts? Or even a legal stand point? TBH I feel offended on his behalf, which probably won't help.
The BMA appear to have clear guidelines that do not seem to concur with the approach by the GP practice mentioned. https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/et...
Thanks in advance
The law was recently amended, so that your GP is contacted for a medical report, if you have certain medical conditions. He received the following letter from the GP:
I have focussed on the last paragraph, for simplicity.
Whilst he has diabetes, he has no other ailments that can justify the last sentence. It would appear to be threatening, in order to gain a fee (£64).
What are other people's thoughts? Or even a legal stand point? TBH I feel offended on his behalf, which probably won't help.
The BMA appear to have clear guidelines that do not seem to concur with the approach by the GP practice mentioned. https://www.bma.org.uk/advice/employment/ethics/et...
Thanks in advance
The BMA and some GPs are not known to be sympathetic towards gun owners. Mine did a similar thing once but he never admitted to me personally he had a moral objection, just made it difficult for me. I switched to another practise.
Is he an existing licence holder or is this a new application?
I would advise he contacts a shooting organisation such as BASC as they will have good advice. He may need to join them first but it could be money well spent.
Is he an existing licence holder or is this a new application?
I would advise he contacts a shooting organisation such as BASC as they will have good advice. He may need to join them first but it could be money well spent.
Bloody hell, does anything happen nowadays that doesn't involve somebody trying to fine you or rip you off?
With all the namby-pamby touchy-feely nonsense that goes on now with regards to claims of discrimination, that looks so blatant surely it can't be legal? Somewhat ironic considering the recent talk about information sharing regarding medical information.
With all the namby-pamby touchy-feely nonsense that goes on now with regards to claims of discrimination, that looks so blatant surely it can't be legal? Somewhat ironic considering the recent talk about information sharing regarding medical information.
How about we leave aside the question of fees and focus on the threatening aspect of the response?
No reply/payment within 7 days means Police HQ should assume you are unsuitable to own a shotgun.
Have a read of this nonsense and tell me if the BMA are being reasonable about this subject.
https://www.bma.org.uk/connecting-doctors/the_prac...
No reply/payment within 7 days means Police HQ should assume you are unsuitable to own a shotgun.
Have a read of this nonsense and tell me if the BMA are being reasonable about this subject.
https://www.bma.org.uk/connecting-doctors/the_prac...
carinatauk said:
The law was recently amended, so that your GP is contacted for a medical report, if you have certain medical conditions. He received the following letter from the GP:
I have focussed on the last paragraph, for simplicity.
Whilst he has diabetes, he has no other ailments that can justify the last sentence. It would appear to be threatening, in order to gain a fee (£64).
What are other people's thoughts?
He is asking the practice to do work for his hobby.I have focussed on the last paragraph, for simplicity.
Whilst he has diabetes, he has no other ailments that can justify the last sentence. It would appear to be threatening, in order to gain a fee (£64).
What are other people's thoughts?
This work is outside the provisions of the NHS, so the practice charge for that work.
If he doesn't pay for this non-NHS work he's asking them to do, then they won't do it.
Nothing particularly controversial there, right?
So the controversy must be over whether the police should then assume that absence of the report demonstrates he's all clear? It'd be a really easy get-out if that was the case. Anybody who should be barred would just hit that loophole and be away and free... Clearly ridiculous to do it that way, right? They're just clarifying that absence of a report should not be taken as absence of issues.
I don't see why a cash-strapped NHS should subsidise his hobby, any more than any other similar check or report - MSA licence, travel insurance, whatever.
FurtiveFreddy said:
How about we leave aside the question of fees and focus on the threatening aspect of the response?
No reply/payment within 7 days means Police HQ should assume you are unsuitable to own a shotgun.
Have a read of this nonsense and tell me if the BMA are being reasonable about this subject.
https://www.bma.org.uk/connecting-doctors/the_prac...
£500 for 250 cartridges. The idiot can't get something that basic correct.No reply/payment within 7 days means Police HQ should assume you are unsuitable to own a shotgun.
Have a read of this nonsense and tell me if the BMA are being reasonable about this subject.
https://www.bma.org.uk/connecting-doctors/the_prac...
Blackmail ultimately. Since when are they permitted to allow their personal feelings to interfere with the provision of care?
The GP contact now required is definitely a positive move as regards gun ownership, if that contact requires anything other than a minor investment of time/resources then that is a fault with the process. Address that rather than trying to charge the licence holder for the shortcomings in the system. I have the mobile number of my firearms officer and at renewal time they contact me directly with queries if necessary. Why can't they do the same with the GP? It would take very little time and both the GP and firearms officer could log the contact to provide a 'trail' if subsequently required.
FurtiveFreddy said:
How about we leave aside the question of fees and focus on the threatening aspect of the response?
No reply/payment within 7 days means Police HQ should assume you are unsuitable to own a shotgun.
Have a read of this nonsense and tell me if the BMA are being reasonable about this subject.
https://www.bma.org.uk/connecting-doctors/the_prac...
There's your explanation. The last sentence of the first para - the default assumption in the absence of a medical report is that it's fine. So if you have a medical issue that will prevent you getting a licence you only need to refuse to pay and the police won't find out.No reply/payment within 7 days means Police HQ should assume you are unsuitable to own a shotgun.
Have a read of this nonsense and tell me if the BMA are being reasonable about this subject.
https://www.bma.org.uk/connecting-doctors/the_prac...
I have a licence and I really can't see an issue with the link you've posted.
TooMany2cvs said:
He is asking the practice to do work for his hobby.
This work is outside the provisions of the NHS, so the practice charge for that work.
If he doesn't pay for this non-NHS work he's asking them to do, then they won't do it.
Nothing particularly controversial there, right?
So the controversy must be over whether the police should then assume that absence of the report demonstrates he's all clear? It'd be a really easy get-out if that was the case. Anybody who should be barred would just hit that loophole and be away and free... Clearly ridiculous to do it that way, right? They're just clarifying that absence of a report should not be taken as absence of issues.
I don't see why a cash-strapped NHS should subsidise his hobby, any more than any other similar check or report - MSA licence, travel insurance, whatever.
He isn't asking, the Police are at the behest of the Government.This work is outside the provisions of the NHS, so the practice charge for that work.
If he doesn't pay for this non-NHS work he's asking them to do, then they won't do it.
Nothing particularly controversial there, right?
So the controversy must be over whether the police should then assume that absence of the report demonstrates he's all clear? It'd be a really easy get-out if that was the case. Anybody who should be barred would just hit that loophole and be away and free... Clearly ridiculous to do it that way, right? They're just clarifying that absence of a report should not be taken as absence of issues.
I don't see why a cash-strapped NHS should subsidise his hobby, any more than any other similar check or report - MSA licence, travel insurance, whatever.
cmaguire said:
£500 for 250 cartridges. The idiot can't get something that basic correct.
Seems like, if anything, he's come in a little low with that price.https://www.iancoley.co.uk/gun-shop/shotgun-cartri...
The thought of shotgun cartridges that are non-toxic and harmless does raise a little smile, though...
cmaguire said:
He isn't asking, the Police are at the behest of the Government.
Nobody's forcing him to apply for a licence, are they?He wants a licence. He's asking for a licence. Part of that request is to ask for a medical report. He's asking the surgery for the medical report.
This really is a case of looking for things to be offended by.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Monday 8th May 18:08
TooMany2cvs said:
carinatauk said:
The law was recently amended, so that your GP is contacted for a medical report, if you have certain medical conditions. He received the following letter from the GP:
I have focussed on the last paragraph, for simplicity.
Whilst he has diabetes, he has no other ailments that can justify the last sentence. It would appear to be threatening, in order to gain a fee (£64).
What are other people's thoughts?
He is asking the practice to do work for his hobby.I have focussed on the last paragraph, for simplicity.
Whilst he has diabetes, he has no other ailments that can justify the last sentence. It would appear to be threatening, in order to gain a fee (£64).
What are other people's thoughts?
This work is outside the provisions of the NHS, so the practice charge for that work.
If he doesn't pay for this non-NHS work he's asking them to do, then they won't do it.
Nothing particularly controversial there, right?
So the controversy must be over whether the police should then assume that absence of the report demonstrates he's all clear? It'd be a really easy get-out if that was the case. Anybody who should be barred would just hit that loophole and be away and free... Clearly ridiculous to do it that way, right? They're just clarifying that absence of a report should not be taken as absence of issues.
I don't see why a cash-strapped NHS should subsidise his hobby, any more than any other similar check or report - MSA licence, travel insurance, whatever.
The issue in this case is the terminology of the letter which is different from that provided by both the BMA and Lincolnshire LMC, and, in my opinion is threatening to deny a person the right to hold a licence.
LMC guidance attached:
https://www.lincslmc.co.uk/firearmslicencingproces...
ETA: With response to your statement "They're just clarifying that absence of a report should not be taken as absence of issues." This is correct however that then is the responsibility of the police to follow up for a report separately.
Edited by carinatauk on Monday 8th May 18:16
TooMany2cvs said:
Nobody's forcing him to apply for a licence, are they?
He wants a licence. He's asking for a licence. Part of that request is to ask for a medical report. He's asking the surgery for the medical report.
This really is a case of looking for things to be offended by.
What he is actually doing is consenting to allow the Police to contact his GP regarding his suitability for a licence. That is all. He wants a licence. He's asking for a licence. Part of that request is to ask for a medical report. He's asking the surgery for the medical report.
This really is a case of looking for things to be offended by.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Monday 8th May 18:07
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Monday 8th May 18:08
Bill said:
They have 3 weeks, they've given him one of those. If they don't hear they'll assume he has something to hide and will tell the BiB that.
Would you rather they didn't tell him that that's what they'd do?
What are you talking about?Would you rather they didn't tell him that that's what they'd do?
He's hiding their own information from them now is he?
TooMany2cvs said:
cmaguire said:
£500 for 250 cartridges. The idiot can't get something that basic correct.
Seems like, if anything, he's come in a little low with that price.https://www.iancoley.co.uk/gun-shop/shotgun-cartri...
The thought of shotgun cartridges that are non-toxic and harmless does raise a little smile, though...
cmaguire said:
He isn't asking, the Police are at the behest of the Government.
Nobody's forcing him to apply for a licence, are they?He wants a licence. He's asking for a licence. Part of that request is to ask for a medical report. He's asking the surgery for the medical report.
This really is a case of looking for things to be offended by.
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Monday 8th May 18:08
He is not asking the surgery for a medical report, the firearms department are. The last sentence of the doctors letter is the concern
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff