Durham Firearms Licensing.

[dromia]

It has been brought to my attention that Durham Firearms licensing are requiring people to provide them with a doctors statement as part of the renewal process.

Have any Durham FAC holders have experience of this they could share.

As far as I can understand this requirement seems to have been introduce unilaterally by Durham, currently when renewing your certificate you give the licensing authority permission to contact your doctor however Durham seem to be putting this emphasis and more importantly the cost onto the applicant. This is most worrying as with the fees looking to go up and a Dr's letter running at around £70 things are looking to get expensive.

Also this seems to be beyond what was agreed with the new forms and process so are any of the "national" bodies challenging this?

I am aware of the voluntary pilot that Durham undertook for Drs letters and that BASC was involved in some way that wasn't clear and that people were unhappy with the "representation" that BASC gave.

However Durham seem to be now implementing this as a requirement and I would like to know what is being done or not being done about it. Anyone able to educate me as this would seem to be the thin end of a backdoor wedge to put more pressure on shooters that should be carried by the licensing system.

[davidh195]

My local FEO says that what Durham is doing is wrong but if a medical report is required the applicant now has to pay the fees. I have spoken to the BASC they say that there is nothing written down in law regarding who pays so if one is needed & not supplied they will refuse on public safety grounds.

Locally they are sending a letter to the applicant including 1 for the Doctor, requesting they obtain a report & informing the Doctor the applicant has to pay any fee "£28.00 here", the Doctor returns the report to the applicant to send in.

BASC say that ACPO & GCN etc are demanding the applicant pays the fees, HO are just shrugging there shoulders.

David

[dromia]

Sounds like we are at worst being sold down the river or at best our "representatives" are toothless.

I wonder why non of this has been reported to us through the said organisations.

[Sandgroper]

According to the BASC website thy are advising members not to cooperate with Durham - http://basc.org.uk/basc-north/durham-po ... -unlawful/

BASC is advising members not to co-operate with a move by Durham Constabulary demanding that shooters provide and pay for a medical report from their GP when applying for shotgun or firearm certificates.

Currently the law only requires applicants to declare any medical conditions on their licensing application forms; under current Home Office guidelines, police may then ask an applicant’s GP for an opinion on his or her fitness to hold a certificate.

BASC says Durham is exceeding its legal authority by requiring applicants to submit medical reports up front – and pay any extra fee the doctor may demand for preparing them. We are advising members not to comply but instead stick to the established legal process when applying for certificates.

Director of firearms Bill Harriman said; “The new requirements offer no benefits either to applicants or to public safety. Durham Constabulary has an appalling record for its administration of firearms licensing.

“After Michael Atherton shot dead three women and killed himself Durham licensing staff claimed they were unaware of Home Office guidance on licensing, which has been published for over ten years. The force has also had problems with corrupt licensing officers selling guns to the public.

“Adding new requirements for applicants which have no legal basis will not help to reform the Constabulary’s record or performance.”

Could be why BASC has added Refusal to grant or renew a shotgun or firearm certificate Revocation or refusal to vary a firearms certificate cover to their insurance policy for members.

Edit: I'm pretty sure BASC e-mailed members or put something their magazine about the situation in Durham in the middle half of last year.

[davidh195]

Sounds like we are at worst being sold down the river or at best our "representatives" are toothless.

I wonder why non of this has been reported to us through the said organisations.

BASC are working on the fees issue.

If you are a member would advise ringing BASC legal department.

David

[dromia]

Thanks for that link Grant.

So basically it will need to go to court to be tested?

[Sandgroper]

Thanks for that link Grant.

So basically it will need to go to court to be tested?

I'm guessing yes, hence the addition to members insurance.

[dromia]

Fortunately I do not come under Durham for licensing purposes, although many of my club members do.

Durham firearms licensing is an absolute disgrace from what I see.

[phaedra1106]

Durhams scheme was a pilot which (according to BASC) has now ended and they should not still be asking for this.

There are several threads on the Pigeon Watch forum which include input from David Ilsley of BASC.

More worrying is that other forces are also trying this on, currently both Warwickshire and West Mercia and Lancashire police have this posted on their web sites,

""Warwickshire and West Mercia Police will no longer request or pay the costs for medical reports. We are now seeking applicants to obtain medical reports only as described to determine your fitness to hold a licence. Therefore, any cost incurred must be agreed and settled between you and your General Practitioner." "

""Lancashire Police will no longer request or pay the costs for medical reports. We are now seeking applicants to obtain medical reports only as described to determine your fitness to hold a licence. Therefore, any cost incurred must be agreed and settled between you and your General Practitioner.""

As stated by BASC these practices have no basis in Firearms legislation or the Home Office guidelines and advise that applicants should not supply reports.

[Tony-c]

what a pain in the butt

glad Im not in those areas, but what does worry me is that what happens if a Dr quite rightly refuses to comment on a person, maybe for a reason like they have never seen that person??

I personally would suffer from this, as I registered with my GP about 6 years ago but have never seen him or her??

how would a GP be expected to say yes or no about someone they havent met, I certainly wouldnt want to do it, not in this day and age of court and legal wrangles