The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Threads like these just go to show how out of touch with their members and the feelings of shooters in general our "National" bodies are.

Or worse still they are aware but choose to ignore it for the sake of the policy of least resistance.

I have been thinking about the questions asked on the application forms and how they are dealt with.

An applicant is asked about:

1. whether they have any convictions

2. If there any medical conditions that might affect them


Do the Police automatically accept the answer to the first question? No they do not, they go and do a full record check including motoring so they are immediately doubting the honesty of any applicant. So, based on that assumption, why should they accept the applicant's reply to the second?

Polchraine wrote:I have been thinking about the questions asked on the application forms and how they are dealt with.

An applicant is asked about:

1. whether they have any convictions

2. If there any medical conditions that might affect them


Do the Police automatically accept the answer to the first question? No they do not, they go and do a full record check including motoring so they are immediately doubting the honesty of any applicant. So, based on that assumption, why should they accept the applicant's reply to the second?

Then they should pay for those checks as they're the ones who want to impose these conditions on firearm ownership.

So you're guilty until you prove otherwise then eh.

Polchraine wrote:I have been thinking about the questions asked on the application forms and how they are dealt with.

An applicant is asked about:

1. whether they have any convictions

2. If there any medical conditions that might affect them


Do the Police automatically accept the answer to the first question? No they do not, they go and do a full record check including motoring so they are immediately doubting the honesty of any applicant. So, based on that assumption, why should they accept the applicant's reply to the second?

The information for 2. isn't 'owned' by the police and hence costs a lot of time and money to acquire, 1. doesn't. Its that simple.

I just don't want to pay for the paperwork

No one does, but as we/our 'representatives' rolled over for full cost recovery we WILL end up paying for it when, sorry, if ( ) it comes in.

So that's the issue? Cost? From what I gather, charges only come about if your application needs input from your GP and if he will charge for such things...

When my GP was asked this he laughed and said how the hell should he know?

They were not actually going to comply but then got round it by saying...."We only see the bloke when he is ill which is rare, so how the hell do we know? The best we can say is we don't see why not"

Its basically a cop out. The various constabularies (Understandably) want to cover their backsides so far better to point at the poor GP and say..."Well Dr do and so said he was ok". Actually that may well be correct on the day of the statement, although quite how the GP is expected to know is the point?

It all falls back on "Good character and sound judgement".

It seems to me these days that I do more and more of my bosses work but dont get paid any more, those that are paid more seem keener and keener to offload the responsibility or just not make the decisions. Happy to take the pay but not sweat for it.

Why is this? Lack of faith on being backed up when it goes wrong? Nobody can get it right 100% of the time yet it seems to be what people expect.

Face it, s*** happens, the vast majority or shooters are fine but like everything else things can go wrong.