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

"Applicants are still being advised by BASC to pay their GP for any full medical report being requested by the police as part of their application."

When did these tw@ts agree to this on our behalf?

They certainly never asked me as a member for my view on it, they are now passing the shafting on to us and aiding and abetting the process.

And they are still agreeing to it being called licensing process when it clearly isn't it is a certification process.

dromia wrote:"Applicants are still being advised by BASC to pay their GP for any full medical report being requested by the police as part of their application."

When did these tw@ts agree to this on our behalf?

They certainly never asked me as a member for my view on it, they are now passing the shafting on to us and aiding and abetting the process.

From what I understand this idea originated from the HO in response to concerns from Coroners and the IPCC over lack of communication between the Police and GPs. The original plan appeared to involve a compulsory scheme in which applicants had to complete a self-declaration medical form before submitting it to their GP with a fee - BASC opposed this in consultations with the HO about the details over several years. According to BASC The long term goal is for this to lead to 10 year certificates. The pilot scheme run with Essex Police suggested that reports from applicants GP's were required in less than 2% of applications.

https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases ... dical-fee/

How bloody pathetic they should be challenging the whole premise of paying for certificates when it is a community safety issue imposed on shooters by government.

The whole lot of our "national" bodies are rotten to the core, they should be consulting their membership on things like this not making cosy closed door deals with their pals.

dromia wrote:How bloody pathetic they should be challenging the whole premise of paying for certificates when it is a community safety issue imposed on shooters by government.

True, but without clout politically it is a very difficult thing to achieve. What we need is something you have long championed - a single unified voice to represent us as shooters.

Actually what I have championed is a single unified voice to represent gun owners, that is the thing that unifies us as it is what we all have in common.

Championing shooting is divisive as all these bloody disciplines make it too easy to factionalise both with in and out with the gun owning constituency.

dromia wrote:Actually what I have championed is a single unified voice to represent gun owners, that is the thing that unifies us as it is what we all have in common.

Championing shooting is divisive as all these bloody disciplines make it too easy to factionalise both with in and out with the gun owning constituency.

My mistake, but that's what I meant!

•Do you have concerns about your patient being issued with a firearm or shotgun certificate?

Its this question that concerns me and how he/she answers it if the Doctor is anti gun or for what ever reason does not like the idea of people owning fire arms.

Alpha1 wrote:•Do you have concerns about your patient being issued with a firearm or shotgun certificate?

Its this question that concerns me and how he/she answers it if the Doctor is anti gun or for what ever reason does not like the idea of people owning fire arms.

If the GP did so, he/she would be danger in potentially breeching their code of professional conduct and the BMA gives guidance to this effect -

We are now advising GPs to return the letter to the police without delay explaining they are unable to undertake the work due to a lack of funding or for a conscientious objection to gun ownership.

It is not acceptable to:

disregard the letter
not inform the police
delay a reply

In doing any of the above, you could place yourself at professional risk.