Paul223 Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Ask the police for a copy then, forward both to basc, even if they can't do much about it, it all helps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry69koi Posted April 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Ask the police for a copy then, forward both to basc, even if they can't do much about it, it all helps Worth a shot but if nothing can be done now i dont want peoples time used up when it could be used on better things m8ty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 (edited) Worth a shot but if nothing can be done now i dont want peoples time used up when it could be used on better things m8ty Get the copies have a read and pass them onto BASC assuming you are a member its not wasting peoples time, it's ensuring the proper process and procedures are being adhered to and properly applied. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/27/section/28 Harry read this link. Special provisions about shot gun certificates. [F1(1)Subject to subsection (1A) below, a shot gun certificate shall be granted or, as the case may be, renewed by the chief officer of police if he is satisfied that the applicant can be permitted to possess a shot gun without danger to the public safety or to the peace. (1A)No such certificate shall be granted or renewed if the chief officer of police— (a)has reason to believe that the applicant is prohibited by this Act from possessing a shot gun; or (b is satisfied that the applicant does not have a good reason for possessing, purchasing or acquiring one. (1B)For the purposes of paragraph (B ) of subsection (1A) above an applicant shall, in particular, be regarded as having a good reason if the gun is intended to be used for sporting or competition purposes or for shooting vermin; and an application shall not be refused by virtue of that paragraph merely because the applicant intends neither to use the gun himself nor to lend it for anyone else to use.] Edited April 4, 2013 by HDAV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Ok thanks, out of interest where is line between being refused on medical grounds because you are on meds and being a "prohibited person" because of medical history? You can't become a prohibted person by virtue of your medical history. It relates to people who have been sentenced to certain terms of imprisonment. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 (edited) so the police say it's safe for you to shoot and handle a gun but not safe for you to have a certificate,does not make sense to me,you are either safe to handle a gun or you are not!, andrew That's not what they said. They said that he is not prevented by law from using firearms under one of the exemptions contained in the Act. Being able to use firearms under one of the exemptions from needing a certificate containd in the Act is not the same as being granted a certificate. J. Edited April 4, 2013 by JonathanL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 so he's safe to shoot just as long as the police are not responsible for any of his actions, andrew The police cannot stop him shooting under one of the exemptions and they have not said that he is 'safe'. They have said that he is legally allowed to do it even if they think that he isn't safe. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 i cant understand how the police have told him to carry on shooting but wont give him a certificate,if the police think he's not safe to have a certificate i would have thought that they would think that he's not safe to handle a gun,if he's not safe to have a certificate then the police should state that he is prohibited and state why?, it's the gun which is dangerous bit not the shotgun cert but police are willing for him to shoot/handle guns? The police cannot declare you a prohibited person. God forbid we ever arrive at the day when the police have the power to 'prohibit' people going about their lawful business! J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 In a nutshell she put my tablet was for low mood and not hyperactive of violent behaviour (whatever that means lol) If that is all the GP has said then I think you should be asking as to why the police have concluded that you are not fit. It doesn't appear that you are to me. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daks Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 (edited) If that is all the GP has said then I think you should be asking as to why the police have concluded that you are not fit. It doesn't appear that you are to me. J. I don't think the intracasies of said personality have been looked at with much depth as far as the Police or his GP goes. What you're left with "on the surface" is a man that has lost his house and job, is clinically depressed and taking Prozac as a result, justified by the fact he couldn't motivate himself, classiic depression and a classic drug. On those factors no one is willing to take a risk and approve him, if something should go wrong and said person should self harm or harm others the community would suffer a massive blow, so would his GP and so would the Police. Now I'm not saying he's cappable or would ever do such a thing, but the association of factors and related outcomes are well documented. We get so involved in the little details of it all it becomes complicated, when you stand back and look at it, the answer is there, right or wrong. Edited April 4, 2013 by Daks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 If I am correct the root cause of the depression was 4 years ago when he went on medication, the ( I am going to sound like jonathonL) firearms act is quite clear on the reasons for refusing to grant a certificate, being on medication is not one, having suffered a tragedy in the past is not one either. Being a risk to public safety and the peace is, being prohibited under the terms of the act is. It is a judgement call but I am certain there are certificate holders who would be far more cause for concern than in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westmids1987 Posted April 4, 2013 Report Share Posted April 4, 2013 Im sure cases like these are extremly difficult to judge with or without all the info,anyone can seem to be safe untill they do something bad,if you look at it this way -: Every person with a SGC is a potential risk due to having access to potentialy lethal weapons Previous criminal activity = increased potential risk Previous evidence of possible mental illness = increased potential risk How would we as members of the shooting community react if the police granted a SGC to a gentlemen with current use of anti-depressents (regardless of indended use) and a tragedy resulted?it would be a outrage even more so in the national press/media which would be further detrement to our sport Where do you draw the line with mental illness?struggling to get up in the morning,feeling slighlty down sometimes,self harm occasionally and so on,the police and GP are playing it safe i feel and these days who can blame them?? Having said all that i do believe in rehabilitation so do as you say and get yourself sorted mate and try again,good luck and all the best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Well got the letters and even the doctor at one point in the letter says she has not known mr edwards to have any violent behaviour etc the letters are long winded but in a nut shell im unsure what to do now i can type out a copy to any of the basc top brass if they want to see them but im thinking all i can do now is come of the flaming tablet and re-apply for my sgc in a year or so Dont agree the the police decision but what can you do? havent got money to fight the decision allthough i think its wrong so stuffed really :( Lee :lol: It took a while, and I'm sure most of the lovely helpfull members here must have missed this bit but... A "typed copy" eh? :lol: Them pills sound like good stuff to me. How many pages? You do know that April fools tricks usually end at mid day right? Still - it kept Jonathan L occupied on his high seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Radio 4, Tuesday night, 16/4/13 8pm: 'The Prozac Economy' a radio programm all about the drug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 If I am correct the root cause of the depression was 4 years ago when he went on medication, the ( I am going to sound like jonathonL) firearms act is quite clear on the reasons for refusing to grant a certificate, being on medication is not one, having suffered a tragedy in the past is not one either. Being a risk to public safety and the peace is, being prohibited under the terms of the act is. It is a judgement call but I am certain there are certificate holders who would be far more cause for concern than in this case. I've met a few ticket holders who I thought were dangerous and unfit to possess. None were supposedly ill or taking medication, they were reckless, gung-ho, self-centred and utterly unconcerned with public safety and took appalling risks. You can't take pills for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyTed Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Having read through ten pages of this post I am in need of some tablets for my headache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harry69koi Posted April 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Having read through ten pages of this post I am in need of some tablets for my headache. sorry about that bud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Im sure cases like these are extremly difficult to judge with or without all the info,anyone can seem to be safe untill they do something bad,if you look at it this way -: Every person with a SGC is a potential risk due to having access to potentialy lethal weapons Previous criminal activity = increased potential risk Previous evidence of possible mental illness = increased potential risk How would we as members of the shooting community react if the police granted a SGC to a gentlemen with current use of anti-depressents (regardless of indended use) and a tragedy resulted?it would be a outrage even more so in the national press/media which would be further detrement to our sport Where do you draw the line with mental illness?struggling to get up in the morning,feeling slighlty down sometimes,self harm occasionally and so on,the police and GP are playing it safe i feel and these days who can blame them?? Having said all that i do believe in rehabilitation so do as you say and get yourself sorted mate and try again,good luck and all the best Thing is, a criminal record just means you got caught, prescription anti depressants mean you sought help. Mental illness will effect a high proportion of the population at some point in their life. Taking meds especially for long periods does not mean you are a greater risk IMO the treatment is working. There are alot of high and mighty opinions on this thread that anyone taking and kind of medication for a psychological condition are "nuts" this simply isnt the case....... I would much rather see people seeking appropriate treatment rather than hiding it or not seeking treatment if they think it will have a negative impact on their life. I think the police need to be more considerate and GPs better educated on the realities of both gun ownership appropriate treatment. All drugs have side effects (read the leaflet with any medication) and these can include aggression and suicidal thoughts however these tend to show early in the course of treatment and in a small proportion of cases following medium to long term use the risks are completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 It is almost impossible, if not impossible, to make a sound judgement on this without seeing the medical records, what the GP actually wrote, what the Police wrote etc, but it still doesn't stop the odd one saying quite firmly that the Police / GP got it wrong. It must be a wonderful thing - being able to judge almost any situation, without letting facts cloud the issue, with the confidence that you are always right. Where does the Forum find them? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daks Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 It is almost impossible, if not impossible, to make a sound judgement on this without seeing the medical records, what the GP actually wrote, what the Police wrote etc, but it still doesn't stop the odd one saying quite firmly that the Police / GP got it wrong. It must be a wonderful thing - being able to judge almost any situation, without letting facts cloud the issue, with the confidence that you are always right. Where does the Forum find them? :lol: Being pretentious is an affliction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Daks - I thought your post was on the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamiedenny Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 This whole process is flawed. Its not people who go to their doctor for stress or depression that worry me, its people who don't. The way things are going in this risk averse, data-base logged society, more people, and not just those from the shooting world, will avoid talking to their doctor in case it comes back to bite them. i was just about to tap out the same answer. i for one would not pursue any help with mental illness in the fear of loosing my license. not an issue for me personally but who knows what the future holds for any of us. another demonstration of how mental health is still not fully understood and treated in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SakoQuad Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 Gimlet, on 01 Apr 2013 - 18:17, said: This whole process is flawed. Its not people who go to their doctor for stress or depression that worry me, its people who don't. The way things are going in this risk averse, data-base logged society, more people, and not just those from the shooting world, will avoid talking to their doctor in case it comes back to bite them. i was just about to tap out the same answer. i for one would not pursue any help with mental illness in the fear of loosing my license. not an issue for me personally but who knows what the future holds for any of us. another demonstration of how mental health is still not fully understood and treated in the country.i was just about to tap out the same answer. i for one would not pursue any help with mental illness in the fear of loosing my license. not an issue for me personally but who knows what the future holds for any of us. another demonstration of how mental health is still not fully understood and treated in the country. Amen to that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steppenwolf Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 (edited) This is the problem in America as well. In Colorado they are trying to pass a law where one can be put on a "dangerous behaviour register" and have guns and ammo confiscated all because someone "thought so", no judge order or no due process there. The funny thing is things like this it will probably increase people with mental illness and gun rampages as the people who should seek help won't due to losing thier licence. Edited April 5, 2013 by Steppenwolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDAV Posted April 5, 2013 Report Share Posted April 5, 2013 i for one would not pursue any help with mental illness in the fear of loosing my license. not an issue for me personally but who knows what the future holds for any of us. I think your decision is wrong to not seek help due to fear of loosing cert makes you far more dangerous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted April 6, 2013 Report Share Posted April 6, 2013 (edited) I think your decision is wrong to not seek help due to fear of loosing cert makes you far more dangerous That's the point. But dangerous to whom? A lot of 'mental illness' is nothing of the sort. It is a natural reaction to pressurised, fast moving and unhealthy lives. Struggling with some personal calamity or buckling under intolerable modern-life stress does not mean you are of unsound mind; it means you are unhappy. However society's default assumption is that anything other than blissful contentment indicates mental disorder, and mental disorder leads inevitably to violent derangement; guns and sharp objects should be locked away and the sufferer treated with patronism, exaggerated concern and toxic medication. This is the post-institutional version of the padded cell and it is nonsense. It will cause more risks and more unnecessary misery than it prevents. With every aspect of our lives recorded on computer data bases and doctors under pressure to notify all and sundry of any development in a patient's health that might present a financial or legal risk, reaching the end of your tether, to use the old fashioned phrase, has becomed indistinquishable from serious psychotic disorder, and thousands of perfectly sane and healthy people who need help coping when life has overtaken them will be discouraged from seeking it from fear of the repercussions. A perfect example of the law of unintended consequences. And that is dangerous. Edited April 6, 2013 by Gimlet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts