GP's letter to licensing

[welsh1]

 

 

shooting is one of the most exspensive hobby's there is yet I am amazed at the attitude of some shooters you choose to shoot so we the shooters should pay for our certs.so you part with £50 to apply for your sgc well it takes uparound four hours of the fao time to do his visit and report so there is your money gone.then someone else at the police station has to process his work to get it signed off now your into debit then the license is issued more cost then the fao comes back to inspect your security for your new guns.and we are only just starting.on renewal another visit and who can blame them for asking the doctor for a letter they have to cover themselves in the event of a tragedy.we are quick enough to jump on the police and other government bodies when things go wrong but do not want to pay the true cost of services.a sgc or fac is a luxury.also look at how many certificates there are out there and then look at how many are members of the cpsa and basc it is pitiful between them they only have around 120 thousand members perhaps if people joined then they like the nra in America would have some teeth to go up against the establishment I am no fan of America but they at least are prepared to pay for their pleasure and fight to keep it.it is not your right to be allowed to roam the countryside with a loaded weapon it is a privilege.and as such I feel sure will never be paid for out of public funds.

In Dyfed Powys (2011) we had 12650 licensed firearms and 43970 shotgun holders,now for the sake of argument lets say they all paid £50 for each licence,that equates to £2831,000.If a department cannot run on that sort of budget then they are not efficient and need to look internally to review their practices.

Fortunately Dyfed Powys in my opinion do a good job.

 

Strange how the forces asking for the doctors letter with application are the ones that always seen to be the worst performing.

[Scully]

paying wont protect shooting it was paying for a quicker service.as for the relationship of firearms and the british subjects the right to bear arms is ingrained on the American constitution and would cause a massive outcry and possibly even bring down the party stupid enough to challenge that,i cant understand how people will spend 50 pounds on a night out drinking go to the bookies every week and blow another 50 spend 50 or 60 on fags then not want to pay a fair price for a cert for five years.

Eh? Now you're really confusing me. Didn't you say you would pay £100 to keep your sport alive and then tell us all to pay up to protect country sports? Now you're saying its not to protect country sports but for a quicker service?

I don't see how and on what anyone chooses to spend their earned cash has anything to do with the cost of processing a firearm or shotgun certificate.

The entire point you're missing is that successive governments have decreed that there is a need to restrict the availability of firearms to the general public and that those who wish to own them should undergo a licensing process and then decided that the police authorities should provide this service, again for the safety of the general public. Once the government decided that its citizens should no longer have the right to bear arms for their own safety and instead placed the responsibility for the safety of its citizens upon the state itself then anyone wanting to own firearms for sporting purposes only should be obliged to apply for such a license and that the responsibility of determining the suitability of the applicant should be with that persons police authority and any costs incurred as a result should be met by the state. The licensing process does not benefit the shooter but is in place solely for the benefit of the general public.

[bostonmick]

My original post was that I would be happy to pay and supply a doctors report its mainly in my interest that my sgc is renewed promptly.at the moment I can't tell how many cartridges to stock up on as the turnaround time is elastic can't buy or even sell a gun.perhaps a two tiered system would work those who are happy to pay for a timely service and those who are happy to take their chances.as for the revenue fac an sgc bring in the comment from powys is misleading in as far as most fac holders will also have a sgc and both will be done together so you could take around ten thousand off the quoted figure whereby bringing the total revenue down by quite a lot.shooting is expensive my monthly costs are around 800 pounds I did not buy my guns to sit in the cabinet and do nothing.i for one am happy to pay for the service and will always be of that mind.i also feel it should be compulsory that fac and sgc holders are members of clubs and basc and cpsa if only for insurance purposes.to protect the public you understand.one last question before I leave this debate if the public that are paying to protect themselves were asked if they objected to this cost to their taxes how many would vote to take firearms out of private ownership and save the money.well I am off now to pursue the sport I love.

[Nikk]

But how many times would a doctors letter saved lives in the cases of Atherton, Bird etc etc I'm not aware they had told their doctors anything. All this does is make life even harder for people who have been honest to their doctors about how they were feeling 99.99% of people who have been depressed haven't gone on a rampage or killed anyone even themselves. It just seems to me that we have basically encouraged more regulation.

[welsh1]

My original post was that I would be happy to pay and supply a doctors report its mainly in my interest that my sgc is renewed promptly.at the moment I can't tell how many cartridges to stock up on as the turnaround time is elastic can't buy or even sell a gun.perhaps a two tiered system would work those who are happy to pay for a timely service and those who are happy to take their chances.as for the revenue fac an sgc bring in the comment from powys is misleading in as far as most fac holders will also have a sgc and both will be done together so you could take around ten thousand off the quoted figure whereby bringing the total revenue down by quite a lot.shooting is expensive my monthly costs are around 800 pounds I did not buy my guns to sit in the cabinet and do nothing.i for one am happy to pay for the service and will always be of that mind.i also feel it should be compulsory that fac and sgc holders are members of clubs and basc and cpsa if only for insurance purposes.to protect the public you understand.one last question before I leave this debate if the public that are paying to protect themselves were asked if they objected to this cost to their taxes how many would vote to take firearms out of private ownership and save the money.well I am off now to pursue the sport I love.

So lets remove all the fac(12650) which will still leave an amount paid of £2,198,500 that is still a very large budget for a department,if you have 10 members of staff on £30,000 each that is £300,000,lets put the head of department on £50,000,so far we have spent £350,000 there are other factors such as fuel used,paperwork purchased,telephone calls made,so lets be very generous and put £848,500 aside for running the department,that leaves a nice round figure of £1,000,000.

 

I know the figures above will not be spot on,but it gives you a general idea of what you can do with the money being paid to the police for your sgc.

But as we all know the money paid to the firearms department does not go straight to them to fund their department, it is placed in the general fund pot and is used for all of the running of the police service,and that is where the problem lies,firearms departments have to argue for funding to their bosses every year, and their bosses see firearms as a secondary priority and divert the funds to other areas.

 

If the police force wanted to let the public do the job on their behalf,i would be inclined to tender for the job as i believe that it could be run very efficiently and at a good profit

[JonathanL]

So lets remove all the fac(12650) which will still leave an amount paid of £2,198,500 that is still a very large budget for a department,if you have 10 members of staff on £30,000 each that is £300,000,lets put the head of department on £50,000,so far we have spent £350,000 there are other factors such as fuel used,paperwork purchased,telephone calls made,so lets be very generous and put £848,500 aside for running the department,that leaves a nice round figure of £1,000,000.

 

Yes, but the wages aren't £350,000. They are £1.75 million because this budget is over five years which is the life of a cert.

 

J.

[Nikk]

Yes, but the wages aren't £350,000. They are £1.75 million because this budget is over five years which is the life of a cert.

 

J.

 

5 years is ridiculously short for the license, I was hoping BASC might have made some progress with this when they reviewed the licensing recently. The Police can reduce the amount of paperwork/Admin and it wouldn't affect the public's safety one tiny bit. But alas no we just get fluff.

[HDAV]

My original post was that I would be happy to pay and supply a doctors report its mainly in my interest that my sgc is renewed promptly.at the moment I can't tell how many cartridges to stock up on as the turnaround time is elastic can't buy or even sell a gun.perhaps a two tiered system would work those who are happy to pay for a timely service and those who are happy to take their chances.

Point is no one should take a "chance" you shouldn't have to pay extra for a timely service. if your cert (which you don't have to return) runs out during renewal you should be issued a sect 7 temp cert as otherwise you are in breach of the firearms act...... While the renewing force may write a letter stating that its fine this isn't legal. How would you feel if the doctors report (you paid for) was detrimental to your renewal?

[bostonmick]

I would like to think that if the medical professionals deemed someone unstable and unfit to be allowed to keep a firearm they would not be in a position to apply for a renewal.also if you have a cert and are asking for a renew the doctors report would be no different whoever pays for it.we all pay a little extra at times for better goods or service so why not with our firearms.why is it that everybody is not using a Baikal or lanber because we choose to pay for a higher level.its a sad fact of today but money talks and bulls--t walks like it or not that's life.

[Dekers]

I'm really struggling to understand why some here are prepared to crawl on their belly, cap in hand, offering any money, comply with any request and beg for the opportunity to renew their SGC/FAC!

Edited November 18, 2013 by Dekers

[bostonmick]

I'm really struggling to understand why some here are prepared to crawl on their belly, cap in hand, offering any money, comply with any request and beg for the opportunity to renew their SGC/FAC!

Its not comply with anything but if you think that paying for doctors is not going to become part of the application before much longer then you are mistaken and the same goes for if you think basc or cpsa are going to help.you are of course welcome to take on the establishment if you have the time to waste lifes to short for me I'm afraid.

Edited November 18, 2013 by bostonmick

[Dekers]

Its not comply with anything but if you think that paying for doctors is not going to become part of the application before much longer then you are mistaken and the same goes for if you think basc or cpsa are going to help.you are of course welcome to take on the establishment if you have the time to waste lifes to short for me I'm afraid.

 

Like I said......

 

I'm really struggling to understand why some here are prepared to crawl on their belly, cap in hand, offering any money, comply with any request and beg for the opportunity to renew their SGC/FAC!

[Kes]

Doctors views should be given to the police if there is reasonable grounds for concern over the fact a patient should not hold a cert of either type.

That doesn't mean a report - thats a public duty whether its this week or next. Ticking a box doesnt take time it takes organisation. Thats all that is necessary and as long as the police can rely on that information, the public is protected. It doesnt need a medical or medical questions on renewal or grant It doesnt need a private medical report at ANY stage. We should be arguing that whilst we are happy for doctors to break their sworn confidentiality where the public benefit is best served, we will not pay for additional, unnecessary medical conscience-salving by inefficient police forces, anywhere in the country.

Perhaps BASC can pass something like this view on, or maybe survey members ?

[welsh1]

Yes, but the wages aren't £350,000. They are £1.75 million because this budget is over five years which is the life of a cert.

 

J.

But in reality the large percentage of the work is only at the initial stage of application and at renewal,most holders do not see or hear from their licencing departments from one renewal to the next,add in the factor that not all certificates are issued on the same day or even the same year and you have a large amount of money constantly renewing itself,if any thing the amount goes up year on year as some give up their licence but more make application for a licence.

 

I would be interested if anyone had one of a break down of the income and expenditure of a firearms dept, for the work done and time taken it should easily be a profit making department.

 

 

But we all digress from the op,i am in agreement with most that if the police want a letter from a doctor that most do not see year in year out and is making a decision mostly based on some notes scribbled in a 10 minute consolation,then they should pay for it out of the fee,if they are arguing that doctors are now charging up to £100 per letter, then the police should take the matter of the doctors charge up with the home office and have a set fee introduced for police applications to doctors for an assessment which would reflect a fair charge from the £50-60 fee the police receive.

[JonathanL]

Its not comply with anything but if you think that paying for doctors is not going to become part of the application before much longer then you are mistaken and the same goes for if you think basc or cpsa are going to help.you are of course welcome to take on the establishment if you have the time to waste lifes to short for me I'm afraid.

 

It may well happen. If it does then it should be mandated in law by the home secretary after having used the proper statutorily delegated powers to do so. Just like has been done only a few months ago when it was felt that a doctors report should not be part of the process.

 

THE POLICE DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE THE LAW UP AS IT SUITS THEM!!!

 

J.

Edited November 18, 2013 by JonathanL

[JonathanL]

But in reality the large percentage of the work is only at the initial stage of application and at renewal,most holders do not see or hear from their licencing departments from one renewal to the next,add in the factor that not all certificates are issued on the same day or even the same year and you have a large amount of money constantly renewing itself,if any thing the amount goes up year on year as some give up their licence but more make application for a licence.

 

No, you have totally missed the point.

 

The amount of money you stated as coming in as revenue from certificate fees comes in over a five year period. You gave wage figures for just one of those five years and stated that there would be plenty left over.

 

Your figures are wrong to a massive degree. As I say, the wage bill is five times what you stated it as being.

 

J.

[welsh1]

 

No, you have totally missed the point.

 

The amount of money you stated as coming in as revenue from certificate fees comes in over a five year period. You gave wage figures for just one of those five years and stated that there would be plenty left over.

 

Your figures are wrong to a massive degree. As I say, the wage bill is five times what you stated it as being.

 

J.

Ok hands up i didn't take it over 5 years,but in reality my costings are an exaggeration,i believe there are 4 office staff,DP pay around £18000 for office staff,there are again i believe 4 visiting officers,i do not know them all but at least two are ex police and semi retired so again their wage will be a huge amount less than i stated,the head at the moment ms Rees is an officer and as such her wage comes from general funding,and the costing for running an office for the year is massively over exaggerated.Run efficiently the office would turn a profit every year.

And the problem with most public bodies is that they are never run to full efficiency and end up costing themselves in terms of productivity,which in turn wastes more money than they should need.

[HDAV]

If you really want to know submit an FOI request like this one http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/documents/files/FOI%20001628%2013%20Income%20and%20costs%20of%20the%20Firearms%20Licensing%20Department%202010-2012.pdf or this one http://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/information/documents/cache/PDF/Document7489_982539.pdf

Edited November 18, 2013 by HDAV

[Scully]

I would like to think that if the medical professionals deemed someone unstable and unfit to be allowed to keep a firearm they would not be in a position to apply for a renewal.also if you have a cert and are asking for a renew the doctors report would be no different whoever pays for it.we all pay a little extra at times for better goods or service so why not with our firearms.why is it that everybody is not using a Baikal or lanber because we choose to pay for a higher level.its a sad fact of today but money talks and bulls--t walks like it or not that's life.

But you, me, us and everyone who applies ALREADY signs an application giving consent to licensing to contact GP's if they feel the need. Why on earth ( and to what effect) would anyone want to pay anything up to 100 quid simply to satisfy some conconcted requirement which we are not legally required to give and will have absolutely no effect on cutting the risk of misuse with firearms? I don't care if the cost was 50 pence, it is the principle.

You go on about the possible demise of country sports; I can assure you that one way to guarantee its speedy actuality is to cede to every biased agenda requirement those who oppose us can come up with.

This 'requirement' was first mooted by Durham licensing authority no doubt in an attempt to be seen to be 'doing something' in light of their monumental **** up with Atherton. If you think it isn't such a bad thing then perhaps you could give an example of how this 'requirement' would have prevented what happened in that particular case or any other such event. The Police were already aware that Atherton knocked his wife about; that's why they removed his firearms. Was the fact that Atherton was a wife abuser on his medical record? Did Birds medical report include the fact he was seriously concerned regarding debt? Did Hamiltons include the fact he was interested in young lads or that he was in the habit of threatening local inhabitants or did Ryans include the fact he took loaded firearms to work?

It may well become a legal requirement BUT IT ISN'T YET.

[Guest stevo]

But you, me, us and everyone who applies ALREADY signs an application giving consent to licensing to contact GP's if they feel the need. Why on earth ( and to what effect) would anyone want to pay anything up to 100 quid simply to satisfy some conconcted requirement which we are not legally required to give and will have absolutely no effect on cutting the risk of misuse with firearms? I don't care if the cost was 50 pence, it is the principle.

You go on about the possible demise of country sports; I can assure you that one way to guarantee its speedy actuality is to cede to every biased agenda requirement those who oppose us can come up with.

This 'requirement' was first mooted by Durham licensing authority no doubt in an attempt to be seen to be 'doing something' in light of their monumental **** up with Atherton. If you think it isn't such a bad thing then perhaps you could give an example of how this 'requirement' would have prevented what happened in that particular case or any other such event. The Police were already aware that Atherton knocked his wife about; that's why they removed his firearms. Was the fact that Atherton was a wife abuser on his medical record? Did Birds medical report include the fact he was seriously concerned regarding debt? Did Hamiltons include the fact he was interested in young lads or that he was in the habit of threatening local inhabitants or did Ryans include the fact he took loaded firearms to work?

It may well become a legal requirement BUT IT ISN'T YET.

++ 1

[bostonmick]

But you, me, us and everyone who applies ALREADY signs an application giving consent to licensing to contact GP's if they feel the need. Why on earth ( and to what effect) would anyone want to pay anything up to 100 quid simply to satisfy some conconcted requirement which we are not legally required to give and will have absolutely no effect on cutting the risk of misuse with firearms? I don't care if the cost was 50 pence, it is the principle.

You go on about the possible demise of country sports; I can assure you that one way to guarantee its speedy actuality is to cede to every biased agenda requirement those who oppose us can come up with.

This 'requirement' was first mooted by Durham licensing authority no doubt in an attempt to be seen to be 'doing something' in light of their monumental **** up with Atherton. If you think it isn't such a bad thing then perhaps you could give an example of how this 'requirement' would have prevented what happened in that particular case or any other such event. The Police were already aware that Atherton knocked his wife about; that's why they removed his firearms. Was the fact that Atherton was a wife abuser on his medical record? Did Birds medical report include the fact he was seriously concerned regarding debt? Did Hamiltons include the fact he was interested in young lads or that he was in the habit of threatening local inhabitants or did Ryans include the fact he took loaded firearms to work?

It may well become a legal requirement BUT IT ISN'T YET.

 

 

well my renewal is not due for a couple ofyears yet but by then basc and cpsa will have scotched this.yer right.

[HDAV]

 

 

I am happy to pay for a good service,as I said certificate turned around in no more than four weeks not like some six months.when I renew my hgv I have to pay for the medical not the nhs also the police and the government don't give a rats *** if you have a certificate they wont lose any sleep over you or I not getting one or having to wait months.i have enjoyed being able to shoot for almost forty years and possibly have another ten to go before I put my guns away for good I doubt my grandson will be able to say the same as the great british way is to just ignore everything and it will go away,well you got that bit right.

 

 

So just paying up and going along with it is the best long term plan? Your HGV medical includes some actual tests and you can choose where it is done and who/what you pay. It isn't as if your not already paying for your GP to hold your medical records.... Asking GPs to make a safety judgement is dangerous territory what next psychological testing? Why not.......

[bostonmick]

 

 

So just paying up and going along with it is the best long term plan? Your HGV medical includes some actual tests and you can choose where it is done and who/what you pay. It isn't as if your not already paying for your GP to hold your medical records.... Asking GPs to make a safety judgement is dangerous territory what next psychological testing? Why not.......

 

maybe the problem is that the doctor is asked for a letter if they were only asked to tick the box on if there was any medical condition that would mean you should not have a cert then they would return them sooner so we would not have the delays perhaps basc/cpsa could take this up.also don't get me started on psychological testing.that should be reserved for semi auto and pump owners.

[HDAV]

but if they tick the box it then grinds to a halt and still someone has to dig out the file, read it, interpret it, and make a judgement call to its relevance so no quicker or cheaper.............

[ROBLATCH]

 

 

shooting is one of the most exspensive hobby's there is yet I am amazed at the attitude of some shooters you choose to shoot so we the shooters should pay for our certs.so you part with £50 to apply for your sgc well it takes uparound four hours of the fao time to do his visit and report so there is your money gone.then someone else at the police station has to process his work to get it signed off now your into debit then the license is issued more cost then the fao comes back to inspect your security for your new guns.and we are only just starting.on renewal another visit and who can blame them for asking the doctor for a letter they have to cover themselves in the event of a tragedy.we are quick enough to jump on the police and other government bodies when things go wrong but do not want to pay the true cost of services.a sgc or fac is a luxury.also look at how many certificates there are out there and then look at how many are members of the cpsa and basc it is pitiful between them they only have around 120 thousand members perhaps if people joined then they like the nra in America would have some teeth to go up against the establishment I am no fan of America but they at least are prepared to pay for their pleasure and fight to keep it.it is not your right to be allowed to roam the countryside with a loaded weapon it is a privilege.and as such I feel sure will never be paid for out of public funds.

what do we pay the initial £50 for ? the police to do their appropriate checks. if these checks are done correctly in the first instance ,then nothing could possibly go wrong on their behalf but the certificate holder themselves.

That fee charged is there just for that.

if it was appropriate for additional fees and/or other documentation to be presented at the cost of the applicant i am sure the HO would have applied this long ago.

a job done well in the first instance is all that is required that is why we authorise on our applications for our GPs to be approached it is then up to the licensing office to make their decision from factual information given to them,,thats what we pay for in the first place so why pay any other fees ?? after all they are still going to get the same medical report for the gps individual patient.