FAO BASC - Medical reports

[Dave T]

Diabetes (some levels) can have an impact on your ability to drive - often, type 1 diabetics have their licences revoked and reissued every 3 years - with regular medical checks and reports. If not controlled properly, diabetes can lead to fits, unconsciousness and death. Clearly, not a good thing if you are holding a gun at the time. So, it allows the issuing authority to just check that you are managing your condition in a responsible fashion. It does not, however, automatically preclude you from holding a shotgun or firearm certificate.

All insulin dependant (T1 and T2) diabetics are REQUIRED to be on a restricted (3 year or less) driving licence. It is also their responsibility to monitor their glucose levels regulary and have regular reviews with their medical team - the first thing the police will do now, if a diabetic is involved in an RTA, is get them checked for hypoglycemia (they introduced this a couple of years ago, without telling those suffering with the condition) and they will be prosecuted if they have low glucose levels. MOST insulin dependant diabetics get plenty of warning if they are going low, which is why they should take precautions, by carrying snacks, test kit etc.

[Beretta06]

Response has been removed.

 

Posted the same as Dave T - but didn't read his reply first or properly!!!

 

B06

Edited May 23, 2014 by Beretta06

[Bazooka Joe]

Well it seems that nobody has mentioned that this also appears to be taking place in Staffordshire, Surry, Sussex and unsurprisingly, North Yorkshire. Thames Valley, Lancashire, West Mercia and Durham have already been mentioned, though I am doubtful that this is a complete list.

 

 

 

David, you say you've been in touch with Durham, have you been in touch with the forces above.?

 

If so, what was their reply.

[David BASC]

Afternoon BJ - we are waiting for feedback from members with evidence of poor practice etc as soon as we get it we will be on it like a rash!!

[The Mighty Prawn]

West Mercia have not requested anything additional from me for SGC renewal and FAC grant, both of which went through without a hitch

[Beretta06]

West Mercia have not requested anything additional from me for SGC renewal and FAC grant, both of which went through without a hitch

 

Sussex was the same - trouble free and surprisingly quick!

[bedwards1966]

Yes, they aren't all demanding you provide additional medical information with every application yet - that would be pushing things a little fast.

However, they're starting slowly and it is inevitable that it will become the norm unless challenged. From the posts by Scully it appears that BASC themselves have said this.

 

Scully, spending money fighting this isn't wasting money fighting something that is inevitably going to happen. There isn't anything whatsoever in law that requires the applicant to provide this information so they only way this could become impossible to realistically fight would be if the law changed. HO guidelines and the policy of the police are both trumped by law, which is what a Court would look at if BASC would take a case there.

 

I don't know (well, I could take a guess) why BASC are saying, or at least strongly suggesting, that they won't fight this when there is something in a persons history. Just because the police want medical information on an applicant (which may in itself be perfectly reasonable) they still cannot get that person to provide it at their own expense. Would BASC like to answer why they won't challenge that?

 

And what is BASC doing to stop all forces asking for additional medical information? It may not be unlawful for them to only ask, but it is still not acceptable as it isn't part of the correct application process, it does no good and people still feel that they should complete it, in case it causes them problems if they don't.

[Yellow Bear]

Simple question for Bedwards1966 that has been bugging me slightly - are you actually a BASC member? - yes or no

[David BASC]

If an applicant makes a statement in their application or if there is other evidence from one of more of their referee's and this evokes the requirement for a GP report there is the question of who pays. If the police insist the applicant pays there is , as far as I am aware, no legal challenge to this.

 

If police authorities choose to include extra forms with the application / renewals please let us know and we will take it up. Please all remember that it is NOT a requirement to send back any other forms over and above the application form, properly completed.

 

Further guidance is on the BASC web site.

 

David

[Beretta06]

As a BASC member, I don't want them to spend my money on people who have an issue on their application in relation to medical issues. If there is a problem, I want the individual to pay. If the police reject the application because of a medical reason, I want the person to ring BASC and then for them to decide what can be defended, and what cannot.

 

Bedwards 1966, I have no idea what you want from BASC any more. It is clear you have some form of axe to grind, so maybe time to disclose where you feel wronged I cannot see how David (BASC) cannot be clearer.

[Dave-G]

I think his issue has been lost or aggravated confused complicated with the medical bit as an example of other expenses.

 

We should be paying for the FAC application only - not fund any enquires the police take to decide the outcome of the application, particularly if they are cleverly or even deceptively passed off as a required part of the application.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Dave-G

[bedwards1966]

Simple question for Bedwards1966 that has been bugging me slightly - are you actually a BASC member? - yes or no

 

I was proud to be a member of BASC, until I discovered what help was actually given to members who have a problem. I then began to look closer at what they are doing to protect shooting overall.

 

If an applicant makes a statement in their application or if there is other evidence from one of more of their referee's and this evokes the requirement for a GP report there is the question of who pays. If the police insist the applicant pays there is , as far as I am aware, no legal challenge to this.

 

The police cannot demand anybody pays. If they want more information it is up to them to get it, not the applicant. The applicant consents to the police doing this, it is not lawful for the police to demand that people supply anything other than the completed application form, regardless of what suspicions the police have, so of course there could be a legal challenge. Then this whole thing would stop dead.

 

 

 

As a BASC member, I don't want them to spend my money on people who have an issue on their application in relation to medical issues. If there is a problem, I want the individual to pay. If the police reject the application because of a medical reason, I want the person to ring BASC and then for them to decide what can be defended, and what cannot.

 

Bedwards 1966, I have no idea what you want from BASC any more. It is clear you have some form of axe to grind, so maybe time to disclose where you feel wronged I cannot see how David (BASC) cannot be clearer.

 

So, if you apply for an application/renewal and declare that you have/had a medical condition (it may be from 40 years ago and could be utterly irrelevant to your application) and the police come back and tell you to supply a medical report which you will have to pay for then you don't care that this is unlawful, and nor do you want BASC to stop the police from demanding this?

 

I'm not asking, or even suggesting, that BASC should automatically stand behind any member who applies who has/is suffering from say depression with a blanket policy to support that member to the full, even if it means funding a Court case that can't be won.

 

What I'm trying to find out is what BASC is doing (and will do) to stop members from being given unlawful demands, unreasonable demands, or who run into trouble after following BASC advice. The police cannot make demands for extra information from the applicant, the fact that this will cost the applicant money provides quite a sting and the whole thing is yet another barrier for shooters. This is why I'm trying to find out what is being done to actually stop this before it becomes the norm for every application nationwide.

 

 

 

If police authorities choose to include extra forms with the application / renewals please let us know and we will take it up. Please all remember that it is NOT a requirement to send back any other forms over and above the application form, properly completed.

 

Ah, here's one - you're already aware of it, it's Durham:

 

Yes we instructed Durham to make this clear that complying with this request is voluntary, indeed they go on to say, in the covering letter that goes with the renewal / application forms that it is not a legal requirement to complete the medical form.

 

Edited May 25, 2014 by bedwards1966

[David BASC]

I have made it as clear as I possibly can what BASC are doing on a national level.

 

I have made it as clear as I possibly can that the police can only request a GP check if , after they have risk assessed the applicant, there is clear evidence that one is required.

 

I have made it as clear as I possibly can that blanket requests for a GP report is NOT allowable and have and will be fully challenged at national and local level by BASC.

 

David

[Beretta06]

 

 

I was proud to be a member of BASC, until I discovered what help was actually given to members who have a problem. I then began to look closer at what they are doing to protect shooting overall.

 

 

The police cannot demand anybody pays. If they want more information it is up to them to get it, not the applicant. The applicant consents to the police doing this, it is not lawful for the police to demand that people supply anything other than the completed application form, regardless of what suspicions the police have, so of course there could be a legal challenge. Then this whole thing would stop dead.

 

 

 

 

So, if you apply for an application/renewal and declare that you have/had a medical condition (it may be from 40 years ago and could be utterly irrelevant to your application) and the police come back and tell you to supply a medical report which you will have to pay for then you don't care that this is unlawful, and nor do you want BASC to stop the police from demanding this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On ANY application, you only need to declare any issue since the previous application, so you can write 'none since previous application'. If you are a completely new applicant, the yes, I want to Police to check out any medical condition, but I think declaring anything from 40 years ago is somewhat an exaggeration on your part. I have absolutely no problem with the Police asking to applicant to pay for such information. I'd rather has a licence fee of £500 a year and ensure that nutters are excluded than one of £50 for 5 years that let unacceptable people hold firearms. The current charges are far too cheap.

[Kes]

The current charges are far too cheap.

This why we have no voice, because the old (retired) and the young cannot necessarily afford anything other than justifiable cost, you dont care so what would you do to protect members of your sport, possibly of your shooting organisation from prohibitive costs which cause them to drop out of shooting? Or is it as seems you just dont care?

It also has nothing to do with 'preventing nutters' otherwise, I feel fairly sure the police would have been there and done it already. Covering their b******* and reducing publicly held guns is what the police are focussed on and any Interference with that should be overtly challenged.

Any law, procedure/process can be challenged under judicial review because the application of the foregoing would result in a possible number of unacceptable outcomes, e'g unreasonable discrimination.

[bostonmick]

This why we have no voice, because the old (retired) and the young cannot necessarily afford anything other than justifiable cost, you dont care so what would you do to protect members of your sport, possibly of your shooting organisation from prohibitive costs which cause them to drop out of shooting? Or is it as seems you just dont care?

It also has nothing to do with 'preventing nutters' otherwise, I feel fairly sure the police would have been there and done it already. Covering their ******** and reducing publicly held guns is what the police are focussed on and any Interference with that should be overtly challenged.

Any law, procedure/process can be challenged under judicial review because the application of the foregoing would result in a possible number of unacceptable outcomes, e'g unreasonable discrimination.

 

 

what in your eyes is a justifiable cost of fac/sgc,if the cost to the police to do all the checks needed is say £200 what do you think you should pay.i was in my doctors a couple of weeks ago and he has a list of charges for letters on his notice board the cost for firearms report was £75..i have said many times we should pay the true cost for our sport.nobody is forced to take up shooting it is a very expensive sport.one of two things is going to happen either there will be a hefty rise in fee or you will be required by law to pay for the medical report.make no mistake this is on its way.people are losing their livings.dying because drugs to cure them are to expensive for the nhs.pensioners are going without heat through the winter yet all I read on here is gripes about paying a few pounds so you can go and enjoy your spare time.as for your comment on the retired maybe if we the rest paid the true cost then it could be free for those who reach the age of retirement.we have no voice because to many people do not support the organisations for the sport.

[Saffa]

 

 

Bedwards 1966, I have no idea what you want from BASC any more. It is clear you have some form of axe to grind, so maybe time to disclose where you feel wronged I cannot see how David (BASC) cannot be clearer.

 

it's very clear

[mossy835]

david, basc has made it very clear what they have done,as you said when a case comes up you will deal with it,keep up the good work.thanks

[Scully]

I'd rather has a licence fee of £500 a year and ensure that nutters are excluded than one of £50 for 5 years that let unacceptable people hold firearms. The current charges are far too cheap.

That's a ridiculous statement. Tell me how a £500 certificate plus a GP's report would have done anything to prevent Ryan, Hamilton or Bird doing what they did.

As for Atherton, Durham police ( there is no coincidence it is Durham who instigated this 'pilot scheme' in a cynical attempt to redeem their monumental cock up ) seized his firearms for knocking his partner about in a drunken rage... and then gave him them back!!!!

So tell me, how would a £500 certificate and a GP's report have prevented any of those shootings I've mentioned?

I have made it as clear as I possibly can that blanket requests for a GP report is NOT allowable and have and will be fully challenged at national and local level by BASC.

 

David

I've no doubt it will be challenged, but that doesn't mean there is anything our shooting organisations can do to prevent it becoming compulsory.

Edited May 25, 2014 by Scully

[Scully]

 

we have no voice because to many people do not support the organisations for the sport.

As I've already pointed out in another thread; the numbers of people as members of our shooting organisations matters not if we aren't united. It doesn't seem to be getting through so I'll say it again. Despite huge backing from most of the shooting organisations and predominantly BASC, how many people out of all those who shoot in this country could be bothered to speak up following the shootings in Cumbria? How many shooters out of all those shooters in this country could be bothered to lobby against the proposed licensing of air guns despite being asked to do so by our shooting organisations? And how many shooters bothered to sign the e-petition for the reinstatement of .22rf handguns despite the support of most of our shooting organisations?

It just doesn't seem to be sinking in at all. It doesn't matter how many of us there are nor how many organisations there are because we won't stick together and we can't be bothered to fight.

[GHE]

On ANY application, you only need to declare any issue since the previous application, so you can write 'none since previous application'. If you are a completely new applicant, the yes, I want to Police to check out any medical condition, but I think declaring anything from 40 years ago is somewhat an exaggeration on your part. I have absolutely no problem with the Police asking to applicant to pay for such information. I'd rather has a licence fee of £500 a year and ensure that nutters are excluded than one of £50 for 5 years that let unacceptable people hold firearms. The current charges are far too cheap.

It has nothing to do with cost.

There is already a perfectly good system in place, it goes like this.

1. The applicant fills out a form, and states on that form, whether there are any health issues, any criminal convictions.

2. The police check out the truth of the statements using their own computer system, which includes intelligence reports as well as details of any convictions (including accepted cautions).

3. They check with the applicant's doctor, if they believe that they should.

4. A home visit is made, this allows an experienced police officer or FEO to gain additional info.

 

The police don't need anything more than this, they have everything they need to make an informed, professional judgement.

 

Yes, things have gone badly wrong in the past - Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton, Derek Bird - but, in each case, the police had all the info they needed but allowed people who should not have been granted a certificate to have one. Charging shooters more money, or creating new hoops for us to jump through, won't help at all with the public safety issues. All that it will do is to reduce the number of responsible, respectable shooters - the hidden agenda that is obviously there but which the shooting organisations, and a large number of shooters, seem to be ignoring..

 

If the police or their political masters get their way, in just a few years from now the only people with guns will be the police and criminals. It's up to BASC and the other shooting organisations to stand and fight them. But it doesn's seem to be happening does it?

 

 

 

what in your eyes is a justifiable cost of fac/sgc,if the cost to the police to do all the checks needed is say £200 what do you think you should pay.i was in my doctors a couple of weeks ago and he has a list of charges for letters on his notice board the cost for firearms report was £75..i have said many times we should pay the true cost for our sport.nobody is forced to take up shooting it is a very expensive sport.one of two things is going to happen either there will be a hefty rise in fee or you will be required by law to pay for the medical report.make no mistake this is on its way.people are losing their livings.dying because drugs to cure them are to expensive for the nhs.pensioners are going without heat through the winter yet all I read on here is gripes about paying a few pounds so you can go and enjoy your spare time.as for your comment on the retired maybe if we the rest paid the true cost then it could be free for those who reach the age of retirement.we have no voice because to many people do not support the organisations for the sport.

This is a form of public law, designed to protect the public. The people whose job it is to protect the public are hopelessly incompetent, as they have demonstrated many times. What is needed is a much higher level of efficiency, not a much higher level of fees.

[bostonmick]

It has nothing to do with cost.

There is already a perfectly good system in place, it goes like this.

1. The applicant fills out a form, and states on that form, whether there are any health issues, any criminal convictions.

2. The police check out the truth of the statements using their own computer system, which includes intelligence reports as well as details of any convictions (including accepted cautions).

3. They check with the applicant's doctor, if they believe that they should.

4. A home visit is made, this allows an experienced police officer or FEO to gain additional info.

 

The police don't need anything more than this, they have everything they need to make an informed, professional judgement.

 

Yes, things have gone badly wrong in the past - Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton, Derek Bird - but, in each case, the police had all the info they needed but allowed people who should not have been granted a certificate to have one. Charging shooters more money, or creating new hoops for us to jump through, won't help at all with the public safety issues. All that it will do is to reduce the number of responsible, respectable shooters - the hidden agenda that is obviously there but which the shooting organisations, and a large number of shooters, seem to be ignoring..

 

If the police or their political masters get their way, in just a few years from now the only people with guns will be the police and criminals. It's up to BASC and the other shooting organisations to stand and fight them. But it doesn's seem to be happening does it?

 

This is a form of public law, designed to protect the public. The people whose job it is to protect the public are hopelessly incompetent, as they have demonstrated many times. What is needed is a much higher level of efficiency, not a much higher level of fees.

 

 

I see a lot of posts on here praising the different forces for their handling of firearms.where do your inefficiency,s come from.sure there will be the odd case but that is common in all things.basc I believe are making moves to try and protect the sport of shooting but they are not just about shooting.there are many other country pursuits that come under their umbrella.

[bostonmick]

As I've already pointed out in another thread; the numbers of people as members of our shooting organisations matters not if we aren't united. It doesn't seem to be getting through so I'll say it again. Despite huge backing from most of the shooting organisations and predominantly BASC, how many people out of all those who shoot in this country could be bothered to speak up following the shootings in Cumbria? How many shooters out of all those shooters in this country could be bothered to lobby against the proposed licensing of air guns despite being asked to do so by our shooting organisations? And how many shooters bothered to sign the e-petition for the reinstatement of .22rf handguns despite the support of most of our shooting organisations?

It just doesn't seem to be sinking in at all. It doesn't matter how many of us there are nor how many organisations there are because we won't stick together and we can't be bothered to fight.

 

I for one was in London in 2002 were you.

[Scully]

 

I for one was in London in 2002 were you.

No, I wasn't.

[Bazooka Joe]

I see a lot of posts on here praising the different forces for their handling of firearms.where do your inefficiency,s come from.sure there will be the odd case but that is common in all things

 

 

Durham for one, I haven't been under an other force so cannot comment on others.

 

Every Fac renewal, & every S/G renewal for 40 odd yrs there's been a problem of some sort.

 

The FEO's that preach the firearms law the way they see fit, or the staff who think along the same lines for that matter.

 

Durham are totally inefficient, one balls up after another. & the recent one the biggest, definitely not the oddest.

 

Scullys post sums them up.

 

As for Atherton, Durham police ( there is no coincidence it is Durham who instigated this 'pilot scheme' in a cynical attempt to redeem their monumental cock up ) seized his firearms for knocking his partner about in a drunken rage... and then gave him them back!!!!

So tell me, how would a £500 certificate and a GP's report have prevented any of those shootings I've mentioned?