kody Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 November issue page 16 gp fees It doesn't mention about if no reply in 21 days from gp to police Then nothing to inform so ticket goes ahead is this right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B725 Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 Yup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_b_wales Posted November 30, 2016 Report Share Posted November 30, 2016 +1. No information from the Doctor, then application process goes ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wigeon jim Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Not in Scotland I believe , no reply no cert! Jim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Not in Scotland I believe , no reply no cert! Jim. Sounds like the screw is being tightened in your neck of the woods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandladdie Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Not in Scotland I believe , no reply no cert! Jim. 100% correct. I have personal experience of this. No reply = no cert Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 so how do they get away with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortune Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 (edited) what the orgs doing about it? I suppose its a bit of a grey area. it usually is and they don't have to bother too much coz you all accept it. you all pay your money and you get a quarterly mag. Edited December 1, 2016 by fortune Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 what the orgs doing about it? I suppose its a bit of a grey area. it usually is and they don't have to bother too much coz you all accept it. you all pay your money and you get a quarterly mag. On the face of it not hellish much,only sacs that I know of have tackled police scotland on this but frankly ps aren't interested,the problem stems from ps deciding on their own guidance on this matter. I emailed the NRA about this,they said they were aware of it but upto that point no one had complained.Ah well that's okay then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wigeon jim Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Problem is if you happen to have an anti shooting GP all they need to do is not reply and you are screwed ! Jim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Problem is if you happen to have an anti shooting GP all they need to do is not reply and you are screwed ! Jim. Guidance to GP's now says if they don't want to do it for whatever reason they must help the applicant find one who will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kody Posted December 1, 2016 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 They wouldn't put up with **** in america stick together and get this stupid doctors thing thrown out I have never come across so much red tape as you Scotts have to put up with And the airgun laws I think its just to get firearms out of circulation be very afraid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortune Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 On the face of it not hellish much,only sacs that I know of have tackled police scotland on this but frankly ps aren't interested,the problem stems from ps deciding on their own guidance on this matter. I emailed the NRA about this,they said they were aware of it but upto that point no one had complained.Ah well that's okay then. So who gives PS the (right or the authority) to introduce stuff like this? What did SAC do about it . As far as I can see all of the orgs are totally useless. all they want to do is give out the impression that they have a position. at some stage someone has got to stick their hand in their pocket and stand up and do the job that they are supposedly there for other than to postulate about how important they are. deeds are required not words and the wrong words at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 IIRC there was a response from ps on sacs Facebook page,I think basically they have decided without a positive response from your GP they can't be sure your mentally stable so they refuse to progress the paperwork. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oowee Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 IIRC there was a response from ps on sacs Facebook page,I think basically they have decided without a positive response from your GP they can't be sure your mentally stable so they refuse to progress the paperwork. So you are guilty until your innocence is proven? That's a bit daft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortune Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 IIRC there was a response from ps on sacs Facebook page,I think basically they have decided without a positive response from your GP they can't be sure your mentally stable so they refuse to progress the paperwork. so did any of the orgs take legal advice or did they just say OK! We're sorry for mentioning it? Do the orgs really exist for the members or is it just to get a range rover and float about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 I think the problem is getting someone who's prepared to take on PS hopefully with the help of one of the organisation's.This of course could take months while you've not got the use of your guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 Lifted this little bit from PS response to sacs. Section 27 and 28 of the 1968 Act require a Chief Officer of Police to be satisfied that, amongst other matters, an applicant can be permitted to have in their possession a firearm or shotgun without danger to the public safety or to the peace. Satisfaction is defined as ‘full assurance or certainty’. And this is where they say if they don't hear back from your GP to say your okay they can't be satisfied your not a danger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 On the face of it not hellish much,only sacs that I know of have tackled police scotland on this but frankly ps aren't interested,the problem stems from ps deciding on their own guidance on this matter. I emailed the NRA about this,they said they were aware of it but upto that point no one had complained.Ah well that's okay then. I wouldn't pay the NRA in washers, never mind pay them membership. IIRC there was a response from ps on sacs Facebook page,I think basically they have decided without a positive response from your GP they can't be sure your mentally stable so they refuse to progress the paperwork. This isn't logical and must be just your personal opinion, because if this were in fact the case they've overlooked the fact that a person whose mental stability they're unsure of is ( in the case of renewals ) sat at home in possession of firearms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortune Posted December 1, 2016 Report Share Posted December 1, 2016 (edited) It's not just the orgs that are at fault here. How many members of this forum from Scotland have joined in here to throw their 2 groats worth into the pot? How many of the moderators have joined in? How many orgs or their spokesmen have come on here to whip up the crowd and get something done? David from basc hasn’t surfaced to state “ look chaps we are doing this or we have done this >> this week and this is how we plan out what we want to happen”. Until someone does something the police will keep introducing anything that absolves them from risk and even better removes the risk. Support the gun shops and trade dont bother with the orgs who are a total waste of time and if its the insurance that you are after go to a specialist insurer who will do it for about £30 and it will be better cover.. Without the gun shops it is pretty thin. Edited December 1, 2016 by fortune Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpowder Posted December 2, 2016 Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 Not in Scotland I believe , no reply no cert! Jim. Renewed mine in May and was never asked for doctors letter. Blackpowder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr smith Posted December 2, 2016 Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 This isn't logical and must be just your personal opinion, because if this were in fact the case they've overlooked the fact that a person whose mental stability they're unsure of is ( in the case of renewals ) sat at home in possession of firearms. This new regime that great deal for shooters only applies to new applications and renewals after a certain date,if you got your renewal before that date your free to be a loony until the next renewal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted December 2, 2016 Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 This new regime that great deal for shooters only applies to new applications and renewals after a certain date,if you got your renewal before that date your free to be a loony until the next renewal. I am one of those who needs to declare an incident in my medical history. I've been free to be a 'loony' since my last renewal five years ago, and will be so until who knows when as I have S7's with expiry dates of next May. I have no idea if or when my GP will contact me or the police, and for all of that time I've been in possession of firearms. Your comments make no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutron619 Posted December 2, 2016 Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 (edited) Lifted this little bit from PS response to sacs. Section 27 and 28 of the 1968 Act require a Chief Officer of Police to be satisfied that, amongst other matters, an applicant can be permitted to have in their possession a firearm or shotgun without danger to the public safety or to the peace. Satisfaction is defined as ‘full assurance or certainty’. And this is where they say if they don't hear back from your GP to say your okay they can't be satisfied your not a danger. If that's the case, how does anyone get a certificate, ever? You can, for instance, get bitten by various creatures whose toxins will alter your behaviour - some of them to make you aggressive. What if you're holding a gun when it happens? Granted, probably not in this country - I'm thinking more of Amazonian poisonous frogs and those yellow spiders the size of a dinner plate - but I use it as an example. People get ill, including mentally ill, through no fault of their own, all the time. It's never going to be "certain" that that isn't going to happen - just very unlikely in almost all cases. Bloody stupid definition. Edited December 2, 2016 by neutron619 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highlandladdie Posted December 2, 2016 Report Share Posted December 2, 2016 Renewed mine in May and was never asked for doctors letter. Blackpowder The police contact you doctor directly, maybe it was before this 'new' rule came into force or your GP dutifully replied and you were none the wiser? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.