Conor O'Gorman Posted July 23, 2020 Report Share Posted July 23, 2020 The annual Home Office statistics on firearms and shotgun certificates were published today. See https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/statistics-on-firearm-and-shotgun-certificates-england-and-wales-april-2019-to-march-2020 These figures highlight a continued strong participation in shooting sports in the UK, says BASC. As of 31 March 2020, there were 586,351 people in possession of a firearm and/or shotgun certificate. Bill Harriman BASC’s director of firearms said: “With a total of 25,983 successful grants in the year, shooting sports continues to draw in new crowds. A small decrease in the total number of certificate holders is thought to be down to delays by the Home Office in creating an adequate medical procedure to align with licensing. “Our licensing system is among the strictest in the world but is still open to all. BASC works continuously to see a fair representation for shooting sports in the UK and works closely with licensing departments.” The Home Office statistics also show female certificate holders increasing in line with a five-year trend. Bill continued: “Although still lacking in overall representation, this continuing trend of women participants is good news for shooting as a whole. Shooting’s inclusiveness is limitless and we welcome all new certificate holders to our community.” See https://basc.org.uk/strong-participation-in-shooting-sports-highlighted/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbrowning2 Posted July 23, 2020 Report Share Posted July 23, 2020 Conor will basc be looking at the data in-depth to see if the medical reporting has delivered a peak in certificates refused at grant or renewal or revoked to justify the expense the process is costing certificate holders. I appreciate the reason for Refusal or revoking don’t drill down to identify medical reporting, but you should be able to see the trend for the forces that have mandatory medical reports and look back historically to see if the cost justifies the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted July 23, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2020 3 hours ago, rbrowning2 said: Conor will basc be looking at the data in-depth to see if the medical reporting has delivered a peak in certificates refused at grant or renewal or revoked to justify the expense the process is costing certificate holders. I appreciate the reason for Refusal or revoking don’t drill down to identify medical reporting, but you should be able to see the trend for the forces that have mandatory medical reports and look back historically to see if the cost justifies the process. Yes, the firearms team look in detail at the stats annually. In our response to last year's statutory guidance consultation we referenced the impact in Kent following the introduction of mandatory GP verification of medical information provided by applicants - grant applications being 12 – 15% down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted July 23, 2020 Report Share Posted July 23, 2020 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said: Yes, the firearms team look in detail at the stats annually. In our response to last year's statutory guidance consultation we referenced the impact in Kent following the introduction of mandatory GP verification of medical information provided by applicants - grant applications being 12 – 15% down. It's doing what it is designed to do then! Edited July 23, 2020 by Newbie to this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mick miller Posted July 23, 2020 Report Share Posted July 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Newbie to this said: It's doing what it is designed to do then! Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbrowning2 Posted July 24, 2020 Report Share Posted July 24, 2020 (edited) 12 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said: Yes, the firearms team look in detail at the stats annually. In our response to last year's statutory guidance consultation we referenced the impact in Kent following the introduction of mandatory GP verification of medical information provided by applicants - grant applications being 12 – 15% down. When you say grant applications is that new grant applications or both new and renewals? For Kent again as they have been at the medical reporting game for awhile now does it conclusively show as the police claim that applicants Previously lied on their application form regarding medical suitability, prior to the introduction of the mandatory GP medical report. And how does Kent compare with forces who have yet to introduce mandatory medical report? Edited July 24, 2020 by rbrowning2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conor O'Gorman Posted July 24, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2020 (edited) The 12-15% was the drop in new grants relative to previous years based on that force's figures at that time. We are reviewing the latest annual Home Office figures across forces relative to forces that have introduced mandatory GP verification of medical information provided by applicants and those forces that have not. Edited July 24, 2020 by Conor O'Gorman 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.