GTA challenges Met’s unlawful licence form

[Conor O'Gorman]

The Gun Trade Association (GTA) has challenged a decision by the Metropolitan Police regarding firearms licensing procedures. The issue arose when the Met attempted to issue a new form requiring medical checks for all employees of registered firearms dealers (RFDs), a move deemed unlawful by the Home Office. The Home Office made it clear to the Met that new standards and processes could not be established without following the proper procedures. 

https://www.shootinguk.co.uk/news/gta-challenges-mets-unlawful-licence-form-148733/

 

[bruno22rf]

Cannot help but wonder why the GTA with it's fairly limited membership are fighting this matter yet BASC are not?

[oowee]

2 minutes ago, bruno22rf said:

Cannot help but wonder why the GTA with it's fairly limited membership are fighting this matter yet BASC are not?

The GTA’s mission is to promote and protect the UK gun trade and it carries out this remit at all levels, from representation at Government to day-to-day queries with Firearms Licensing Officers and local authorities.

[Conor O'Gorman]

23 hours ago, bruno22rf said:

Cannot help but wonder why the GTA with it's fairly limited membership are fighting this matter yet BASC are not?

RFDs that are trade members of GTA reported the issue to GTA and the GTA acted on that and the issue has been resolved. Good work by GTA. Are you a member of BASC or GTA?

[bruno22rf]

10 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

RFDs that are trade members of GTA reported the issue to GTA and the GTA acted on that and the issue has been resolved. Good work by GTA. Are you a member of BASC or GTA?

Nope, not a gun dealer (dont sell guns) nor a BASC member (as they left me high and dry many years ago when I was falsely accused of violent behaviour)

[Gordon R]

Whilst I applaud the GTA and their action, the Met's action (which I disagree with on the grounds that they have overstepped the mark) has an element of sense in it. To hold one shotgun, we have to have a licence, backed up by medical evidence.

I am not familiar with an RFD licence - as to whether the RFD has to supply medical evidence. However, RFD employees have access to multiple shotguns and rifles, with the associated ammunition. Why should they be considered less of a risk than an ordinary licence holder?

[Fil]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

Whilst I applaud the GTA and their action, the Met's action (which I disagree with on the grounds that they have overstepped the mark) has an element of sense in it. To hold one shotgun, we have to have a licence, backed up by medical evidence.

I am not familiar with an RFD licence - as to whether the RFD has to supply medical evidence. However, RFD employees have access to multiple shotguns and rifles, with the associated ammunition. Why should they be considered less of a risk than an ordinary licence holder?

Rfd certificate holders go through the exact same procedures as section 1 and 2 certificate holders including submitting the GP form. We also have to prove the need for an RFD certificate. (Use it or lose it) And it costs more and only lasts 3 years. 

As for employees or "servants of the RFD" the police do the same background check as they would the holder of the RFD but no gp form is carried out. A great proportion of employees are usually certificate holders themselves so would have had a GP medical background check done. 99% of the gun shop owners and their employees I know all shoot anyway.

[Gordon R]

Fil - thanks for that.