Government responds to 2023 firearms licensing consultation

[clangerman]

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Its a strategy, not a failure.
Gun ownership and use will end up with those that have very deep pockets, more profit, less hassle for the likes of big shoots, and indeed BASC.

 

those who can no longer afford to fire out will then start to fire in!  

[Konor]

3 hours ago, Genghis said:

Who in BASC is ‘woke’? Name them.

If you consider woke to be promoting the total abolition of lead shot by using emotive language to sway opinion ,despite BASCs official line of opposing further restrictions on lead shot ,then Conor O’Gorman has contributed to further legislation and conceded ground to the anti fieldsports cause with his “minefields of lead for the poor wee partridge chicks” and similar posts whilst to date not supplying any scientific data to substantiate the extent of any such detriment. 

[Genghis]

7 hours ago, Konor said:

If you consider woke to be promoting the total abolition of lead shot by using emotive language to sway opinion ,despite BASCs official line of opposing further restrictions on lead shot ,then Conor O’Gorman has contributed to further legislation and conceded ground to the anti fieldsports cause with his “minefields of lead for the poor wee partridge chicks” and similar posts whilst to date not supplying any scientific data to substantiate the extent of any such detriment. 

So it is Conor who is ‘woke’?
 

It seems a lot of people refer to anything or anyone they dislike as ‘woke’, regardless of context.

[enfieldspares]

On 13/02/2025 at 21:54, Konor said:

As usual finger on the pulse and in tune with the average shooting man or alternatively if free meals and shooting opportunities are insufficient to sway opinion in our favour then we’ll have to have you sign a petition or write to your M.P.  😁

Maybe BASC will even "welcome this chance to streamline the control of firearms to just one type of licence".

We'll be so far down the river thanks to the "voice of shooting" that we'll soon be smelling the salt air of the ocean!

Edited Sunday at 01:23 by enfieldspares

[Konor]

7 hours ago, Genghis said:

So it is Conor who is ‘woke’?
 

It seems a lot of people refer to anything or anyone they dislike as ‘woke’, regardless of context.

Woke isn’t a term I particularly like or would use to describe Conor and the work that he carries out on behalf of Shooting and BASC ,which I am a long-standing member of. I’m guessing that how you may define the term woke might cover the content of my last post. My advice would be to read over the posts yourself and make your own mind up rather than rely on others to label a fellow poster on the forum

 

[Konor]

6 hours ago, enfieldspares said:

Maybe BASC will even "welcome this chance to streamline the control of firearms to just one type of licence"

It would cut down on the administration and provided the good reason clause only covered that presently covered by the firearms certificate might be a step in the right direction. A vast overdue improvement would be changing the status of air cartridge pistols so that they could be transferred /sold to other section 1 firearms certificate holders rather than having to be destroyed when the present owner dies.

If good reason becomes law for all present shotgun certificate owners how painful is it going to be to have to part with a collection that reflects our sporting heritage and consigns many of the shotgun actions that paved the way to the standard box lock and sidelocks in use today to scrap.

[Smudger687]

On 15/02/2025 at 08:46, Keith 66 said:

An aspect of all this firearms control that is not considered is national security. Putin invaded Ukraine & now Trump threatens to pull out of Nato.

At a time when many European countries are of necessity having to increase defence spending our government is still cutting it.

Private firearms ownership should be a cornerstone of defence policy as it is in the nordic countries & Switzerland.

AG Banks once exhorted the British government in the late 1930's to build a rifle range on every golf course in the land. Instead hundreds have been closed.

It is high time that responsible firearms ownership should be seen as a neccessity for national security not something that should be banned by spineless politicians.

Private firearms ownership reduces the government's control over us, and they place a much higher premium on controlling their own population than defence of the realm.

[Conor O'Gorman]

14 hours ago, Genghis said:

So it is Conor who is ‘woke’?
 

It seems a lot of people refer to anything or anyone they dislike as ‘woke’, regardless of context.

I shall add 'woke' to the long list of ad hominem arguments used by some on the forum. The grey partridge research has been around for decades and last year concerns around lead shot ingestion by wild grey partridge chicks was covered in an article in Shooting Times and by the CA on its website. I will start a new thread on the evidenced impact of lead shot on partridge and other birds. Meanwhile, I have further comments to make on the OP.

[Conor O'Gorman]

I haven't seen any discussion on the fact that the government has decided that it will not make it a statutory duty for GPs to take part in the medical verification process or to apply an encoded reminder/marker to a certificate holder's patient record. This was covered in the 2023 consultation.

This was the government response:

A statutory duty on GPs

7.16 The consultation asked for views on recommendations made by the Scottish Affairs Select Committee and the Coroner for the Keyham Inquest relating to the medical aspects of firearms licensing.

7.17 There has been significant strengthening of the medical checks for firearms licensing in recent years, including making it a requirement for all applicants for a firearms certificate to provide relevant medical information to the police, and the development and introduction of a new digital firearms marker in England to ensure that the police are notified by the certificate holder’s GP if there is a concerning deterioration in the certificate holder’s physical or mental health at any point after the grant of the certificate. However, the engagement of GPs is voluntary, and there is currently no statutory or other mandating requirement relating to their involvement in firearms licensing.

7.18 The consultation asked, firstly, for views on the recommendation that consideration be given to making GPs’ engagement with the firearms licensing process mandatory, as had been recommended by the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. Of those who responded to this question, 83% considered that GP involvement should be mandatory, while 17% considered that it should not be. 100% of law enforcement respondents and 93% of friends/families of victims who answered this question thought that GP involvement should be mandatory. The response from GPs/medical professionals was lower, at 58%.

7.19 Amongst those who were in favour of making GP involvement mandatory, some were concerned that, otherwise, there would remain vulnerabilities in the system, if it were not guaranteed that certificate holders’ GPs would meaningfully engage in the licensing process by providing relevant medical information at the time of application. Given the importance, on public safety grounds, that GPs provide medical information to the police, some commented that this suggested GP involvement should therefore be a statutory duty. Many respondents were concerned that as matters currently stand, GPs can decline to provide the required information to accompany a firearms application, which not only put the applicant at a disadvantage, but also created public safety risks if the GP were not flagging to the police potential physical or mental health issues which could impact on their patient’s ability to have safe access to firearms. Many respondents were also concerned that there was no consistency in the fees charged by GPs for providing medical information to the police at the time of application.

7.20 Other respondents were concerned that, without a statutory duty on GPs, individual doctors might be swayed by their personal views on firearms, which might disadvantage applicants for firearms certificates if, for example, the doctor had a conscientious objection to firearms.

7.21 Other respondents expressed different views, pointing out that the role of GPs was to meet the clinical needs of their patients and that their involvement in firearms licensing was outside of their contractual arrangements or clinical responsibilities and therefore a private matter for the GP. Because GPs are not NHS employees but are contractors to the NHS and their involvement in firearms applications is not part of the NHS contract, it was explained that it was therefore appropriate for GPs to charge the applicant a fee for their work in providing medical information to the police, as the time and costs of doing so therefore fell on the GP personally. It was also explained that it was appropriate for individual doctors and practices to determine the fee to be charged, based on the work involved.

7.22 More broadly, in relation to the medical aspects of firearms licensing, some respondents made the point that certificate holders could, on occasions, be disinclined to see their GP, for fear of a medical condition being reported to the police which might raise questions about their continued access to firearms. The value of the digital marker would be undermined if certificate holders did not see their doctor when they needed to, because the digital marker is reliant on certificate holders being seen by their GP.

7.23 The government has carefully considered the arguments on both sides of this question, including the views put forward by medical representative bodies. We are satisfied that those who apply for the grant or renewal of a firearms certificate are now able to obtain the required medical information from either their GP or from another suitably qualified GMC-registered doctor. This process, which was introduced in November 2021, has removed the risk that a firearm certificate could be granted in the absence of input from the applicant’s doctor. We do not consider, therefore, that there is an overwhelming argument for creating a specific statutory duty on GPs, or for adding firearms to the GP contract, at this time. Moreover, the successful roll-out of the digital medical marker to all GP surgeries in England, which was completed in May 2023, is supporting the provision of relevant medical information from GPs to the police. We are putting in place measures to monitor the use of the digital marker to ensure that it is operating as intended. Against this background, the government has decided not to place a specific statutory duty on GPs or to add firearms licensing to the GP contract. It is unclear how either of these approaches would in any event compel a GP who is reluctant to become involved, for example, because of a conscientious objection to shooting as a sport. We will, however, keep the issue under review, should any concerns become apparent with the current arrangements, for example if monitoring of the digital medical marker produces evidence to show that it is not providing the required flow of relevant medical information from GPs to police forces.

The Keyham inquest covered GP involvement in firearms licensing in Jake Davidson's case. The articles below cover various aspects of this.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/26/gp-not-told-jake-davison-plymouth-shooter-shotgun-certificate-inquest-hears 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-64415274 

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2023-01-23/keyham-inquest-gp-not-asked-for-specific-information-over-shotgun-application 

 

Edited Sunday at 15:38 by Conor O'Gorman

[Old farrier]

23 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I shall add 'woke' to the long list of ad hominem arguments used by some on the forum. The grey partridge research has been around for decades and last year concerns around lead shot ingestion by wild grey partridge chicks was covered in an article in Shooting Times and by the CA on its website. I will start a new thread on the evidenced impact of lead shot on partridge and other birds. Meanwhile, I have further comments to make on the OP.

The data and research is historic and not especially relevant to today’s world 

farming practices and habitat have changed so much that any scientific evidence unless gathered recently is useless 

the day of the grey partridge started to disappear as soon as direct drilling began 

habitat loss and predator populations are also big contributors to their decline 

[Konor]

53 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

The data and research is historic and not especially relevant to today’s world 

farming practices and habitat have changed so much that any scientific evidence unless gathered recently is useless 

the day of the grey partridge started to disappear as soon as direct drilling began 

habitat loss and predator populations are also big contributors to their decline 

I made much the same comment on a personal message. The days of prolific partridge nests in every hedge row protected by old school gamekeepers are long gone. What is needed today is quantifiable evidence to gauge the impact on gamebirds both within a well shot over area of land probably in use as a commercialised shoot and in an area of lightly shot walked up ground. Then we could quantify the impact of lead shot and put into context the extent of that impact.

 As an aside as BASC at present is proposing no further legislation should be brought in to further restrict the use of lead shot inland is it not strange that a BASC representative should be spending so much time apparently trying to influence readers of the forum that the abolition of lead shot use should be our goal. Unless evidence can be provided that is relevant to the situation that shooting sports find themselves now then that evidence should be ruled irrelevant otherwise it could be argued that there is an element of political manipulation in the interests of a preconceived goal.

Edited Sunday at 16:35 by Konor
Clarification

[Scully]

1 hour ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

I haven't seen any discussion on the fact that the government has decided that it will not make it a statutory duty for GPs to take part in the medical verification process or to apply an encoded reminder/marker to a certificate holder's patient record. This was covered in the 2023 consultation.

This was the government response:

A statutory duty on GPs

7.16 The consultation asked for views on recommendations made by the Scottish Affairs Select Committee and the Coroner for the Keyham Inquest relating to the medical aspects of firearms licensing.

7.17 There has been significant strengthening of the medical checks for firearms licensing in recent years, including making it a requirement for all applicants for a firearms certificate to provide relevant medical information to the police, and the development and introduction of a new digital firearms marker in England to ensure that the police are notified by the certificate holder’s GP if there is a concerning deterioration in the certificate holder’s physical or mental health at any point after the grant of the certificate. However, the engagement of GPs is voluntary, and there is currently no statutory or other mandating requirement relating to their involvement in firearms licensing.

7.18 The consultation asked, firstly, for views on the recommendation that consideration be given to making GPs’ engagement with the firearms licensing process mandatory, as had been recommended by the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. Of those who responded to this question, 83% considered that GP involvement should be mandatory, while 17% considered that it should not be. 100% of law enforcement respondents and 93% of friends/families of victims who answered this question thought that GP involvement should be mandatory. The response from GPs/medical professionals was lower, at 58%.

7.19 Amongst those who were in favour of making GP involvement mandatory, some were concerned that, otherwise, there would remain vulnerabilities in the system, if it were not guaranteed that certificate holders’ GPs would meaningfully engage in the licensing process by providing relevant medical information at the time of application. Given the importance, on public safety grounds, that GPs provide medical information to the police, some commented that this suggested GP involvement should therefore be a statutory duty. Many respondents were concerned that as matters currently stand, GPs can decline to provide the required information to accompany a firearms application, which not only put the applicant at a disadvantage, but also created public safety risks if the GP were not flagging to the police potential physical or mental health issues which could impact on their patient’s ability to have safe access to firearms. Many respondents were also concerned that there was no consistency in the fees charged by GPs for providing medical information to the police at the time of application.

7.20 Other respondents were concerned that, without a statutory duty on GPs, individual doctors might be swayed by their personal views on firearms, which might disadvantage applicants for firearms certificates if, for example, the doctor had a conscientious objection to firearms.

7.21 Other respondents expressed different views, pointing out that the role of GPs was to meet the clinical needs of their patients and that their involvement in firearms licensing was outside of their contractual arrangements or clinical responsibilities and therefore a private matter for the GP. Because GPs are not NHS employees but are contractors to the NHS and their involvement in firearms applications is not part of the NHS contract, it was explained that it was therefore appropriate for GPs to charge the applicant a fee for their work in providing medical information to the police, as the time and costs of doing so therefore fell on the GP personally. It was also explained that it was appropriate for individual doctors and practices to determine the fee to be charged, based on the work involved.

7.22 More broadly, in relation to the medical aspects of firearms licensing, some respondents made the point that certificate holders could, on occasions, be disinclined to see their GP, for fear of a medical condition being reported to the police which might raise questions about their continued access to firearms. The value of the digital marker would be undermined if certificate holders did not see their doctor when they needed to, because the digital marker is reliant on certificate holders being seen by their GP.

7.23 The government has carefully considered the arguments on both sides of this question, including the views put forward by medical representative bodies. We are satisfied that those who apply for the grant or renewal of a firearms certificate are now able to obtain the required medical information from either their GP or from another suitably qualified GMC-registered doctor. This process, which was introduced in November 2021, has removed the risk that a firearm certificate could be granted in the absence of input from the applicant’s doctor. We do not consider, therefore, that there is an overwhelming argument for creating a specific statutory duty on GPs, or for adding firearms to the GP contract, at this time. Moreover, the successful roll-out of the digital medical marker to all GP surgeries in England, which was completed in May 2023, is supporting the provision of relevant medical information from GPs to the police. We are putting in place measures to monitor the use of the digital marker to ensure that it is operating as intended. Against this background, the government has decided not to place a specific statutory duty on GPs or to add firearms licensing to the GP contract. It is unclear how either of these approaches would in any event compel a GP who is reluctant to become involved, for example, because of a conscientious objection to shooting as a sport. We will, however, keep the issue under review, should any concerns become apparent with the current arrangements, for example if monitoring of the digital medical marker produces evidence to show that it is not providing the required flow of relevant medical information from GPs to police forces.

The Keyham inquest covered GP involvement in firearms licensing in Jake Davidson's case. The articles below cover various aspects of this.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/26/gp-not-told-jake-davison-plymouth-shooter-shotgun-certificate-inquest-hears 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-64415274 

https://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2023-01-23/keyham-inquest-gp-not-asked-for-specific-information-over-shotgun-application 

 

I’m not clear as to what comment you would like any of us to make? 
Are GP’s qualified to make any judgemental decisions on the suitability of an applicant or owner to hold firearms? They could certainly refer to relevant medical history aspects, but like I say, are they qualified to form an opinion, especially re’ mental health? 
In the Atherton case, unless I’m mistaken, I believe his GP did contact Durham licensing dept’ with his concerns about Atherton, but was ignored. 
I know the Police aren’t qualified to form an opinion, which is why they often over-react, and would prefer a GP to do it, after all we can all sigh with relief if there’s a scapegoat. 
But if the Police ignore the advice of a GP who isn’t qualified to make that decision anyhow, then we have to ask ourselves what sort of an amateurish half-*****  exercise is this, which is grossly unfair to all concerned?  Don’t we want to get this as right as we possibly can for everybody? 
If not then the only solution is surely just to ban legally held firearms  altogether. 
There is no better scapegoat than ‘nowt to do with us, it was an illegally held gun’. 
I don’t even know why we’re being asked to discuss this aspect Conor; it’s already been discussed via a consultation, and BASC or anyone else isn’t going to overturn the decision, unless you’re trying to distract us all from other pending legislation. 🤷‍♂️

Edited Sunday at 16:40 by Scully

[jall25]

55 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

The data and research is historic and not especially relevant to today’s world 

farming practices and habitat have changed so much that any scientific evidence unless gathered recently is useless 

the day of the grey partridge started to disappear as soon as direct drilling began 

habitat loss and predator populations are also big contributors to their decline 

But they are so easy to restablish -,people teel you they are not - but some habitat - food - predator control - happy days as they breed so rapidly 

[Old farrier]

12 minutes ago, Konor said:

I made much the same comment on a personal message. The days of prolific partridge nests in every hedge row protected by old school gamekeepers are long gone. What is needed today is quantifiable evidence to gauge the impact on gamebirds both within a well shot over area of land probably in use as a commercialised shoot and in an area of lightly shot walked up ground. Then we could quantify the impact of lead shot and put into context the extent of that impact.

 As an aside as BASC at present is proposing no further legislation should be brought in to further restrict the use of lead shot inland is it not strange that a BASC representative should be spending so much time apparently trying to influence readers of the forum that the abolition of lead shot use should be our goal. Unless evidence can be provided that is relevant to the situation that shooting sports find themselves now then that evidence should be ruled irrelevant otherwise it could be argued that there is an element of political manipulation in the interests of a preconceived goal.

Scrapping all the historical and dubious data and starting again with honest analysis of the facts a base line to start and work within parameters set out initially to get a honest conclusion either positive or negative would be a good starting point 

easy to do on large commercial shoots and clay grounds as the shot fallout areas would be identifiable and a solution would also be able to be found 

for commercial shoots the areas could easily be moved to achieve a shot fallout area that would be reclaimable or at minimum ploughed into the ground before the breeding season 

similar to planning recovery of lead shot at clay grounds 

far easier than policing a lead shot ban 

the upland shoot and walked up / crop protection shooting would be a little more difficult to achieve lead recovery although the figure af shot cartridges from the data available shows it’s a small percentage of the cartridges fired 

just a few thoughts 

[Old farrier]

15 minutes ago, jall25 said:

But they are so easy to restablish -,people teel you they are not - but some habitat - food - predator control - happy days as they breed so rapidly 

Ok so are the corporate farms going to change the seed drilling back to what it was and loose approximately one third of the yield for a few partridge ( I’ll explain) a current seed drilling is 6 inch Space on a zigzag for maximum planting efficiency and crop production in the partridge hay days it was a 10 inch space in a straight line enough room for the birds to run freely 

are they going to stop spraying insecticide to allow the insects to thrive for the partridge to eat 

are they going to do the nessecary predator control 

the small farms are gone it’s a corporate thing now 

 

[jall25]

14 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Ok so are the corporate farms going to change the seed drilling back to what it was and loose approximately one third of the yield for a few partridge ( I’ll explain) a current seed drilling is 6 inch Space on a zigzag for maximum planting efficiency and crop production in the partridge hay days it was a 10 inch space in a straight line enough room for the birds to run freely 

are they going to stop spraying insecticide to allow the insects to thrive for the partridge to eat 

are they going to do the nessecary predator control 

the small farms are gone it’s a corporate thing now 

 

 

Sadly not - but i do wonder if some of the SFI crops may well give them a hold ?

I think "some" of the shoots that perhaps own the land and have diversified a bit are more tolerant of a few weeds - some rough areas too 

Our little shoot now has a small but actively breeding population and my friends up the road now has a significant population - in the space of circa 5 years 

[Konor]

37 minutes ago, Old farrier said:

Scrapping all the historical and dubious data and starting again with honest analysis of the facts a base line to start and work within parameters set out initially to get a honest conclusion either positive or negative would be a good starting point 

easy to do on large commercial shoots and clay grounds as the shot fallout areas would be identifiable and a solution would also be able to be found 

for commercial shoots the areas could easily be moved to achieve a shot fallout area that would be reclaimable or at minimum ploughed into the ground before the breeding season 

similar to planning recovery of lead shot at clay grounds 

far easier than policing a lead shot ban 

the upland shoot and walked up / crop protection shooting would be a little more difficult to achieve lead recovery although the figure af shot cartridges from the data available shows it’s a small percentage of the cartridges fired 

just a few thoughts 

My thoughts too ,it would be far easier to make a decision based on acknowledged facts the problem is sourcing a neutral middleman to provide them. We potentially see the evidence of bias even within our own organisations so not an easy if even achievable task. 

[Fellside]

Having stayed close the science re grey partridges, I can say with confidence, it is the dominance of intensive cereal cropping which has unfortunately clattered our poor grey partridges. While many people have their pet theory, there is no single killer blow, but many factors acting in concert - mostly associated with intensive autumn sewing systems. There is hope however, as jall25 points out they are remarkably good at bouncing back, but only if the habitat is made suitable. One or two farms near me have a couple of coveys back, due to a slight leaning away from intensive cereals. It is marvellous to hear them calling on a summer evening once more. 

[jall25]

3 minutes ago, Fellside said:

Having stayed close the science re grey partridges, I can say with confidence, it is the dominance of intensive cereal cropping which has unfortunately clattered our poor grey partridges. While many people have their pet theory, there is no single killer blow, but many factors acting in concert - mostly associated with intensive autumn sewing systems. There is hope however, as jall25 points out they are remarkably good at bouncing back, but only if the habitat is made suitable. One or two farms near me have a couple of coveys back, due to a slight leaning away from intensive cereals. It is marvellous to hear them calling on a summer evening once more. 

Yes thats the noise i love - In the winter last year they formed a sort of super covey with us - maybe 60/70 strong

I would push them out of a cover while hand feeding to have them spin back over me 5 minutes later to come feed on the sunflower / millet / rape / wheat mix - awesome 

[Conor O'Gorman]

2 hours ago, Scully said:

I’m not clear as to what comment you would like any of us to make? 
Are GP’s qualified to make any judgemental decisions on the suitability of an applicant or owner to hold firearms? They could certainly refer to relevant medical history aspects, but like I say, are they qualified to form an opinion, especially re’ mental health? 
In the Atherton case, unless I’m mistaken, I believe his GP did contact Durham licensing dept’ with his concerns about Atherton, but was ignored. 
I know the Police aren’t qualified to form an opinion, which is why they often over-react, and would prefer a GP to do it, after all we can all sigh with relief if there’s a scapegoat. 
But if the Police ignore the advice of a GP who isn’t qualified to make that decision anyhow, then we have to ask ourselves what sort of an amateurish half-*****  exercise is this, which is grossly unfair to all concerned?  Don’t we want to get this as right as we possibly can for everybody? 
If not then the only solution is surely just to ban legally held firearms  altogether. 
There is no better scapegoat than ‘nowt to do with us, it was an illegally held gun’. 
I don’t even know why we’re being asked to discuss this aspect Conor; it’s already been discussed via a consultation, and BASC or anyone else isn’t going to overturn the decision, unless you’re trying to distract us all from other pending legislation. 🤷‍♂️

GPs are not being asked to give an opinion. That's a misunderstanding in the medical profession and indeed amongst many shooters, even those that have been a renewal. I am bemused that you think I am trying to distract from 'pending legislation' when there is a bunch of folk trying to take the thread off into perdix-land, much as I would love to join them in that discussion. Why have you not asked them why they are trying to distract from the OP? 

[Fellside]

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

GPs are not being asked to give an opinion. That's a misunderstanding in the medical profession and indeed amongst many shooters, even those that have been a renewal. I am bemused that you think I am trying to distract from 'pending legislation' when there is a bunch of folk trying to take the thread off into perdix-land, much as I would love to join them in that discussion. Why have you not asked them why they are trying to distract from the OP? 

Conor, I’m not intentionally trying to distract - just innocently having a nice chat about partridges. Didn’t mean to upset anyone. Anyway, I like Perdix-land, it’s a rather pleasant place to be……. 🙂. 

[Scully]

2 hours ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

GPs are not being asked to give an opinion. That's a misunderstanding in the medical profession and indeed amongst many shooters, even those that have been a renewal. I am bemused that you think I am trying to distract from 'pending legislation' when there is a bunch of folk trying to take the thread off into perdix-land, much as I would love to join them in that discussion. Why have you not asked them why they are trying to distract from the OP? 

I know!  I’ve always stated that GP’s  can only comment on medical histories and not an individuals merit. What I don’t understand is why you want us to discuss the matter of GP’s and their roles in the licensing process! It’s done! Some of us filled in a consultation and the Government  decided to do what it wanted to do anyway, so what is it you want us to discuss? 
Threads always go off on a tangent. It is what it is. 
So why do you want us to discuss something that we have no control over? A decision has been made. 

[Conor O'Gorman]

12 hours ago, Scully said:

I know!  I’ve always stated that GP’s  can only comment on medical histories and not an individuals merit. What I don’t understand is why you want us to discuss the matter of GP’s and their roles in the licensing process! It’s done! Some of us filled in a consultation and the Government  decided to do what it wanted to do anyway, so what is it you want us to discuss? 
Threads always go off on a tangent. It is what it is. 
So why do you want us to discuss something that we have no control over? A decision has been made. 

Issues around medical involvement in firearms licensing still need to be resolved. There are also other aspects of the consultation not currently being acted on, such as certificate length, with 66% 'members of shooting community' saying it should be more than 5 years, but only 20% of 'police representatives or law enforcement' agreeing to that. 

 

 

[Scully]

26 minutes ago, Conor O'Gorman said:

Issues around medical involvement in firearms licensing still need to be resolved. There are also other aspects of the consultation not currently being acted on, such as certificate length, with 66% 'members of shooting community' saying it should be more than 5 years, but only 20% of 'police representatives or law enforcement' agreeing to that. 

 

 

As has been proved time after time and is abundantly clear, it matters not what the results of any consultation are, the Government does what it wants. Consultations are a mere ‘going through the motions’ exercise, which ironically is an apt description of how the Government regards UK shooters, who are basically decent people who just want to get on with what they do without interference. 
I can think of many firearms related matters worthy of consultation, but what would be the point? 
Incidentally I posted the links by the CA and BASC to our BASC affiliated driven game syndicate….not a single response. 

Edited Monday at 10:18 by Scully

[Conor O'Gorman]

57 minutes ago, Scully said:

As has been proved time after time and is abundantly clear, it matters not what the results of any consultation are, the Government does what it wants. Consultations are a mere ‘going through the motions’ exercise, which ironically is an apt description of how the Government regards UK shooters, who are basically decent people who just want to get on with what they do without interference. 
I can think of many firearms related matters worthy of consultation, but what would be the point? 
Incidentally I posted the links by the CA and BASC to our BASC affiliated driven game syndicate….not a single response. 

Thanks for trying to raise awareness nonetheless. As we both know, after the fact, many people claim not to have heard about consultation x,y,z.