The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

MistAgain wrote:That is not in our interest and BASC and other bodies should be fighting it .

To quote John Wayne, "That'll be the day"........

MistAgain wrote:Merseyside are also refusing to process any new or renewal FAC's SGC's or RFD's without a Doctors report .
They have also stated that they will not accept an FOI medical report .
The BASC did say they were looking for someone who was prepared to act as a test case. No ideas who would pay the costs for this though.

Regarding the "Guidelines" , the government has stated that they will have a public consultation on the introduction of "statutory guidance" this summer.

This could mean that whatever the Home Office or whatever ACPO calls itself this year want in the guidance would be law. That is not in our interest and BASC and other bodies should be fighting it .

This behaviour by Certfication departments is so they can claim it is custom and practice and have it enshrined in law secure in the knowledge that there will be no effective opposition from NRA/BASC and the rest of our useless "national" bodies.

Hi All,

Letter to GP from FEO below. I like his condesending style where he assumes the highly trained GPs have been confused by the letter he sent!

I had a meeting with the GP practice manager today and they are not confused at all, they just don't want ANY involvement in a process that is open to finger pointing accusations at any time in the future if an FAC and SGC applicant they have been involved with in any way goes off the rails.

To be honest, I have no problem with the GPs stance as it would probably be what I would do. In passing, the practice manager mentioned this has been a hot topic around all the GPs in the area and most have said they will just send a 'concientious objection' response to any information requests from the FEO.



Just scanning the FEO letter I recieved this morning regarding my letter I sent earlier this week (in first post).....lets just say, no surprises! Will post seperately.

walesdave wrote:if an FAC and SGC applicant they have been involved with in any way goes off the rails.

To be honest, I have no problem with the GPs stance as it would probably be what I would do

might want to rethink how that is worded, especially if sending to the police .

Dave personally speaking I don't think the letter to the doctor is at all condescending, in fact I think the tone of the letter is quite correct and even attempting to be helpful in resolving the issue. To my view Gwent appear to be attempting to resolve the matter as amicably as possible. However as you say the practise don't want any sort of involvement at all. I just wonder if they take a similar risk averse stance on HGV, PCV and PPL medicals.

OK....here we go.....




1. What gives this guy the right to say he is concerned that '[my] stance regarding medical information may mean that your certificates expire and that this will cause you to become in unlawful possession of your section 1 and 2 firearms' - FYI, this has REALLY p'd me off.
- I have no issue with my medical records being shared with the FEO, I have NO 'stance'
- if my certificates expire then it's Gwent Polices fault and nothing to do with me. I submitted my forms and cheque in plenty of time, the rest is down to the FEO. And for his enlightenment, if my certificates were about to expire, I'd get my guns into an RFD in plenty of time to avouid breaking any laws. My job requires I hold both a UK SC and a NATO Secret clearance and I'm not going to risk lossing my livelihood over illegal firearm possesion!

2. When it suits the police, they use 'guidance' as a hammer to batter down our sport, but when it suits them, suddenly it is non-statutory and they can ignore as they wish!

3. Without the new guidance in the 2016 document there would not be a requirement to disclose medical information, unless the applicant had indicated a potential problem, so either the new 'rules' in the guidance should be followed completely or not at all and we should go back to the original system regarding medical records.

4. What is this insistance that Section 27 and 28 of the firearms act gives the Chief Constable the right to insist on anything he wants as part of the application process? What if he decides we all need three Harley Street psychiatrists to examine us, copies of all our school reports to show we weren't bullied as kids, along with testimonials from all our current workmates that we are well balanced individuals!

5. Had a quiet chat with one of the office girls in the FEO department today.....she mentioned that the Chief Constables stance is causing all kind of bother!

So...where now?

I've had a call with Gwent Polices' professional standards department, and the chap on the phone (while still managing to 'mention' he hates GUNS ) thinks I have a case that the Chief Constable can't cherry pick which parts of the guidance he uses while ignoring that parts he doesn't like. He asked that I email the complaint to him tonight, and then due to it being against the top bod he'll be obliged to pass it on to the Police and Crime Commisioners office!

Watch this space......

I am reading this with interest as I have been through the same with Lincolnshire, albeit with different issues.
Please keep the updates coming.

Involved BASC, got nowhere.

Basically the way it works here is that if the Chief Constable decides something then that stands regardless of what one does, involving BASC made no difference as I was told by BASC that Lincolnshire will not listen to them. Whatever I said was turned against me, it was me being hostile and do not forget that everything the police is doing is for the "safety of the public", pretty difficult to argue against that although it is just empty words, an umbrella term if you like, used against certificate holders. Luckily I got my renewal through a month or so before the medical thing came into effect in Lincolnshire. The medical requirement does give me a problem at next renewal however I am a rather stubborn person so I might not renew at all if they insist at that point.
Of course I will not, not renew without a fight.

It is a mind set we are up against. Other forces are flexible and reasonable. It just makes me confused as to why the law and the guidelines are interpreted in different ways depending on who is the Chief Constable.

I would look at it this way.
If its in statute law then it must be adhered to (to the letter)
If its guidance (not law) then its not enforceable and they would get their knuckles rapped in court if it got there.

These people are like banks, they will scare you, intimidate you, right till the end, then give in if they are wrong otherwise a precedent will be set in court which they don't want.

Its a ball ache you have to fight like a b@stard in this day and age with people who think they can make it up as they go along but 9 times out of ten they ARE wrong and trying it on.
A couple of people at my last club advised the police they would be taken to court for denying them the guns they wanted but the police soon gave in with not a word spoken or letter sent.

Just to add....
I reckon BASC are on borrowed time now with their inaction. I certainly won't be lining their pockets anytime soon.

Dave if you wish to pursue a formal complaint against the Chief Constable you had better get it in quick as he's already announced his retirement.

I wouldn't hold out too much hope with the police and crime commissioner, he's not like his predecessor who was an independent.

Sorry about the length.....sent today to Gwents' Professional Standards Department. Posted as a jpg as I think the formatting or length is causing a problem posting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------