Sgc and required gp letter/merseyside police

[McKay 37]

On 24/02/2020 at 20:48, MuddyPaws! said:

How did you get on mate.

im also in the Merseyside area and have been issued with the go form however I have already paid the 70odd quid online and completed the form

i thought this gp form was a load of shite surely they could get in touch is telephone and find out what they need.

good luck anyway mate

I’m still waiting on my gp letter mate, 5 weeks now, phoned them last week and they just said it’s been designated to a doctor they will phone when ready, I don’t want to just go through the process without it if it’s going to be a waste of time 

[MuddyPaws! 27]

Yer I got a phone call off the police saying they have rejected my application due to the docs letter not being provided on time, got to apply again now but my own fault I suppose

ive still not got round to sorting the doc letter either 5 weeks is a joke, keep me posted mate

[Meece 1,957]

On 04/03/2020 at 20:42, MuddyPaws! said:

Yer I got a phone call off the police saying they have rejected my application due to the docs letter not being provided on time, got to apply again now but my own fault I suppose

ive still not got round to sorting the doc letter either 5 weeks is a joke, keep me posted mate

Are you a first time new applicant for an FAC  or  Is this a renewal of an existing certificate.  Are you a member of an organisation of some sort.? If so are they helping you.? What are they doing?

[Alsone 789]

On 25/02/2020 at 22:39, Meece said:

It seems to me that this  thread has gone off track, as is usual with any sort of discussion along these lines. People just seem to take obscure ideas or incorrect interpretation of what the salient points are.  There is no point In  demanding  your  medical  records  because they aint going to be any use  firstly plod shouldn't /wouldn't accept them and they aint medically qualified.  As to basic saying that they can provide a cheap doctor to vouch for you.  That is disgraceful !!!  l. How can some random  doctor that's never even seen you,  cert you from third party records from you own doctors  who may  it have seen you in regard to anything that would be applicable. ?  All it means is that the org that is supposed to be representing  you has surrendered without a squeak and is probably taking a cut from a very greatfull doctor who is on a very good screw as a doctor and now is taking a cut for churning  out basically very suspect opinions on Patients they have no clinical experience of .  The whole process is completely flawed and riddled with loopholes  that potentially will let a nutter though.  Plod will say "well, it's  Not our fault.   We attempted to put in  place a procedure to avoid this .  Everyone in the process failed. Therefore no one should have a firearm at all.  Basic are completely F useless and like the dsc.  they were looking to make a quick buck out of it .  And the shooting public are stupid enough to not see that they are sheep being led on by a fifth column Judas goat.

I wouldn't say they wouldn't accept them, they asked for mine (!), (and didn't get them), but agree you never want to give the police your medical records. Apart from your medical privacy from every condition you may have suffered, it's an invitation for them to troll every entry looking for an excuse as to why you're not suitable. As Meece said as quoted above, they're not medically qualified. It's for a doctor to weigh up and decide what entries, if any, are relevant to your suitability to hold a firearm. They know what conditions are relevant and whether an old entry is still relevant. The danger is, feed the Police excess and irrelevant information and they may through lack of medical knowledge, unwittingly assign unimportant information as relevant and then you're looking at an expensive and drawn out appeal with no guarantee of success.

Edited March 8, 2020 by Alsone

[Meece 1,957]

1 hour ago, Alsone said:

I wouldn't say they wouldn't accept them, they asked for mine (!), (and didn't get them), but agree you never want to give the police your medical records. Apart from your medical privacy from every condition you may have suffered, it's an invitation for them to troll every entry looking for an excuse as to why you're not suitable. As Meece said as quoted above, they're not medically qualified. It's for a doctor to weigh up and decide what entries, if any, are relevant to your suitability to hold a firearm. They know what conditions are relevant and whether an old entry is still relevant. The danger is, feed the Police excess and irrelevant information and they may through lack of medical knowledge, unwittingly assign unimportant information as relevant and then you're looking at an expensive and drawn out appeal with no guarantee of success.

Yes.. hallelujah. ... all I have ever seen from basic is that they bend over backwards to comply with every rogue idea that is thrown out there by the firearms depths even when they have no basis in law at all.  This is similar to the eu.  We followed every crackpot rule to the letter and even invented more hoops and every other country ignored the ones that didn't benefit them and took every penny going even if they weren't entitled to it.  No one in Greece paid any taxes and that's why they basically went bankrupt along with Spain , Portugal and Ireland.  We travelled from Piraeus port on a train up into Athens and the return.  about 13 miles each way I think.  We paid €2 each rtn.  I don't think anyone else paid,  Everyone just seemed to get on and off. No one checked any tickets. Basic state that they have meeting with reps of acapo to discuss areas of concern.  Why are they talking to the monkey and not the organ grinder. As far as I  am concerned that they aint on here explaining what is happening and what they are doing about it.  I'm sure that if a rep from basic came on here, they would be interogated closely to show their purpose other than self fulfilling a position. Other than behind the wheel of a range rover?

[MuddyPaws! 27]

yes I’m brand new to shooting and this is my first ever attempt at getting my shotgun certificate.

im not a part of any group or organisation mate no, should I be

i have nothing on my medical record that would be a problem should I still be worried

[Meece 1,957]

You have no worries at all .  A SGC is relatively simple.  It all boils down to .....  Have You got somewhere to use it.?  ( YOU OWN land, or you have WRITEN permission to shoot on land. Or be a GENUINE  bona fide member of a gun club. )   Will the weapon be held in a safe place where no one else will be able to access it .?   ( a  SAFE OR AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE  that only YOU have access to)   they will consider if there are any persons in your family or friends that have been naughty and might influence the safety of any weapon.   If you satisfy these things then You fill the form in truthfully and send it off. You don't need to ask foes or basic or us or any third party.  You application will be processed through the system as per the rules.  If you fit those criteria they will issue a cert if you don't and are considered a risk they won't issue.  If they do refuse a grant you can appeal throughout the court.  They aren't there to obstruct you but to do their duty to the public good.

Edited March 9, 2020 by Meece

[Sausagedog 7,381]

11 hours ago, Meece said:

You have no worries at all .  A SGC is relatively simple.  It all boils down to .....  Have You got somewhere to use it.?  ( YOU OWN land, or you have WRITEN permission to shoot on land. Or be a GENUINE  bona fide member of a gun club. )   Will the weapon be held in a safe place where no one else will be able to access it .?   ( a  SAFE OR AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE  that only YOU have access to)   they will consider if there are any persons in your family or friends that have been naughty and might influence the safety of any weapon.   If you satisfy these things then You fill the form in truthfully and send it off. You don't need to ask foes or basic or us or any third party.  You application will be processed through the system as per the rules.  If you fit those criteria they will issue a cert if you don't and are considered a risk they won't issue.  If they do refuse a grant you can appeal throughout the court.  They aren't there to obstruct you but to do their duty to the public good.

Not strictly true Meece. The law states for a shotgun licence " the applicant shall be granted". There are in law no hoops other than securing the shotgun/s and certain criminal conviction restrictions.

Only rifles and pistols and high magazine capacity shotguns that have to be entered on a firearm certificate require " the applicant must provide good reason" in order to posses.

Good reasons for example are.

Target shooting via a registered club.

Vermin shooting on land suitable and the rights to shoot on are bought, leased or given.

Deer shooting on suitable land and the rights to are bought, leased or given.

Anything else is out side the law!

[Meece 1,957]

Thank you for that.  I apologize for my unintended misleading statement. I  got my certs muddled up.  Unless the applicant has been really naughty he should have no prob with an sgc.  I suppose that the only excuse that they cant issue a cert might either be Brexit or corona virus. All of the feos have keeled over or they aint got any certs printed. Or everyone has run away to the north Pole or somewhere to escape. If I've made another mistake, I blame it on Brexit.

Edited March 10, 2020 by Meece

[Sausagedog 7,381]

6 minutes ago, Meece said:

Thank you for that.  I apologize for my unintended misleading statement. I  got my certs muddled up.  Unless the applicant has been really naughty he should have no prob with an sgc.  I suppose that the only excuse that they cant issue a cert might either be Brexit or corona virus. All of the feos have keeled over or they aint got any certs printed. Or everyone has run away to the north Pole or somewhere to escape.

You're a gent.

[Alsone 789]

On 08/03/2020 at 19:01, Meece said:

Yes.. hallelujah. ... all I have ever seen from basic is that they bend over backwards to comply with every rogue idea that is thrown out there by the firearms depths even when they have no basis in law at all.  

It was the BASC that told me to refuse to supply my records amongst other unreasonably demanded items. It was 20 years ago now so can't comment on the current Firearms advisory team, but the guy I had was very very helpful and I literally got hundreds of hours of help including letters, faxes and discussions between them and the local plod.

[Meece 1,957]

10 minutes ago, Alsone said:

It was the BASC that told me to refuse to supply my records amongst other unreasonably demanded items. It was 20 years ago now so can't comment on the current Firearms advisory team, but the guy I had was very very helpful and I literally got hundreds of hours of help including letters, faxes and discussions between them and the local plod.

They may communicate with plod but that's all it is.  Plod just does as they please.  If basic had any power there wouldn't have been the hold up of certs.   There would not be this fiasco of medical records.  I don't have any problem with them enquiring into my mental condition but I  do jib at it when they expect me to pay for work that they want done to cover their arses.

Ps.  Seeing as they claim to speak for the shooting community, they don't communicate with anyone on an open forum such as this.  Apart from churning out a sub standard mag that is full of glossy adds what do they actually achieve.?

Edited March 10, 2020 by Meece

[Alsone 789]

Plod can do what they like, they are the Police. They police the Laws. It's the old tale, who Polices the Police? No private organisation, shooting or not, can tell them what to do. Only the Courts can ultimately tell them or the Government through Legislation.

Everything is stacked in their favour if they want to be biased or impart their own requirements. The "Law" here is guidelines and legally guidelines can be departed from as they're just guidelines and not binding. That doesn't mean they might not have to justify why they departed, but ultimately, it's open for them to depart. There's no Offence or Penalty for departing, only the need to justify. Even then, it's still in their favour as most cannot afford to challenge them in the Courts, a) because they can't afford legal representation and b) because they can't afford to lose £10K+ if they fail in that challenge. Again the Police often use a Barrister. Do they need a Barrister for a simple licensing case or is it purely to inflate costs? I'll let you decide. However the guidelines and cost is an open door policy for them to do almost as they please in most instances. Again the point here is Meece, there's nothing any organisation can do to stop this apart from appeal to the Government for changes to the law. Unfortunately, the laws remain guidelines.

As for insurers, as I said above, almost all insurers impose a restriction on legal cost protection of having to show a greater chance of winning than of not. So no organisation is going to be able to pursue a case to Court unless they believe you're going to win, nor would they wish to. It's a big waste of their time and the judges and ultimately judges may look less favourably on other claims if claims without merit are constantly being brought before them. If you come across an insurer that will fund every single instance of a refusal, then we should all join that body! Just by chance my Home Insurance Renewal arrived this morning, glancing over it, I noticed this clause which is the case in point:

Edited March 11, 2020 by Alsone