You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
None, but isn’t it odd that GP’s would actually actively provide their services for this when most don’t want to touch it. Do you not think that would be because they are interested in guns/own guns etc,. and want others to have guns?
I am afraid we are moving into a binary stance in terms of opinion.
The GP is not being asked to approve or make comment on a person's suitability to own possess or acquire either a shotgun or a firearm certificate, they are being asked to
1) Confirm that an applicant has answered the medical questions on the application form truthfully
2) Add a Firearm flag to the patient's/applicant's records so that should they present with any condition giving cause for concern in the future, the GP practice reports this to the police.
This has caused a number of issues, not least because GP Practices rightly pointed out that this was outwith their NHS responsibilities, and levied a charge at the applicant, which wasn't foreseen by those responsible for compiling the Home Office Guidance for licensing depts.
Historically this situation arose out of the Derek Bird incident. The medical questions on the application form ask whether the applicant (including for renewals) has at any time been treated for a (non-exhaustive) list of conditions which may affect their suitability to own firearms.
Initially there was a mixed response to the medical record requirement. Many forces wrote to the GP and asked whether they could confirm the applicant's declaration was correct/truthful. If the GP responded that it was indeed correct, then they were asked to add the flag to the records, and the application was processed.
The expectation was that this was to be done free of charge.
Should the applicant disclose that they had at any time been treated for any condition giving cause for concern, then the police would request a report, which was to be charged at the expense of the applicant. That report was not an automatic bar to grant of a certificate or licence, but the decision-makers at the licensing dept needed to be satisfied, for example, that the condition was historic, and had been treated satisfactorily.
However, many GPs (and no doubt GP Practice Managers) pointed out two issues. Firstly that trawling a patient's records was a cost to them, and needed to be paid for, so either charged the patient/applicant, or simply ignored the request.
Secondly, some GPs refused on conscientious grounds to have anything to do with firearms.
Some forces decided that if they didn't hear anything back from GPs, and the applicant had stated they had never been treated for such a condition, then it was to be assumed that no news was good news. I rather suspect that these forces made an assumption that if the GP was concerned about the patient's health they would be civic-minded enough to respond to that effect.
This assumption however has several obvious flaws, so other forces decided against the nil-return assumption, and insisted that they would not process the application until a response was received. It didn't take long for the majority of forces to follow suit.
This then led to a series of further issues. GPS now insisted that they should charge for the initial report, and the BMC tended to agree. Shooting associations lobbied for a standardising of the costs, not least because some GPs charged the cost of a simple Data disclosure, while others charged hundreds of pounds.
Add into that that some GPs refused to comply at all, either citing conscientious objection, or an unwillingness to put their name anywhere near a decision to give an individual access to firearms for fear of litigious repercussions, and you'll realise that the entire thing became a dog's breakfast.
In an effort to assist in the application process, and of course in the interests of their members, shooting associations compiled a list of GPs who were willing to carry out that initial trawl at a standardised cost, should the applicant's own GP be unwilling to provide that service.
It comes as no surprise that the argument is raised that these are GPs interested in promoting firearms ownership, but that is massively oversimplifying the issue, and is of course to be expected in a discussion where people clearly do not want or understand why people should have firearms. However, many GPs recognise that firearm use and ownership is legal in the UK, albeit with stringent checks and balances in place.
Edit to add: I do not know whether all of the GPs are pro firearms or not, but I suspect that they will be a mixture of firearm owners, and those who have no objection to being involved in a public safety issue.
I give up.
Rather than actually learn something from people who actually know about it, I'm now getting the "you're opinion is worthless"
Enjoy your echo chamber. It won't make any difference to who has guns btw.
Sleep well knowing there are hundreds of handgun owners going about their business in Edinburgh every day. Maniacs the lot, or not as history has proved.
Thanks Scapegoat, that explanation makes sense - but I don't think that the optics of a 'Your GP won't sign your form? It's OK, contact one of ours' is a great one, at least at first look.
many GPs recognise that firearm use and ownership is legal in the UK, albeit with stringent checks and balances in place.
Hmmm....that GMP investigation showing 6% error rate might cause one to question that. Although I also absolutely expect that the Police are underresourced* to do things like this which is another concern
* and wasting time fielding reports about minor car crashes because people won't share their details at the roadside?
few pages ago someone said they hadn't seen anything to suggest Davison had done this in a temper
I give up.
Rather than actually learn something from people who actually know about it, I’m now getting the “you’re opinion is worthless”
Your comment was worthless, in that it added nothing. Just like the comment you have just made about echo chambers and people in Edinburgh.
I have learnt a lot from this thread actually and am now in a much better position on understanding the process and challenges around licensing.
I remain to be convinced on why many people really need a gun but there you go.
Although I also absolutely expect that the Police are underresourced* to do things like this which is another concern
No no-one is trying to insist that the system is perfect. Its success depends very much on how well it is administered. In fact, it kind of feeds into the argument that the current systems in place are correct, but the incident we are all discussing was as a result of a failure in that system.
I don't mean to patronise anyone, but firearms licensing is an extremely emotive and complex world. Perhaps a bit of insight into the structures involved may be of interest to anyone willing to read for a few minutes?
All firearms Depts have as their bible the Home Office Guidance :
which is regularly updated as new legislation and best practice is added.
Next, every Chief Constable or Chief Officer of Police is the final signatory on certificates and licence. Every Force is required to have in place a public safety strategy, which will include reference to a detailed policy document reviewed and updated and which must conform to standards agreed by the National Police Chiefs Council, which in turn will have a working strategy group to ensure that local policies are fit for purpose.
The hierarchical chain may differ slightly from force to force, but essentially each force will have a departmental manager, often a police staff member (ie a "civilian" ) who answers back up the chain through either a Chief Inspector or a Superintendent to the Assistant Chief or Commissioner with Public Safety as their portfolio. They of course answer directly to the Chief.
The manager must work to a detailed licensing policy towards that public safety strategy. Their duties include overseeing the administration work involved in the grant of certificates and licences, and task a team of Enquiry Officers to complete various tasks and gather various types of information pertinent to applications and renewals. Armed with the information gathered they then ensure that an application is fit to sign, and then pass it up the chain for the final decision.
Notwithstanding the Home Office Guidance, not all forces act homogenously. There is no "one-size-fits-all" solution to every issue, simply because force areas differ widely in their geography and demographics. SO some forces have different working practices, requirements and procedures, but in general terms they all fit the basic shape of the HOG and the relevant legislation.
The HOG is updated as a result of changes in legislation, and as a result of various incidents. The Derek Bird shooting brought about the need for closer attention to an applicant's or certificate -holder's medical records. It also led to a requirement for the reporting of virtually every incident where the certificate-holder comes to the attention of the police. A certificate -holder is flagged on police systems, particularly their address, their vehicle and their personal record. System interoperability means that should that certificate-holder's name, address or vehicle be entered into the incident management system for any reason, a report is generated and sent automatically to the dept manager.
The manager will then read that report with a view to considering whether that incident merits further investigation or action. Certain incident types will mean an automatic suspension of the certificate and any firearms will be seized. Arrest or investigation for a criminal matter should trigger that response. Domestic violence incidents, either as a perpetrator or a victim are another obvious trigger. The list is not exhaustive, and as I've already said, that list will be broadly similar, but not necessarily identical across the UK.
In terms of resources, the pandemic has caused massive problems for many departments. Staff working from home or socially -distanced can only carry out certain types of enquiries. There is a massive backlog of applications, grants and renewals in may forces across the country. West Yorkshire for example have completely suspended their service for new grants and variations for the foreseeable future, and are only concentrating on renewals.
As for Plymouth. I do not know the exact chain of events which led to the return of his shotgun, and therefore will decline from commenting, but the above checks should have been in place. It appears that there has been a failure somewhere along the line which tragically has resulted in so many deaths. Without more of an insight into actual evidence, anything I add from here would be spurious conjecture.
theotherjonv
Full Member
The BASC GP scheme are GPs who review a patient’s medical records and flag if there is anything in there that would be an issue.That’s not my interpretation of what the BASC site says. I have bolded the bit that I think contradicts that statement
I don't think there's any contradiction. I don't disagree the GP only reports on the medical history not on suitability. All I meant was they would flag if there was something in the medical records the applicant hadn't declared. Flagging an issue with the application rather than an issue with the applicant.
The reason that BASC brought in the scheme is that many GPs were charging applicants huge sums for what was effectively a 10 minute job, or some practices refused to do it altogether either because the don't do private work (in the same way you that I don't believe you can simply go to any docs surgery and get a dive medical or HGV medical etc) or some had an objection to shooting full stop.
Without more of an insight into actual evidence, anything I add from here would be spurious conjecture.
Not stopped anyone in the previous 8 pages, but your posts gave been really useful and interesting, thanks.
but I don’t think that the optics of a ‘Your GP won’t sign your form? It’s OK, contact one of ours’ is a great one, at least at first look.
Sorry, I had meant to respond specifically to this if only because you used the term “optics”
Yes, we all tend to look at a situation from our perspective born of experience and, dare I say it , prejudice. A person determined to see society rid of firearms in public ownership would therefore applaud the inconvenience or even the principled stance of the conscientious objection to cooperation, which in turn will stop an applicant from gaining a certificate. Cynically, therefore, some will say that the list of cooperative GPs is self serving and that it is only in the interest of the applicants.
From the perspective of the applicant however, the service provided is an answer to a situation which has grown into a bit of a postcode lottery. Why should one applicant be denied a certificate when another is granted one simply because of a moral or ethical stance/protest by a GP?
That this list is compiled by BASC ( other shooting associations are available) should come as no surprise, simply because they are there to support the interests of their members. It’s a bit like saying an NUM member is wrong to go to an NUM accredited specialist to help fight a claim for vibration white finger.
People do and will continue to get through the filters.
I shot for many years alongside a chap who had a FAC which enabled him to own semi-auto .22 rimfire rifles, long barrelled revolvers in .38 and .357 and thousands of rounds of ammunition.
[vague]He was jailed for a number of years for the rape and imprisonment of a female relative[/vague]
I almost defecated with retrospective fear when I heard this news.
From the above it appears that a GP, but not necessarily your GP is needed to verify the application. The latter could be awkward for some - I visit the doctors so infrequently, I was reassigned to a GP who started at the practice and left without me ever seeing them!
We were charged £40 for a letter that was presumably the result of simply looking at our records and not seeing the words "heart" or "cardiac". I have memories of some people having trouble obtaining even that from their GP - presumably the "no private work". Will ask my brother about the HGV medical, there may be a similar list for those.
few pages ago someone said they hadn’t seen anything to suggest Davison had done this in a temper
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-58260590
/blockquote>I think you are referring to me - but I didn’t say temper - I said fit of rage. Unless you know more than me there’s nothing in that article that suggests he got in a rage, went and unlocked his gun - grabbed enough ammo to go on a spree, and came back to shoot his mother. I’d say it’s just as likely he’s turned up with the gun and they’ve argued (possibly about him having the gun out) and then he’s shot her.
Really?
Even if that was the case, doesn’t it ask more questions that it answers? If walking up to a house in a built up area carrying a shotgun is legal (it is) and not cause for anyone to get alarmed and start calling the police (perhaps it should be) then that isn’t making a great case for existing gun laws.
Anyway. Watched the five hearts display before the fireworks competition this evening. Thought it might have been a bit crass ahead of them doing it, but it seemed a thoughtful touch when actually seeing it. Paired with a silence and then a clap across a big area of Plymouth.
Even if that was the case, doesn’t it ask more questions that it answers? If walking up to a house in a built up area carrying a shotgun is legal (it is) and not cause for anyone to get alarmed and start calling the police (perhaps it should be) then that isn’t making a great case for existing gun laws.
That makes no sense. Trespassing with a firearm IS a specific offence. I think you can assume that if people saw him acting aggressively with a weapon they would call 999. I'd be surprised if they didn't do that without the weapon - the details are not exactly clear in the press but it certainly sounded like some people may have called about the disturbance before shots were fired. There will be many questions at least until the inquest but if you accept that some people will always have a legitimate reason to own weapons, then some people who wouldn't be allowed to will probably manage to.
From PZEUB39W
The IOPC said Jake Davison was first issued a shotgun licence by Devon and Cornwall Police in January 2018, before he legally purchased a shotgun in March the same year.
In September 2020, Davison admitted assaulting two youths in a park in Plymouth to police.
He was referred to the force's 'Pathfinder' scheme, a deferred caution and charge scheme "designed to deal with offenders outside of the criminal justice process", the IOPC said.
Davison's gun and certificate were later seized by police on 7 December 2020, after concerns were raised about his possession by a scheme worker.
When Davison completed the Pathfinder scheme in March 2021, a review was conducted by the force's firearms licensing department and on 9 July the shotgun and certificate were returned to him.
Looking at that at face value, why did it take the scheme worker's concern before his certificate was suspended? Given he admitted the assault then the gun and certificate should have been suspended/seized at that time.
In response to this incident I can see restrictions being introduced on home storage of returned firearms following a valid* suspension with perhaps a five year probation before the individual could store firearms at home again. That wouldn't affect the vast majority of gun owners.
*as opposed to precautionary suspensions where an allegation is made but later turns out to be false or malicious. That would be unfair.
Trespassing with a firearm IS a specific offence. I think you can assume that if people saw him acting aggressively with a weapon they would call 999.
He took his gun to someone’s house to kill them. That an open carry to a house in a residential area is both legal (that isn’t trespassing) and not considered by casual observers as threatening/aggressive/alarming (why would it if legal) in itself suggests to me our gun controls are inadequate. Anyone knocking on my door with a pump action shotgun in hand I would consider to be acting aggressively/dangerously.
There's a legal restriction on how close to a public highway (RoW) you can use a firearm - 50ft according to BASC -
and also from that:
Carrying Firearms in public places - Section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968
makes it an offence for someone to have with them a loaded shotgun, a
loaded air weapon, or any other firearm (whether loaded or not) together
with ammunition suitable for use in that firearm in a public place without
lawful authority or reasonable excuse (the proof whereof lies on the person).
The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 also extends the Firearms Act to include
unloaded air weapons and imitation firearms.
That an open carry to a house in a residential area is both legal (that isn’t trespassing) and not considered by casual observers as threatening/aggressive/alarming (why would it if legal) in itself suggests to me our gun controls are inadequate
Fairly common on a local estate near us, guy goes out with his gun, picks up his mate with his, they go out along the Nutbrook Trail and presumably shoot rabbits somewhere.
See it a quite often when I'm cycling along there. I find it a lot less threatening or alarming than a gang of drunk teenagers shouting abuse, blocking the trail, or ragging illegal motorbikes.
All in favour of a review of gun laws but knee jerk legislation is rarely fair or appropriate
He took his gun to someone’s house to kill them.
Did he? I think he and his mother lived in the house together.
Did he? I think he and his mother lived in the house together.
I honestly have no idea. None of the press reports I read say this. There were reports of a disturbance outside her home and him forcing his way in before shooting her. The police refused to say if he lived there in the first press conference - but did say he had a firearms license. I may have drawn an incorrect conclusion from that. Initial reports described an argument outside the house and him bursting in - although when I searched for that a moment ago I see it was in that bastion of journalistic integrity "the metro" and certainly has other errors.
That an open carry to a house in a residential area is both legal (that isn’t trespassing)
nobody said he walked down the street with a gun on display before hand - but if you walk up my driveway with a gun you'll be tresspassing [unless I permit you to]
and not considered by casual observers as threatening/aggressive/alarming (why would it if legal) in itself suggests to me our gun controls are inadequate.
lots of things that are legal can cause alarm; nor that he was wandering around with a weapon on display before hand as you seem to imply. Perfectly possible to move between two addresses with a shotgun and go unnoticed - it happens all the time.
in itself suggests to me our gun controls are inadequate.
Frankly I think its a silly argument about a tragic case.
Fairly common on a local estate near us, guy goes out with his gun, picks up his mate with his, they go out along the Nutbrook Trail and presumably shoot rabbits somewhere.
And is that all legal or not? My understanding is that the open carry in public is legal with a shotgun.
The Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 also extends the Firearms Act to include unloaded air weapons and imitation firearms.
I didn’t know that. Sounds sensible. What about “unloaded” (who can tell) shotguns?
but if you walk up my driveway with a gun you’ll be tresspassing [unless I permit you to]
Not illegal though, is it. I can walk up, knock on your door, you can ask me to leave, and I will. Great way to make a point and scare someone. And, as I wouldn’t be breaking any law, no one would report to the police that I was carrying a gun in a residential area on my way to see you.
If we do have gun laws that allow open carry in public of a shotgun, that really is not tight enough for me, and would surprise many, I suspect.
Fwiw (probably not much) my gf tells me she's a reference for someone's shotgun licence. Apparently received a phone call asking her to confirm her name, dob, and occupation. That was it. D&C constabulary.
Trespass with a firearm and trespass with a weapon are statutory offences. The law allows for reasonable excuses but doing it to intimidate someone wouldn't be one of them.
There’s a legal restriction on how close to a public highway (RoW) you can use a firearm – 50ft according to BASC –>
<
Potentially the most mis-quoted piece of legislation in the shooting world.
The offence is only complete if a person discharges a firework or any firearm within 50ft of the centre of a highway ....which.... comprises a carriageway,
AND
by doing so endangers ..... any user of that highway.
I would suggest that by the time he was discharging the firearm, obscure Highways Act offences were the last thing on anyone's mind.
I mentioned spurious conjecture further up the thread. As we don't actually have anything to tell us the circumstances of how he came to be in the house with his mother and the shotgun, isn't it all a bit moot to be talking about how come no one thought to ring the police? I'm sure it'll all come out in the wash.
To address Kelvin's point about (loaded) firearms in a public place:
Three strands here.
BY definition an air rifle is loaded if it has a pellet in the breech.
A shotgun is loaded if it has a cartridge in the breech. This refers specifically to shotguns as defined under section 2 of the Firearms act, ie a smooth bore gun with a barrel not less than 24" and either with no magazine, or with a magazine capable of holding no more than 2 cartridges.
A firearm as defined under section 1 of the Act (for example a centrefire rifle) is "loaded" if the person having it with them also has with them ammunition which will chamber in the rifle. Note here that the rifle doesn't have to be physically loaded. Just having immediate access to the ammunition is sufficient.
And again, no offences are committed if the person having the loaded firearm in a public place has lawful authority or reasonable excuse to do so.
Admittedly there won't be many circumstances where having one up the spout is likely to be lawful in the case of air rifles or shotguns, but the definition of a loaded Section 1 firearm is complete every time anyone leaves the house to go to the range, or to go rabbiting or stalking. Those would be considered reasonable excuse.
There is no lawful requirement to carry the firearm or shotgun in any sort of case or cover (unless you are a shotgun certificate holder between the ages of 15 and 17 years not being supervised by someone over the age of 21) .
Fwiw (probably not much) my gf tells me she’s a reference for someone’s shotgun licence. Apparently received a phone call asking her to confirm her name, dob, and occupation. That was it. D&C constabulary.
That is important, as is having access to a list of GPs that will vouch for a person. No the most stringent process is it so really just down to the police sign off and how stringent that is will no doubt vary by force/person.
Looks like it could be improved a fair bit but as have said all through the thread it is not an area where light processes are really causing a major issue (i.e. we don't have licensed owners shooting random people every day)