All people seeking membership must contact admin after registering to be validated.
https://ns1.full-bore.co.uk/
That's another 'favourite' bugbear of mine: The law refers to 'air weapons', which they're plainly not & are probably one of the least effective objects when used as such.christel wrote:Just to take this further...it is a firearm - not a weapon.
Do the police recover full costs involved for providing protection to cash delivery vans ?Oddbod wrote:Do the Police recover full costs from the work involved regarding professional football games?Blackstuff wrote:Other than the negative impact it WILL have in some instances with the relationship with a gun owner and their doctor as outlined above, what positive outcomes could it have? Is anyone, either in the Police or GP surgery going to be taken to task for failing to prevent someone later found to unsuitable to own a gun after they've misused it? Recent history suggests not, even when it is obvious to a blind man on a galloping horse that the authorities FUBAR'ed e.g. the shootings at Horden and few years back.
The Police/government have already managed to wrangle full-cost recovery for firearms licensing which at its bare bones principle I disagree with - licensing is SUPPOSED to be for the 'greater good'/protect society as a while so why shouldn't society as a whole have to pay for at least part of it?? (Rhetorical question, I know its because we're a politically acceptable 'minority' to abuse and half the time welcomes the abuse!) Now the government want me to pay AGAIN for a service I already pay for in taxes, when a computer could easily scan every certificate holders records in minutes for 'flag' conditions?? Well sorry
Somehow I doubt it.
We're an easy (& emotive) target.
I will offer nothing more other than we once had a diabetes related incident in our club, the only incident in 100 years.ordnance wrote:One thing that irritated me about the program was the comment that someone with diabetes could be a danger because some can have mood swings. I wonder how many people became violent and shot or stabled someone because of diabetes.
A ex-work colleague of mine many, many years ago, could go from calmly sitting at his drawing board working away to full on raging nutter status throwing things around the office in a matter of moments due to the particular nature of his diabetic condition at times when he'd not been as good as he should have been regarding his medication.Hrun wrote:I will offer nothing more other than we once had a diabetes related incident in our club, the only incident in 100 years.ordnance wrote:One thing that irritated me about the program was the comment that someone with diabetes could be a danger because some can have mood swings. I wonder how many people became violent and shot or stabled someone because of diabetes.
That isn't the issue, no one in their right mind (excuse the pun) would be. The issue is who pays for it, the principle of the matter and the interpretation of the firearms licensing guidelines. The police have always paid for the initial 'report' since the medical element of certification came into practice and now they (or rather the BMA) are shifting it onto us. Shooters are not the benefactor of the certification system, other than as members of the public themselves, the whole of society is*, so why shouldn't society have to pay for the benefits? This is also why its irrelevant to compare certification fees to fishing licenses or in this case diving related requirements.Pete wrote:Loads of surmise and what ifs here..............I wonder how many in total have actually found this to be an issue when applying/renewing?
Neither myself or any of my regular shooting mates have, and we're spread around the home counties.
I certainly don't have a problem with the authorities trying to weed out nutters before (and after) they get their hands on firearms.
On the subject of fees, years ago, I had to cough £50 for a sport diving medical.............same GP as now, AND he was a diver...........
Pete
