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

The following process will affect any new applications for firearms, shotgun and explosives licenses submitted from 3 February 2020 and any renewal application where the certificate expires on or after 31 March 2020.

https://www.herts.police.uk/Apply/Apply ... al-process

>>
What if my GP refuses to provide the report

If your GP refuses to provide you with a report, it is your responsibility to consult with another GP at your practice, or an alternative practice.

There are also independent service providers being set up due to the number of forces who are implementing this policy. They are able to supply the required report for a flat fee of £50. They will require your consent to access your medical records.
<<

So looks like Herts are going to accept - third party reports

Yet another example of too many snow flakes around, what a shame that Herts feel they have to ask for a medical and even suggest contacting a third party to get it issued.

I'm not in that county, but I am going through this at the moment with a surgery that opposes firearms.

I am going to be processing it through Medcert.

And complain to the GMC.

Doctors (and indeed this applies to anybody paid by the state in one way or another) should not be allowed to refuse on moral grounds to do anything which is legal.

If you don't want to marry same-sex couples, don't be a registrar.

If you don't want to perform abortions, don't be a doctor in a field where you might have to.

And if you are so strongly opposed to the idea of gun ownership that you refuse to provide information which the police are legally allowed, and bound, to ask for, then get out of general practice, as you are not fit for purpose.

christel wrote:Yet another example of too many snow flakes around, what a shame that Herts feel they have to ask for a medical

Doesn't the law oblige them to?

Just think how different things might be if the police had done levels of checks like this on Michael Ryan or Thomas Hamilton.

TRG-22 wrote:

christel wrote:Yet another example of too many snow flakes around, what a shame that Herts feel they have to ask for a medical

Doesn't the law oblige them to?

Just think how different things might be if the police had done levels of checks like this on Michael Ryan or Thomas Hamilton.

Just think how different things might be if the police spent some time checking out members of the medical profession !

Indeed.

Or school teachers driving minibuses. One of them, only a week or two after Dunblane, crashed a minibus full of children, at full whack, into a stationary HGV on the hard shoulder of a motorway. Killed as many children as Thomas Hamilton. I must have missed the calls to ban school minibuses.

Or government ministers who introduce "austerity" policies which cause extra deaths.

But the fact is we do have a law which requires the fitness of FAC applicants to be checked. Hard to see how it's justified to call policemen/women who do that "snowflakes".

TRG-22 wrote:

christel wrote:Yet another example of too many snow flakes around, what a shame that Herts feel they have to ask for a medical

Doesn't the law oblige them to?

Just think how different things might be if the police had done levels of checks like this on Michael Ryan or Thomas Hamilton.

Ah but they did

TRG-22

Have you any idea how much vetting takes place before we are granted our certificates?
If we go to a GP to ask for anything to do with mental problems it is flagged, if we drink and drive it is flagged, etc.

In the good old days our GPs were contacted and if no reply then no problem, thing is that a lot of us do not see a GP for many years in a row.

So now the snowflakes (I can assure you a lot of them are - career people who know not a lot, I have had numerous meetings with the higher ranking police officers in Lincolnshire) have decided to turn the procedure around and we shooters have to supply the "evidence" so to speak.
When asked why....answer is..."for the safety of the public".

A lot of us still do not see a GP

All it is, is more paperwork and hassle with no prevention of bad things whatsoever.

christel wrote: In the good old days our GPs were contacted and if no reply then no problem

This made so much sense! It assumed that if the GP saw a problem they would voice it either way. If they don't see a problem then they might voice it or might not.... So a refusal to sign it could only mean everything was fine!