furrybean Posted November 1, 2021 Report Share Posted November 1, 2021 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statutory-guidance-for-police-on-firearms-licensing?fbclid=IwAR02zlJBFJuuF3ahZQCcJ8lIIhKdcFdk4_pQsC9yFV89vmnW19KQqp5FnGI Has anyone read the new guidance? There is the change to the wording around the accessing of doctors information: Whats confusing me is how Im going to manage the second part, with the ID mark on component parts. I have several spare barrels that get worn out and replaced. Does each of these now require and ID and a one to one variation by the new letter of the law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bowji john Posted November 1, 2021 Report Share Posted November 1, 2021 Exactly which branch of the police is qualified to make a medical judgement based upon medical notes? Surely a medical opinion is to be sought from a qualified Doctor not raw data for some jobsworth to poor over Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popsbengo Posted November 1, 2021 Report Share Posted November 1, 2021 1 hour ago, furrybean said: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statutory-guidance-for-police-on-firearms-licensing?fbclid=IwAR02zlJBFJuuF3ahZQCcJ8lIIhKdcFdk4_pQsC9yFV89vmnW19KQqp5FnGI Has anyone read the new guidance? There is the change to the wording around the accessing of doctors informationWhats confusing me is how Im going to manage the second part, with the ID mark on component parts. I have several spare barrels that get worn out and replaced. Does each of these now require and ID and a one to one variation by the new letter of the Yes, I've read it. It does clarify the guidance in so far as to take away the ambiguity of who is responsible to get the GP to submit feedback - it's the applicant and the applicant is responsible for any costs. The guidance isn't asking the Police to make a medical judgement but rather to consider the advice of the relevant GP. This guidance cuts both ways: if the Police refuse a grant on the basis of a medical concern, they will need to explain just how that was arrived at, so, if the medical report does not indicate one of the reasons to refuse a grant then they have no grounds in my opinion and can be challenged. All in all I support the checks and balances, it seems proportionate to me in balancing the need for public assurance and the wants of the applicant. With regard to your second point it was my understanding that for a FAC holder, any barrel that's chambered must be identified and on the FAC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix Posted November 1, 2021 Report Share Posted November 1, 2021 Aaaaah, the new guidance came into force today - much reading is now required Cheers Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catch-22 Posted November 1, 2021 Report Share Posted November 1, 2021 1 hour ago, furrybean said: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statutory-guidance-for-police-on-firearms-licensing?fbclid=IwAR02zlJBFJuuF3ahZQCcJ8lIIhKdcFdk4_pQsC9yFV89vmnW19KQqp5FnGI Has anyone read the new guidance? There is the change to the wording around the accessing of doctors information: Whats confusing me is how Im going to manage the second part, with the ID mark on component parts. I have several spare barrels that get worn out and replaced. Does each of these now require and ID and a one to one variation by the new letter of the law? Regarding your 2nd point about ID marks on component parts, I had to ensure this was so for items I had brought through customs from the US. Before leaving the US, the import company (U.K. side) advised of this new legislation and said best get the ID marks done US side, as without them they may get seized. In the end, the receiver, 2x bolt bodies, and all chambered barrels had an ID laser etched and comprised of; Impact (action manufacturer), Rifle serial, Type (barrel, bolt etc) and part count (e.g. Barrel #1, Barrel #2 etc). However, this all related to a rifle and bits I was shipping over. Dunno if gunsmiths U.K. side will do all of the ID marks for U.K. builds though?! I suspect not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catch-22 Posted November 1, 2021 Report Share Posted November 1, 2021 32 minutes ago, Popsbengo said: Yes, I've read it. It does clarify the guidance in so far as to take away the ambiguity of who is responsible to get the GP to submit feedback - it's the applicant and the applicant is responsible for any costs. The guidance isn't asking the Police to make a medical judgement but rather to consider the advice of the relevant GP. This guidance cuts both ways: if the Police refuse a grant on the basis of a medical concern, they will need to explain just how that was arrived at, so, if the medical report does not indicate one of the reasons to refuse a grant then they have no grounds in my opinion and can be challenged. All in all I support the checks an balances, it seems proportionate to me in balancing the need for public assurance and the wants of the applicant. With regard to your second point it was my understanding that for a FAC holder, any barrel that's chambered must be identified and on the FAC. Nope, I’ve got multiple barrels for my rifles in various calibre's and the ‘spare barrels’ get entered on to my FAC with just that: ‘spare barrel’ and the ID mark ‘NVD’. Same for my moderators; ‘sound moderator’ and ‘NVD’. Its the action that has the serial written into the FAC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popsbengo Posted November 1, 2021 Report Share Posted November 1, 2021 1 minute ago, Catch-22 said: Nope, I’ve got multiple barrels for my rifles in various calibre's and the ‘spare barrels’ get entered on to my FAC with just that: ‘spare barrel’ and the ID mark ‘NVD’. Same for my moderators; ‘sound moderator’ and ‘NVD’. I see. That's going to change then for barrels. Am I correct to assume that moderators can still be NVD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catch-22 Posted November 1, 2021 Report Share Posted November 1, 2021 1 hour ago, Popsbengo said: I see. That's going to change then for barrels. Am I correct to assume that moderators can still be NVD? Good question - I’m not sure. At present, all my moderators, spare barrels and spare bolts are listed on my FAC with no serial numbers. That, despite the US purchase, where each item had to have an ID and serial, seemingly none of that individual info found its way onto my FAC. The firearms licensing just followed their ‘old’ rules of NVD. What things will be like from today, moving forward, I’m not sure. If I were to have another ‘spare barrel’ spun up, it may now need a serial and ID and placed on my FAC?! I suspect different forces will do things slightly differently perhaps?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maximus otter Posted November 2, 2021 Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 Related question: From memory, my FAC has mods listed as “NVN” for “No Visible Number”. l’m scratching my head as to the meaning of the initialism “NVD”. Can someone clarify, please? maximus otter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix Posted November 2, 2021 Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 The document published yesterday is only an interim document. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/firearms-law-guidance-to-the-police-2012 A fully revised Guidance (including the Statutory Guidance to Chief Officers of Police) is due to be published before the end of the year. In that case why did they bother publishing the document that went live yesterday? Also, yesterdays document is mainly a cut and paste job from the 2016 Guidance and still includes multiple mentions of expanding ammunition and bullets as being S5 with no reference to the 2017 amendment that brought them back into S1 (except for some pistol specific cartridges) Cheers Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popsbengo Posted November 2, 2021 Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 1 hour ago, phoenix said: The document published yesterday is only an interim document. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/firearms-law-guidance-to-the-police-2012 A fully revised Guidance (including the Statutory Guidance to Chief Officers of Police) is due to be published before the end of the year. In that case why did they bother publishing the document that went live yesterday? Also, yesterdays document is mainly a cut and paste job from the 2016 Guidance and still includes multiple mentions of expanding ammunition and bullets as being S5 with no reference to the 2017 amendment that brought them back into S1 (except for some pistol specific cartridges) Cheers Bruce Are you looking at the right one? Your link is 2012 Try: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statutory-guidance-for-police-on-firearms-licensing?fbclid=IwAR02zlJBFJuuF3ahZQCcJ8lIIhKdcFdk4_pQsC9yFV89vmnW19KQqp5FnGI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix Posted November 2, 2021 Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 Check the last updated date on that page and the date on the front of the Guide on firearms licensing law https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1028960/Firearms_Guide_-_SG_MASTER_-_26102021__002_.pdf Also, read the Details section where it says the document is an interim document and will be updated with a completely revised document by the end of this year. Cheers Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popsbengo Posted November 2, 2021 Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 These are two different publications. The one I referenced (Statutory Guidance for Chief Officers etc) is the final issue that came into effect on 1st Nov. The one you have referenced is to be reviewed as you say. The OP was raising the medical checks issue and that's covered in the newly published Statutory Guidance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
furrybean Posted November 2, 2021 Author Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 1 hour ago, Popsbengo said: These are two different publications. The one I referenced (Statutory Guidance for Chief Officers etc) is the final issue that came into effect on 1st Nov. The one you have referenced is to be reviewed as you say. The OP was raising the medical checks issue and that's covered in the newly published Statutory Guidance Im more interested how Im going to managed my spare barrels without the need for a 1for1 every time I shoot one out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chanonry Posted November 2, 2021 Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 Hopefully they will get the bit about expanding ammunition correct in the next draft. Statutory Guidance kind of twists my head, they have to take it into account but its still only guidance so they can ignore it if they can come up with a good reason. Eh ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popsbengo Posted November 2, 2021 Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 16 minutes ago, Chanonry said: Statutory Guidance kind of twists my head, they have to take it into account but its still only guidance so they can ignore it if they can come up with a good reason. Eh ? If 'they' ignore Statutory Guidance one would have every possibility of a successful appeal. Without the SG doc it would be harder to challenge an unfair decision Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One on top of two Posted November 2, 2021 Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 Just having a nose through it now , I did notice that everyone now has to have medical verification before application/ renewal is even looked at . us lot in Lincolnshire we’re the first to use this method about 3/4 years ago. so any of you lot that didn’t use this system before please remember they will NOT even look at your paperwork ( lincs won’t even accept it ) until your medical report is in there office on your file . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix Posted November 2, 2021 Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 6 hours ago, One on top of two said: Just having a nose through it now , I did notice that everyone now has to have medical verification before application/ renewal is even looked at . us lot in Lincolnshire we’re the first to use this method about 3/4 years ago. so any of you lot that didn’t use this system before please remember they will NOT even look at your paperwork ( lincs won’t even accept it ) until your medical report is in there office on your file . Actually, Police Scotland have had a No GP letter = No Certificate policy in place since 1 April 2016 Every certificate holder in Scotland has been through this process and some twice. Cheers Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One on top of two Posted November 2, 2021 Report Share Posted November 2, 2021 I have just had a look Bruce been in force in Lincolnshire since 2017 . i had no idea about Scottish ticket holders either. Maybe Lincolnshire got the idea from across border. I think lincs was one of the first in England, maybe the first. it is what it is .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(200x135).jpg.0fd0a94f065c6cb243fdff1b40e0819a.jpg)
.jpg.0972b4e2bdf0b5a4109eb96f2b1b62ad.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.