Talk about rip-off Britain.

[ey_tony]

This is absolutely the case. The doctor has a legal responsibility to state whether there is anything in your medical record that might preclude being granted a part 1 or part 2 certificate either for the first time or renewal. In addition, if you are license holder, that is flagged in your records. If anything untoward were to happen to you to change their view as to your safety, they have to inform the police.

It's not a rip off. It's a huge responsibility and if the doctor gets it wrong, they catch a load of flak. It's not just a signature - it's way more than that - detailed record checks and possibly liability insurance with an ongoing requirement to report any risks.

As stated, many doctors now don't want the responsibility at any price.

It'd be nice if people thought things through a bit before they start grumbling about stuff and publicly slagging off the medical profession. It's a tough enough job as it is.

Note: for completeness I should state that I have been a range safety officer, pistol club secretary and have had both shotgun & firearms certificates for well over 40 years. I've also owned and used a huge variety of firearms. My mother was a national level shot so I was bought up with it.

There's a reason why astonishingly few crimes are committed by certificate holders - the checks are rigorous and I for one am glad of that. Processes are not perfect and people are by definition, human. It's difficult to legislate against nutters, so every few years someone with an FAC does something, but it's very very rare. Lessons get learned and processes improved.

510,000 individuals in England and Wales hold one or both of a firearms or shotgun certificate. Very few commit crimes of sny sort compared with the general population.

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...es-england-and-wales-april-2023-to-march-2024

I'm grumbling because what exactly is the doctor doing differently today that he wasn't doing 5 years ago when I renewed my certificates?

I'm sure they must have had a similar checklist of criteria which they would have had to report if I suffered from from any of them so why suddenly stick a £110.00 charge on top of the renewal application costs?

Once a driver reaches 70 years old they have to meet certain requirements in order to retain their driving licence but as far as I'm aware they aren't charged £110.00 to renew their licence if a doctor has to verify they are fit to drive!

 

[Lons]

Wrong I'm afraid.
Extracts from one of the forms that I and the doctor have to sign, which in my case in the following gives my consent to the doctor sharing sensitive data with the police.

Extract 1. Please note that the police are not seeking your opinion on my suitability to hold a firearm certificate, as their responsibility for this decision lies with the police. They require only a factual response, from a suitably qualified GMC-registered doctor* based on my medical record.

Extract 2. Information requested from a GMC-registered doctorIf there is a history of any of the relevant medical conditions listed, please can the response include the following:1. Name of medical condition2. Duration of medical condition3. Medication prescribed. Please note that only information about any relevant medical condition(s) should be provided
...............

If I suffer from any of the nine conditions which might preclude me from renewal that are listed on the form, the doctor has to tick a box and if they do, go on to explain treatment, duration etc and how it might affect me as an applicant but it is up to the police and NOT the doctor who decides my suitability to possess a firearm as they the doctor themselves may be prejudiced regarding gun ownership, though if I suffered from one of the conditions which could affect my application the doctor must disclose it.

In my numerous other previous applications/renewals over the years I would assume that the above checks were still carried out but now the government has found yet another way of raising money as the renewal fees alone should cover the costs.

I'm not an FAC holder Tony as I only shoot sub 12ft/lbs air rifles but I'd agree with the perception that doc fees are money spinners as it applies to other circumstances e.g. I had a motorhome with GVW over 3.5t ( now sold) and therefore needed to retain the C1 category of my licence renewable every 3 years. This requires a few pages of tick boxes from my records all of which are there on line, and a BP check (eyesight details in my case was filled out by the optician for £10). All available from my records and the BP carried out in my annual check by a nurse which coincided with the renewal date. A signature by the doc with no liability whatsoever. Cost of this varies widely and in my case at last renewal 3 years ago it was £120 but I've heard it can be double that.

 

[ey_tony]

The Home Office updated the requirements in 2021 (so not one you can blame on the current government Tony).

In any case fees are set by your GP Practice, not the government. It's an administrative burden for them and I expect all they are doing is passing the cost on to gun owners rather than allowing it to be subsidised by the funds they receive from the NHS.

View attachment 196490

I don't care which government updated the fees, it doesn't change the fact that everything in the UK is getting to be a rip off. Just wait until they start putting up the road fund licences for ICE vehicles to make up for the lost revenue from electric vehicles.

Do elderly drivers have to pay their doctors a fee to verify that they are fit to drive or is that subsidised out of the NHS or DVLA?

 

[whatknot]

Lucky you don't need a 10 minute medical check. Blood pressure, height, weight and check you have a pulse. That would cost 250+ down this way. And it may have gone up since I last needed one.

Strange I had the medical check day before yesterday, ECG, blood test and blood pressure, weight etc, suggested by doctor on Tuesday, appointment (cancellation) Wednesday, 15 minutes on the NHS, granted if not for the cancellation it would be into February but still

 

[Lons]

Once a driver reaches 70 years old they have to meet certain requirements in order to retain their driving licence but as far as I'm aware they aren't charged £110.00 to renew their licence if a doctor has to verify they are fit to drive!

When you renew your licence at 70 you automatically lose your C1 entitlement and are restricted to GVW of maximum 3.5t. This can be done online at zero cost but if you with to retain the C! as needed in my case you have to send in paper forms as I described and costs associated with that. There are companies who will do it for around £50 using junior doctors who have no access to your medical records so just ask the questions, check your BP and a basic eye test if you haven't done that bit so it make a mockery of the whole process.

 

[niall Y]

Well, with Easter eggs, and packs of loo roll from the main brands, costing £15 and £9 respectively - then maybe £110 isn't too far out there for this service. After all. records have to be looked up and due diligence has to be applied, Imagine what the consequences would be if you went full "Radio Rental"

 

[ey_tony]

I'm not an FAC holder Tony as I only shoot sub 12ft/lbs air rifles but I'd agree with the perception that doc fees are money spinners as it applies to other circumstances e.g. I had a motorhome with GVW over 3.5t ( now sold) and therefore needed to retain the C1 category of my licence renewable every 3 years. This requires a few pages of tick boxes from my records all of which are there on line, and a BP check (eyesight details in my case was filled out by the optician for £10). All available from my records and the BP carried out in my annual check by a nurse which coincided with the renewal date. A signature by the doc with no liability whatsoever. Cost of this varies widely and in my case at last renewal 3 years ago it was £120 but I've heard it can be double that.

The problem is that these charges and regulations are creeping in constantly. Whether it be planning applications or whatever, it doesn't really matter, the government directly or indirectly is benefitting through VAT alone as I've no doubt they will reap £22.00 VAT from the fee I paid if the doctor's practice keep all of it.
Having worked for myself all of my life I never once experienced going to the doctors to ask for a sick-note so do doctor's practices charge for the service as they will have to certify that someone is or isn't fit to work? I have no idea?

I've also never understood the government's 6% tax they have on car insurances...what's that all about?
I live in a Band 4 house with my partner and no children but in another part of town two adults with two children live in a Band 2 so why is my council tax considerably more? After all arguably they are likely to produce more waste and use more services than we do but we have to pay more for the privilege because we live in possibly a more expensive house!

 

[skeetstar]

110ukp is not a standard fee. My GP did it for 80ukp, and I've heard of some GPS charging 200ukp. Shootcert are properly qualified to do the checks, they charge 65ukp IIRC. I assume they are a profit making g entity, if they are, then significantly higher charges than that look like profiteering.
On a woodwork theme, my stocks are all Walnut.. does anyone like the newish laminates?

 

[Cobbs]

...And have you seen the price of hot gravel lately?? I'd rather go hungry!

 

[Lons]

On a woodwork theme, my stocks are all Walnut.. does anyone like the newish laminates?

As I said I only have an air rifle these days, a Weihrauch HW97kt but it has a synthetic stock which I've never liked since I bought the gun new on impulse. Laminate is the fashion at the minute but not for me and I'll replace the stock with walnut (or standard beech) as soon as I can find one that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
As a woodworker I thought "I can make one". Complete disaster I made a right mess of it though luckily didn't use walnut.

 

[Steve Medlock]

My local force wanted my application to renew both 3 months in advance of their expiry. I didn't make their deadline though as the doctors certificate took 5 weeks and you can't complete the online application without it. Having collected my digital photo, referee's details, doc cert and credit card, I started the online application which took most of the day. Unfortunately I needed more entries than the form can take and it crashed loosing all my day's work. I had to go and do something else for a couple of hours before I could face having a second attempt. Again the form maxed out and I had to send my information separately in an Excel spreadsheet.

Regarding the doctor's form, it is 15 minutes work at most to tick a few boxes. All my medical records are on the national computer system - I'd happily give the Police access to my records in this instance to save taking up a doctor's valuable time.

 

[gmgmgm]

It does seem to depend upon the area - my recent coterminous renewal didn't need a doctor visit at all (just agreement for them to share records), and was very quick.

 

[Steve Medlock]

Oh, and why on earth should you have to pay VAT on the doctor's certificate?

It'll be VAT on car tax next....

 

[Hypnotic Chimera]

I'm grumbling because what exactly is the doctor doing differently today that he wasn't doing 5 years ago when I renewed my certificates?

I'm sure they must have had a similar checklist of criteria which they would have had to report if I suffered from from any of them so why suddenly stick a £110.00 charge on top of the renewal application costs?

Once a driver reaches 70 years old they have to meet certain requirements in order to retain their driving licence but as far as I'm aware they aren't charged £110.00 to renew their licence if a doctor has to verify they are fit to drive!

The clue is in your first post.

When it says in your first post (paraphrased) "this is a cost saving measure" it implicitly means saving cost to The State. Which is a good thing in YOUR opinion, right? Small State, and all that... Also, something about "personal responsibility" is being enacted here.

From what has been described, I don't really see any issue with the modernised process.

 

[nickds1]

Don't forget that there is no "right" to own and/or to use a firearm in the UK - granting of a license is discretionary and a privilege and can be withdrawn at any time. The process can be appealed, however the main grumble from the shooting community is lack of consistency across police forces - the policy applied varies.

 

[ey_tony]

I'm not an FAC holder Tony as I only shoot sub 12ft/lbs air rifles but I'd agree with the perception that doc fees are money spinners as it applies to other circumstances e.g. I had a motorhome with GVW over 3.5t ( now sold) and therefore needed to retain the C1 category of my licence renewable every 3 years. This requires a few pages of tick boxes from my records all of which are there on line, and a BP check (eyesight details in my case was filled out by the optician for £10). All available from my records and the BP carried out in my annual check by a nurse which coincided with the renewal date. A signature by the doc with no liability whatsoever. Cost of this varies widely and in my case at last renewal 3 years ago it was £120 but I've heard it can be double that.

I still own a 1960s M2 Airsporter which I bought when it was 10 years old and delivers just under the limit. I occasionally give it an airing on the range to keep it in working order. It's set to 55 yards/50metres and it's bang on but it sure does kick for a springer.

The biggest issue with the older air guns is the availability of suitable ammunition as the old .22 is 5.6mm but most modern ammo is 5.5mm. They still make Marksman which is my ammunition of choice for the old Airsporter and I find it shoots well through my modern CP1 & CP2 pistols too which are great for 50 metres as long as there's no wind!

 

[Fergie 307]

As I said I only have an air rifle these days, a Weihrauch HW97kt but it has a synthetic stock which I've never liked since I bought the gun new on impulse. Laminate is the fashion at the minute but not for me and I'll replace the stock with walnut (or standard beech) as soon as I can find one that doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
As a woodworker I thought "I can make one". Complete disaster I made a right mess of it though luckily didn't use walnut.

Fellow 97 owner here. Like PCP but love the convenience of a springer and IMO there is no better.
Mine has the factory ambi beech stock, which is very good, if not as nice as walnut. In my case the regular as opposed to thumbhole. I'm not a laminate fan either.
As for the apparently quite popular stainless gun with blue laminate stock, ye gods whatever next.

 

[Fergie 307]

I still own a 1960s M2 Airsporter which I bought when it was 10 years old and delivers just under the limit. I occasionally give it an airing on the range to keep it in working order. It's set to 55 yards/50metres and it's bang on but it sure does kick for a springer.

The biggest issue with the older air guns is the availability of suitable ammunition as the old .22 is 5.6mm but most modern ammo is 5.5mm. They still make Marksman which is my ammunition of choice for the old Airsporter and I find it shoots well through my modern CP1 & CP2 pistols too which are great for 50 metres as long as there's no wind!

Really liked my Airsporter, wish I hadn't sold it. You can make a heck of a difference to any spring gun with a bit of tuning, much smoother and more consistent. I dare say you could find some articles on line. Mine had a bespoke PTFE piston head. Gave increased volume so you could use a slightly lighter spring. Good polish of the internals and a few other tricks and it was a different gun.
As for ammo, get a pellet sizer. Terry Robb does a very good one. Allows you to size the pellets to a good fit, in this case by expanding the skirt slightly. Although I am pretty sure the swivel port on the Airsporter is taper ground, so it effectively has a built in sizer, been a long time though.

 

[Chris152]

I often wonder about getting an old BSA air rifle. Dad was a toolmaker with the machine tools part of the company, we have a Bantam and I sometimes think about a rifle to add to the set. We shot 22 and 762 as kids.

 

[ey_tony]

Fellow 97 owner here. Like PCP but love the convenience of a springer and IMO there is no better.
Mine has the factory ambi beech stock, which is very good, if not as nice as walnut. I'm not a laminate fan either.
As for the apparently quite popular stainless gun with blue laminate stock, ye gods whatever next.

I love the 97, I bought mine just after they banned hand guns. I like springers but I have COPD and heart failure and the old Airsporter is a bu**er to keep reloading so after about 30 shots I'm cream crackered hence why I don't often fire it.
I restored an old BSA Scorpion pistol which is I believe is a chopped down Meteor and it's much worse to load even with the cocking attachment so it just sits there.

Seems like there are a few gun owners on here so I'll post a couple of gun related shots. I always preferred shooting with iron sights but both pistols are fitted with cheap Red Dots but they work a treat and help as my eyesight has got to the stage where iron sights are no longer practical as I can't focus on everything at once so the RDs do help.
I now have a scope fitted to my 97 and 22 BRNO rimfire .

My old Airsporter....

My CP1 ....

My CP2 and target set up on the range. It's quite a challenge to shoot at that distance for an air pistol but is is my preferred distance with that pistol.