Fire arms licensing department/ medical condition

[Minesapint]

They do have to be people of standing in the community, so not just any old person.

You can put anybody you like as your referee, as long as they have known you for 10yrs (from memory). It used to be the case that it had to be a professional/person of standing.
Cunning plan for next renewal...put my doctor down as a referee. That should kill two birds with one stone.

 

[Princess Pooper]

And to do that would have to spend a considerable period of time going through your records and have to make a decision as to whether it might be relevant or not. Glad you feel your doctor is not worthy of being paid for his/her work

Our practice has had digital records for years. At the top of the medical history there is a 'current major issues' and 'current minor issues' and also 'previous major issues'. I would expect any history of depression or mental illness to be mentioned in the summary, can then find the detail. Paper records were summarised onto this (and also still exist).

 

[Dr. Alkathene]

anyway, it's a huge load of insulting hokum.

A cop -in a position to know- told me backalong it would be very easy to obtain an illegal firearm inside an hour or two in any city, probably even the local market town-
and they're seldom sought for innocent purposes are they?
Nowadays the risk lawful firearms pose is minuscule by comparison, held by known persons and kept at known sites.



As for the Dr charging or not.....i'd move if mine did -they haven't so far- as i consider I've been a very profitable client, hardly ever darkening their door.

And tell me this, if you tell me no more.
If you had personal issues, stress, demons eating away, or a raging desire to use a firearm in an inappropriate manner....would you go and mention it to your own doctor, knowing they could be consulted at renewal time -which has been the case for quite a while I believe-? Hardly likely.

As I said, hokum.

Anyone who holds a FAC / SGC might think twice about seeing their GP if they are suffering from mental health problems or depression. As often the knee jerk reaction is to revoke their certificates and confiscate their firearms.

 

[egbert]

So what do you suggest instead? The police guidance states you need someone of responsibility, so if you can't use anyone with a professional qualification, you're stuffed.

Was he just avoiding signing them? No offence intended.

Sorry Brisel, we seem to be going in different directions.
I've got no problem with (this part of) the system.
A professional has to declare he considers you're fit, staking his reputation on said consideration.
It's not a small ask, and i'm grateful to my refs.

 

[Scholsey]

Sorry Brisel, we seem to be going in different directions.
I've got no problem with (this part of) the system.
A professional has to declare he considers you're fit, staking his reputation on said consideration.
It's not a small ask, and i'm grateful to my refs.

I don’t think this is the case anymore they just need to have known you for 5+ years.

 

[roscoe erf]

They do have to be people of standing in the community, so not just any old person.

Not any more

 

[JWL]

I would put more faith in the FLO appraising the Licence holder at renewal than a doctor who probably hasn't seen the Licence holder for years or even at all. At all of my firearms/shotguns certificates renewals the FLO's who have come out to check up on me and my gun security have always struck me as they are a far better judge of character than some doctors I've come across.

 

[Pieces_of_Eight]

The doctors unions are all telling their members not to participate in applications because they don’t want the risk of Ok’ing the likes of a Derick Bird etc and week or two later they go on a killing spree, the doctor gets the blame for not noticing despite them not having a appointment for 11 years or been in once with a ingrowing toe nail and expected to be able to vouch for a patients mental state.

It’s not the doctors fault,

GP's are insured against any decisions they make in good professional faith ending up being the wrong decisions. This obviously excludes negligent/reckless decision making.

I once needed "a doctor" to sign me off as fit to take part in a potentially risky sporting activity (for insurance purposes) at a time when I had fairly complex medical issues. A friend of my boss was a consultant surgeon, looked me up & down and signed the paperwork.

I asked him what would happen if my medical issues became worse as a result of an injury during my new activities, he shrugged and said he was insured for such things.

 

[Pieces_of_Eight]

Not any more

Any referee cannot be a serving police officer or hold an RFD licence.

Apart from that, anybody is eligible.

 

[icanshootwell]

GP's are insured against any decisions they make in good professional faith ending up being the wrong decisions. This obviously excludes negligent/reckless decision making.

I once needed "a doctor" to sign me off as fit to take part in a potentially risky sporting activity (for insurance purposes) at a time when I had fairly complex medical issues. A friend of my boss was a consultant surgeon, looked me up & down and signed the paperwork.

I asked him what would happen if my medical issues became worse as a result of an injury during my new activities, he shrugged and said he was insured for such things.

The letter i received yesterday was not signed by the Doctor "Personally dictated and sent unsigned to avoid delay" was the heading.

 

[Alfred]

I would say that on your first application you should expect to pay a professional fee for the doctors report that goes along with your application, and expect it to take a while to get the application processed.
After all SG/FAC certificate should be viewed as a privilege imo, and what's the rush for?
if I was a FLO I'd be concerned with the fact that someone was desperate to get there hands on a firearm, and not to wait for the process to take its course.

On the flip side, I've just renewed with a coterminous certificate with the helpful advice of my FLO.
It took in total 7 weeks, no bill from the doctor either, and with the help from the FLO has saved me a few quid combining my renewals and less paperwork for all concerned.
Surely when you are logged on to the doctors system as possessing firearms it is always there?. And any problems or concerns are flagged up with the police when the doctor sees them.
why should this process have to be repeated on every renewal is it really necessary??
Guess I'm just lucky enough to have a good FLO and a doctor that understands the process.

 

[Scholsey]

GP's are insured against any decisions they make in good professional faith ending up being the wrong decisions. This obviously excludes negligent/reckless decision making.

I once needed "a doctor" to sign me off as fit to take part in a potentially risky sporting activity (for insurance purposes) at a time when I had fairly complex medical issues. A friend of my boss was a consultant surgeon, looked me up & down and signed the paperwork.

I asked him what would happen if my medical issues became worse as a result of an injury during my new activities, he shrugged and said he was insured for such things.

Being insured doesn’t stop the feeling of guilt of the people your ‘mentally sound to own guns’ has killed.

 

[Brisel]

Being insured doesn’t stop the feeling of guilt of the people your ‘mentally sound to own guns’ has killed.

That's not real life. Virtually all gun shot victims are from unlicensed shooters with illegal weapons in this country. I'd say the existing system has done a lot to ensure that legal weapons stay in safe hands since Hungerford & Dunblane.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...difference-dunblane-port-arthur-a8110911.html

 

[Scholsey]

That's not real life. Virtually all gun shot victims are from unlicensed shooters with illegal weapons in this country. I'd say the existing system has done a lot to ensure that legal weapons stay in safe hands since Hungerford & Dunblane.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...difference-dunblane-port-arthur-a8110911.html

OK what about suicide vicitims then? Or someone who shoots all their family before killing themselves?

 

[ajcc]

The only time GP has any useful input is if he considers you “the applicant” didn’t ought to have a gun! Why would you “the applicant”wish to pay the doctor to deny you the gun? It’s nonsensical.
Only way is to increase application fee and home office pay the doctor to mentally check applicants suitability.

 

[egbert]

The only time GP has any useful input is if he considers you “the applicant” didn’t ought to have a gun! Why would you “the applicant”wish to pay the doctor to deny you the gun? It’s nonsensical.
Only way is to increase application fee and home office pay the doctor to mentally check applicants suitability.

interesting point about the money exchange now you mention it.
It's not a good practise is it.

 

[egbert]

OK what about suicide vicitims then? Or someone who shoots all their family before killing themselves?

Don't want to press the like button, but sadly, yes.
Although presumably not all of those cases would be reliant on access to legal firearm in their outcome.

 

[Brisel]

OK what about suicide vicitims then? Or someone who shoots all their family before killing themselves?

Suicide would be by other means if that person really wanted to. A firearm just makes it easier and quicker. Possessing a licenced weapon does not make suicide more likely.

I'd like to see evidence & stats for the latter please.

From the tone of your posts, would you like to see all guns banned, just in case?

 

[Scholsey]

Suicide would be by other means if that person really wanted to. A firearm just makes it easier and quicker. Possessing a licenced weapon does not make suicide more likely.

I'd like to see evidence & stats for the latter please.

From the tone of your posts, would you like to see all guns banned, just in case?

I see it from both sides i have numerous shotguns and firearms and also a GP as the OH and she wont fill in anymore shotgun application form as her union has advised. She doesnt understand how they are supposed to putting their name to someone they havent seen for years, possibly never! A quick scan through records might show they havent been prescribed any ADs etc but it still doesnt mean they're not a paranoid schizophrenic. I dont have a problem with guns at all just dont think it should be the GPs job to be doing it unless its following a lengthy consultation and medical which NHS GPs dont have time to carry out!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-20786/Father-shoots-family-kills-himself.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/three-die-in-family-shooting-at-luxury-home-736363.html

from 1 minute of googling and know of 4 local to here who killed themselves with a shotgun, and i know if my OH had personally Ok'd any of those 6 people to own a gun without any form of assessment she would be distraught even if she was immediately exonerated of blame.

 

[Brisel]

Some tragic stories there. I agree that a GP wouldn't be able to provide a detailed assessment of an applicant but a quick check of their records would highlight depression or mental illness, if medical help had been sought for those.