GP's letter to licensing

[Scully]

You are quite correct in saying our organisations are financially strained and lack clout now I wonder where the fault lay for that.i do not know how many sgc and fac's there are currently on issue but lets just stab at about a million nationwide now lets take the total membership of our two main organisations less than 150 thousand.where are all the committed country sports lovers there then.i have been a member of these for years I also use my vote when they are asking unlike most who use them to pad out the dustbin.i was in london when we marched to try and stop the city boys taking away our sports and in some cases livelihoods it was a marvellous day I can tell you.i also took my truck out of work for a couple of days to blockade coryton oil refinery in protest at fuel rises which in some way gives you the cheaper prices at the pumps today than you might have.i paid for that as I am self employed.it is the shooters of this country that are not in the organisations that are to blame and I would say that you probably know of some.so while you want to lay blame at the feet of those who have acted over the years to try and protect take a good look at some who stand at the shoots complaining then ask what is their membership no.you will in most cases be met with silence.that is the real silent majority.

All very commendable I'm sure, but how is it relevant to you complying with a Police request for a GP's letter and charging you for the privilege? According to an article in Shooting Times this additional requirement could add another four weeks to processing times. So much for your hopeful speedier turn around.

I'm not trying to lay any blame at your feet at all, but you're wrong if you believe it is only the shooters who aren't in organisations who are to blame for the pathetic state we find ourselves in, but also, quite often, the organisations themselves. Belonging to any or all of them is no defence or guarantee against apathy, and this applies equally to organisations as well as individuals.

All our syndicate members are BASC members, otherwise they don't shoot. This also applies to guests, but it doesn't prevent the usual 'that's what I pay BASC for' excuse when either are called upon to make an individual effort.

Like I said; we get what we deserve.

[Luckyshot]

 

 

so it is happening more all the time so what do you all think you are going to do about it,what is basc doing what is cpsa doing.if all the people who have said they are going to refuse to supply the information they ask for with no organisation to back you up when you call to ask when you can expect your certificate back and are told we are waiting for the details we asked you for before we can process where do you go from there.lawful or not you are up against the establishment on your own.i am not saying it is right but if it is happening then it is real.

 

You go to the same place I am going, either renew my fac as I meet all the legal requirements or refuse my fac in writing. Sounds abit severe but hey ho if no one stands upto the police we may as well all hand our fac/sgc in now and take up bowling.

[bostonmick]

 

You go to the same place I am going, either renew my fac as I meet all the legal requirements or refuse my fac in writing. Sounds abit severe but hey ho if no one stands upto the police we may as well all hand our fac/sgc in now and take up bowling.

 

it will be interesting to know the outcome of your demand.

[HDAV]

had my renewal interview a few days back, the doctor note came up in conversation.

 

I was told "IF" a doctors note is needed due to the applicant being on certain tablets or having a condition that may effect the liscence then it is up to the applicant to get a note from their doctor and pay for it themselves then send it in.

 

That is very very wrong....... http://www.lmc.org.uk/visageimages/guidance/2011/firearmsjuly2011_tcm41-208071.pdf

 

 

 

Medical information and letters to GPs regarding application for

or renewal of licences

Application forms for both firearm and shotgun certificates require the applicant to give permission for

the police to approach the applicant’s GP in order to obtain factual information about the applicant’s

medical history. Following discussion between the BMA and the Association of Chief Police Officers

(ACPO) in 2010 it was agreed that when an individual applies for a licence, or applies for a renewal of

a licence for a firearm or shotgun, a letter will be sent from the police to his or her GP informing them

of the fact. Ordinarily, certificates are renewed every five years. The purpose of the letter is to provide

an opportunity for the patient’s GP to alert the police to any medical concerns that may have a

bearing on the individual’s ability safely to possess a shotgun or firearm. If there are no concerns, the

letter does not need to be replied to. Unless, in the GPs view, the patient presents an immediate risk

of serious harm to themselves or another, consent for any disclosure will be required from the patient.

If the GP does wish to disclose a concern, and the patient refuses consent to any disclosure, the refusal

will have to be relayed to the police, thereby potentially jeopardising the application. Following advice

from the Information Commissioner, copies of the original letter from the police should not be

retained in the medical record, but doctors are at liberty to make a note in the medical record, as they

would with any other request for health information by a third party. (Further information about

applicants who may pose a risk of harm to themselves and others, and on the use of tags in the

medical record is given below.)

 

http://bma.org.uk/practical-support-at-work/ethics/firearms

 

 

 

Post-grant letter sent to GPs

To improve information sharing between the medical profession and the police with regards to firearms, the BMA reached an agreement with the Association of Chief Police Officers that the police will notify a GP (by letter) if any of their patients have been issued or reissued with a certificate, asking if they have any concerns about their suitability to hold a weapon,

We are aware the current system of obtaining information is causing concern for GPs. The BMA and ACPO are looking for a longer and more enduring solution, however owing to the current legislation governing firearms licensing this will take longer than initially expected.

In the interim the BMA has agreed that the letters will continue to be sent out to doctors. Doctors are reminded that they are under no obligation to respond to these letters, but should they decide not to, doctors should inform the police as it will otherwise be assumed that there is nothing relevant on the medical record.

Where doctors are happy to respond to these letters, consent to the disclosure of any information should be sought as the letter does not currently indicate that consent has been given. If the patient does not consent to disclosure, this should ordinarily be respected, although the police must be informed to that effect. If, however, the doctor believes that the patient presents an immediate risk of serious harm to themselves or others, information should be disclosed even in the face of an explicit refusal.

Although the current letter from the police states that it does not have to be retained, the BMA has been advised that doctors can record the request for information in the medical record and indicate what action, if any, they have undertaken. We are seeking to change the wording of the letter to reflect this position.

There is no nationally agreed fee for this work. It is the BMA’s view that the police should pay for any work undertaken, however we are aware the police do not take this view. Obligations to disclose information to the police where individuals with access to firearms may present a risk of serious harm to themselves or others must always take precedent over payment.

 

SO it isnt in the law, not in the guidance and the BMA are recommending that the police pay for the work...... How much more evidence do they need!

Edited November 20, 2013 by HDAV

[Luckyshot]

 

it will be interesting to know the outcome of your demand.

 

I will let you know on the 11th December when my fac expires.

[bostonmick]

All very commendable I'm sure, but how is it relevant to you complying with a Police request for a GP's letter and charging you for the privilege? According to an article in Shooting Times this additional requirement could add another four weeks to processing times. So much for your hopeful speedier turn around.

I'm not trying to lay any blame at your feet at all, but you're wrong if you believe it is only the shooters who aren't in organisations who are to blame for the pathetic state we find ourselves in, but also, quite often, the organisations themselves. Belonging to any or all of them is no defence or guarantee against apathy, and this applies equally to organisations as well as individuals.

All our syndicate members are BASC members, otherwise they don't shoot. This also applies to guests, but it doesn't prevent the usual 'that's what I pay BASC for' excuse when either are called upon to make an individual effort.

Like I said; we get what we deserve.

 

one small difference in those days was that the rha was behind us and was a constant pain in the **** to the government as was the aa rac and other motoring organisations.i did it in the hope that it would help me stay in business and keep the things I worked for.the shooters who do not join the org's are to blame in a large part.your syndicate members I would guess joined because they got a nice sticker for the car and the liability insurance beyond that could not care less.i have seen many changes in firearms licencing over the years most restrictive and none challenged in any real way.now it seems that we are to get into a dispute between the bma and the police authority over who pays for what and if they are required by law to answer the request.this just gets better.join the org's now and send in letters of demands for action to them it will do more good than writing to the home office and the like.or save a few quid on membership and take your chances.

 

I will let you know on the 11th December when my fac expires.

thank you

[paul2012]

not a bad idea really.But the police really should meet the costs.

 

Then i would of thought the licencing process may be a bjt faster.

 

 

 

(id only agree with this if the plod met the cost)

[HDAV]

not a bad idea really.But the police really should meet the costs.

 

Then i would of thought the licencing process may be a bjt faster.

 

 

 

(id only agree with this if the plod met the cost)

 

Dont worry APCO and BMA will do a deal behind closed doors where they agree the fee is £35-50, met by the police when renewals go up to £250 for 5 years.........

[fortune]

_{So where is basc now? Where is a draft letter to the head of firearms asking why they are doing this?}

They must be off somewhere doing something more important.

I wrote this on page 2 post 26. We are now nearly at the end of page 7 post 134 and most of what has been written has gone around and around in circles. There has been no response from basc or any other organisation as to whether any police firearms department has been taken to task over this or any of the other incursions into the application process. Surely questions should be asked of someone in the home office as to why differing forces are just doing their own thing and just coming out with any old tosh as their brain dictates. Why aren’t they being held to account for their actions? The public in general don’t hold the police in a very high regard as to their conduct and blatant misrepresentation of the truth and neither do the politicians as seen in the recent “plebgate” incident. I want the organisations to get stuck in and examine what is going on and make someone’s life hell over it.

AND I want those that state that they speak for the shooters to do just that and explain what is being done on our behalf OR why they aren't doing this. It's quite simple really.

[HDAV]

BASC have stated that members who are asked to do this contact them immediately. I haven't been asked to do this but my renewal isn't just yet, I have a mate who has just submitted an application I'll ask if he gets this request.

[JonathanL]

I have never claimed GP's are authorised to give opinions as I know full well they aren't allowed to do so, but must only relate factual details of medical conditions. We all sign our applications giving consent for the Police to approach our GP's if an applicant states a medical condition which they feel could pose a threat either to themselves or the public. If there is no reason to believe this to be the case then GP's are rarely consulted, but Police are increasingly informing an applicants GP that a patient of theirs has either applied for or been granted a licence. Could it be that the Police are trying to 'catch out' any applicants not making full declarations of all relevant medical conditions or simply attempting to put off applicants? The latter is nothing new.

There is an interesting article in this weeks Shooting Times regarding this issue.

A doctor is perfectly entitled to offer an opinion on an applicants suitability if he wants to. The Home Office even acknowledge such in their guidance. The police, though, should not ask for his opinion as they are only authorised to request factual details of your medical history.

 

Basically, the police want each applicant's doctor to provide a report (probably in the form of a questionnaire or something) but don't want to pay for it. They are pushing this as an 'extra' but it isn't as you have already signed the authorisation on the application form. Even if it were an extra then you still don't have to submit to it because it is not part of the legal application process.

 

The application fee is whatever it is set at in the fees order. The police have already been knocked back by the government on an increase so are trying to get it via other means.

 

Is there a link to the Shooting Times article anywhere?

 

J.

[fortune]

BASC have stated that members who are asked to do this contact them immediately.

 

It’s a bit passive to just say that. IF this is becoming a common thing then why aren’t they getting to grips with it and publishing to the shooting community what has been done about it and getting this practice along with other stupid ideas such as mentoring stopped and putting in claims about legal expenses. All of this is about money or the lack of it. If police departments got awards against them for this nonsense then it would soon stop.

Anybody can stand up and say “ we represent the right of shooters or anything else for that matter but unless they actually do something about it then it is just blow in the wind.

Good work JonathanL

[Dekers]

had my renewal interview a few days back, the doctor note came up in conversation.

 

I was told "IF" a doctors note is needed due to the applicant being on certain tablets or having a condition that may effect the liscence then it is up to the applicant to get a note from their doctor and pay for it themselves then send it in.

 

It isn't! It is down to the police. If in doubt ask him which part of any of the Firearms Acts, or even the Home Office guidance says this.

[Dekers]

This topic will roll on and on.

 

We all know we are facing an uphill struggle and the police are taking liberties.

 

Seems like one or two here have no spine at all, and are more than happy to just roll over and comply with any request made by the police and pay for the privilege.

 

Some of us would rather put up some resistance, and in some cases that resistance will be difficult, time consuming and possibly more expensive than simply being shafted by the Police.

 

Such is life.

[Kes]

They must be off somewhere doing something more important.

I wrote this on page 2 post 26. We are now nearly at the end of page 7 post 134 and most of what has been written has gone around and around in circles. There has been no response from basc or any other organisation as to whether any police firearms department has been taken to task over this or any of the other incursions into the application process. Surely questions should be asked of someone in the home office as to why differing forces are just doing their own thing and just coming out with any old tosh as their brain dictates. Why aren’t they being held to account for their actions? The public in general don’t hold the police in a very high regard as to their conduct and blatant misrepresentation of the truth and neither do the politicians as seen in the recent “plebgate” incident. I want the organisations to get stuck in and examine what is going on and make someone’s life hell over it.

AND I want those that state that they speak for the shooters to do just that and explain what is being done on our behalf OR why they aren't doing this. It's quite simple really.

 

Very appropriate. Present inaction by our representative organisations cannot help deliver the correct sense of outrage felt by many, unless of course you feel prepared to do as you are told rather than the law requires.

[bostonmick]

I quite understand why the cpsa have not been able to address this matter as they have only just finished getting a motion through that gave the top boys a job for life if they want it.now they are busy with all the arrangements for the Christmas partying.come on peeps be reasonable

[mossy835]

gp letters,it should not have got that far, and should be stoped now.

[JonathanL]

gp letters,it should not have got that far, and should be stoped now.

 

Easy to stop. Just say no!

 

J.

[JonathanL]

https://www.durham.police.uk/Information-and-advice/firearms-and-firearms-licensing/Documents/URGENT%20INFORMATION%20-%20ALL%20APPLICANTS.pdf

 

This link apears to be to the form of words which Durham are using.

 

This is way, way over the top. It authorises your doctor (any doctor you are seeing in addition to your GP) to provide infomation to the police about your medical conditions. Your doctor could send a copy of every single thing you see him about for ever!

 

Apart from being a gross breach of your rights I cannot see how this will work. It could lead to a massive level of information overload on the part of the police which will result in hugely increased work-loads and, inevitably, higher costs resulting in higher grant and renewal fees.

 

To reiterate; this IS NOT part of the official application process. Choosing to ignore this form DOES NOT mean that you have failed to complete the official, legally mandated application process.

 

J.

[Scully]

I think all those who feel concerned, annoyed etc by this issue need to be contacting our shooting organisations to find out exactly what they are doing about this. BASC's resident representatives appear conspicuous by their absence, which I find faintly disturbing.

 

Couldn't find link on ST website, but will post it if it is updated.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Scully

[bostonmick]

I think all those who feel concerned, annoyed etc by this issue need to be contacting our shooting organisations to find out exactly what they are doing about this. BASC's resident representatives appear conspicuous by their absence, which I find faintly disturbing.

 

Couldn't find link on ST website, but will post it if it is updated.

most of them would have to join before they can write in and ask what they are doing.

[fortune]

BASC's resident representatives appear conspicuous by their absence, which I find faintly disturbing.

 

Shouldn’t that read "Very disturbing"? After all the orgs are supposed to be representing you. And a letter to the police authority should be considered, enquiring what the hell they are playing at.

Edited November 22, 2013 by fortune

[bostonmick]

After all the huffing and puffing on here it would seem to me that all they are asking you to do is get your doctor to confirm that what you have put on the form is correct and true.on the subject of whether you are fit to hold a firearm well people anyone can object to that if they think they have reason perhaps a vengeful ex or a neighbour you had a argument with the only difference is a small charge to the go.i am a member of cpsa and have written to ask not what I should do but what they are doing as yet no reply.and also to all those complaining about our organisations and are they doing anything they are only yours if you actually pay into them.forum ranting will do nothing to protect our sport.

 

 

Money talks bull---t walks.

[Scully]

After all the huffing and puffing on here it would seem to me that all they are asking you to do is get your doctor to confirm that what you have put on the form is correct and true.

 

 

We already sign a declaration to this effect, so what point are you making?

Have just received some info' on this issue this morning; will update when I get back from shoot.

[mossy835]

there just driving another nail in our coffin.and we will let them get away with it,