FAO BASC - Medical reports

[Dave-G]

 

 

what in your eyes is a justifiable cost of fac/sgc,if the cost to the police to do all the checks needed is say £200 what do you think you should pay.i was in my doctors a couple of weeks ago and he has a list of charges for letters on his notice board the cost for firearms report was £75..i have said many times we should pay the true cost for our sport.nobody is forced to take up shooting it is a very expensive sport.one of two things is going to happen either there will be a hefty rise in fee or you will be required by law to pay for the medical report.make no mistake this is on its way.people are losing their livings.dying because drugs to cure them are to expensive for the nhs.pensioners are going without heat through the winter yet all I read on here is gripes about paying a few pounds so you can go and enjoy your spare time.as for your comment on the retired maybe if we the rest paid the true cost then it could be free for those who reach the age of retirement.we have no voice because to many people do not support the organisations for the sport.

Mick, the police - who are public servants get funded from the public purse: That's a bit like saying that people involved in accidents should pay whatever expenses the police incur whilst dealing with the incident and getting the road cleared up and usable again.

 

True - nobody forces us to shoot - but we are legally entitled to unless there is good reason to prevent us from doing so. It's not OUR fault that checks have to be made and that the government incurs costs to do its job.

[Kes]

Mick, the police - who are public servants get funded from the public purse: That's a bit like saying that people involved in accidents should pay whatever expenses the police incur whilst dealing with the incident and getting the road cleared up and usable again.

 

True - nobody forces us to shoot - but we are legally entitled to unless there is good reason to prevent us from doing so. It's not OUR fault that checks have to be made and that the government incurs costs to do its job.

Also very true and we surrender that principle at our peril or appear to crumble and pay part of the cost and we start to say we should pay for a 'right', where would that end ?

My last post related to Cheshire now doing a good job. Prior to that there have been a few problems not least that "Cheshire wont allow you to use a .223 on deer". Thankfully Cheshire have seen that they were a bit out of touch and wrong and changed to provide a first rate service within the HO guidelines (AOLQ now too). If Cheshire can do it - should we not ask why all cannot do it?

BASC needs to get to grips with regional variations in enforcement/requirements etc. just as they say they did with AOLQ. It is after all one of the MAJOR MEMBER issues.

[Beretta06]

"So tell me, how would a £500 certificate and a GP's report have prevented any of those shootings I've mentioned?"

 

I don't know enough about the cases to say what difference an increased fee would have brought, of if medical checks could have prevented them specifically.

 

However, based upon risk assessment (following the ALARP principle - where you aim to lower the risk to As Low As Reasonably Practicable) I would like to see EVERY application to undergo a medical disclosure and the police to investigate every one with the GP etc. The figure of £500 may be too high, but the additional checking would cost us. I don't know how long the current fees have been set for. It is clear that guns are a sore point with police and many non-shooters, something we need to tackle where we can. By adding additional checks and balances (within ALARP - people cannot ask more reasonably) it would greatly reduce the risk of someone not disclosing, but actually having something to hide. I think it would be a positive message to the public, rather than us constantly demanding to decent our rights etc. Sometimes, we need to give freely, to win friends and influence our opposition.

[Kes]

"So tell me, how would a £500 certificate and a GP's report have prevented any of those shootings I've mentioned?"

 

I don't know enough about the cases to say what difference an increased fee would have brought, of if medical checks could have prevented them specifically.

 

However, based upon risk assessment (following the ALARP principle - where you aim to lower the risk to As Low As Reasonably Practicable) I would like to see EVERY application to undergo a medical disclosure and the police to investigate every one with the GP etc. The figure of £500 may be too high, but the additional checking would cost us. I don't know how long the current fees have been set for. It is clear that guns are a sore point with police and many non-shooters, something we need to tackle where we can. By adding additional checks and balances (within ALARP - people cannot ask more reasonably) it would greatly reduce the risk of someone not disclosing, but actually having something to hide. I think it would be a positive message to the public, rather than us constantly demanding to decent our rights etc. Sometimes, we need to give freely, to win friends and influence our opposition.

So the police, custodians of public safety have not followed ALARP and allowed risk to be prevalent in their vetting procedures and we should pay as a goodwill/publicity stunt to convince a sceptical public that we are reasonable people ? Thats a bit simplistic isnt it ?

We cant be guilty of any offence, our state of mind and health are subject to scrutiny, we do nothing to suggest we are antisocial etc and you think, despite police scrutiny that we need to do more to convince people we are trustworthy ? I'm sorry that smacks of being in a hole and digging.

[Scully]

"So tell me, how would a £500 certificate and a GP's report have prevented any of those shootings I've mentioned?"

It's taken me ages to think of a reply to this post as I can't make head nor tail of it.

I don't know enough about the cases to say what difference an increased fee would have brought, of if medical checks could have prevented them specifically. Well an increase of 500 quid per annum would go a long way to killing off new blood to shooting for a start. Price people out of shooting so it once again becomes the preserve of the wealthy and titled?

 

 

However, based upon risk assessment (following the ALARP principle - where you aim to lower the risk to As Low As Reasonably Practicable)

​Based on ALARP many politicians,media ,and some police, are already aiming to lower the risk by calling into question the need for individuals and in particular civilians to be allowed to posess firearms. They are known as antis. We're risking getting very close to the territory of the dangerous 'if it saves one life it will be worth it' syndrome here. Remember, you, me nor anyone else NEEDS a gun; we're hanging by our nails as it is.

I would like to see EVERY application to undergo a medical disclosure and the police to investigate every one with the GP etc.

'Every application ' already does undergo a medical disclosure. We are bound by law to declare any and all medical issues on our applications.Failure to do so can result in prosecution.

If you mean every applicant should have to submit a GP's report with their application, then this is already in the pipeline. It is inevitable; I have it on good authority.And we will pay for it also.

But for those who experience difficulties relevant to their suitability to possess firearms between renewals, and already in possession of firearms, it makes them very reluctant to seek the help they need when faced with the possibility they will be penalised for doing so.

 

The figure of £500 may be too high, May? but the additional checking would cost us.Why should it cost us? It is done to ensure the safety of the general public, not for the benefit of the applicant. I don't know how long the current fees have been set for. If you mean license fees, then neither do I. There are no set current fees for a GP's report as the requirement for the applicant to pay for this is currently not part of HO guidance, but it soon will be.

It is clear that guns are a sore point with police and many non-shooters, something we need to tackle where we can. Agreed. So you think by us paying more this will be achieved?

By adding additional checks and balances (within ALARP - people cannot ask more reasonably) Yes they can, and they will. Think it through from the perspective of someone who doesn't approve of civilians having guns or killing things for entertainment.

it would greatly reduce the risk of someone not disclosing, but actually having something to hide. Possibly, unless that person already is a firearms holder.

I think it would be a positive message to the public, Good luck with that then.rather than us constantly demanding to decent our rights etc. Sorry, not sure what you mean there.Sometimes, we need to give freely, to win friends and influence our opposition. I'm all for winning friends and influencing people but we've already given enough.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Scully

[Beretta06]

I'm a bit bored with this thread now, so I will set out my stall and then step away. If BASC ask me to rally and fight, I will. If legislation changes, I will follow it. If licence fees escalate to hundreds per year, I will pay. If police demand (legally) for me to submit a medical report, I will submit it. If all the shooting organisations band together to fight as one, I'll join and fund whatever I can to help.

 

All the above is out of my control, but I will support the decisions made by others. I do not believe in the collective voice for modern governments and firmly believe we will get shafted in the end anyway, regardless of how loud we shout. In the next 10 years I expect we will see £500 year renewals, hundreds being unable to afford to shoot and our sport/recreation under immense pressure to go the same way as fox hunting. I have no idea how we stop it - indeed, I don't think we actually can. Remember fox hunting? Far more rallied to save that that will to shooting, but we were still shafted by the government of the day.

[Scully]

I'm a bit bored with this thread now, so I will set out my stall and then step away. If BASC ask me to rally and fight, I will. As will all those of us who can be bothered.If legislation changes, I will follow it. Yep, as will all of us. In the face of a lack of an effective opposition, we have no choice.

If licence fees escalate to hundreds per year, I will pay. Yep. As will we all. Again, in the face of a lack of an effective opposition, we have no choice. If police demand (legally) for me to submit a medical report, I will submit it. Yep. As will we all. If all the shooting organisations band together to fight as one, I'll join and fund whatever I can to help. Not a cat in hells chance.

 

All the above is out of my control, Yep. but I will support the decisions made by others. Indifferent compliance has got us where we are today. I do not believe in the collective voice for modern governments and firmly believe we will get shafted in the end anyway, regardless of how loud we shout. Yep. In the face of a lack of an effective opposition, we will. In the next 10 years I expect we will see £500 year renewals, hundreds being unable to afford to shoot and our sport/recreation under immense pressure to go the same way as fox hunting. Yep. We get what we deserve.I have no idea how we stop it - indeed, I don't think we actually can. In the face of a lack of an effective opposition, I think you're probably right. Remember fox hunting? Far more rallied to save that that will to shooting, but we were still shafted by the government of the day.​ Yep. We get what we deserve.

Chin up; it's not your fault. The fault will lay at the feet of our fractured , ineffectual shooting organisations and apathetic shooters who simply can't be *****. We don't have the numbers to intimidate any Government, nor the will to fight, and we need both.

[bedwards1966]

I have made it as clear as I possibly can what BASC are doing on a national level.

 

I have made it as clear as I possibly can that the police can only request a GP check if , after they have risk assessed the applicant, there is clear evidence that one is required.

 

I have made it as clear as I possibly can that blanket requests for a GP report is NOT allowable and have and will be fully challenged at national and local level by BASC.

 

David

 

No, you ignore things that I post which are inconvenient for you, as is normal for a politician. Is BASC actually interested in doing all it can to help its members, or does it have the same objectives and morals of most politicians? Answer the questions that help them, ignore the rest, and campaign hard to get support without then actually doing what they promise and allegedly stand for?

 

 

Such as where you ask for information on constabularies who are asking people send in additional medical forms, with the clear implication that you (BASC) will sort it out.

Yet you yourself have said that Durham are doing this earlier on in the thread, attempting to show the achievements of BASC. It really does appear that you've stopped fighting them where it isn't clearly unlawful and therefor easy.

 

And despite your constant suggestions to the contrary, it is not lawful for the police to demand a medical report even when there is something declared in the applicants history. Would you like to explain what BASC is doing about that, as all your posts so far seem to be saying that you aren't doing anything about it because they can demand it.

They can't, so what are you doing?

 

 

This is what you said:

Having said that, please can any BASC member in any of these or any other constabulary area who have been asked to send in additional medical forms, please let me know.

 

Yes we instructed Durham to make this clear that complying with this request is voluntary, indeed they go on to say, in the covering letter that goes with the renewal / application forms that it is not a legal requirement to complete the medical form.

[robbiep]

 

 

...

'Every application ' already does undergo a medical disclosure. We are bound by law to declare any and all medical issues on our applications.Failure to do so can result in prosecution.

If you mean every applicant should have to submit a GP's report with their application, then this is already in the pipeline. It is inevitable; I have it on good authority.And we will pay for it also.

 

...

Come on. You claim to have 'inside information' ... on 'good authority', no less

 

This is either the time to spill the beans, or admit you're talking out of your hat

Edited May 26, 2014 by robbiep

[David BASC]

Betwards

 

List here the things that you claim are inconvenient for me that I have not answered:

[Scully]

Come on. You claim to have 'inside information' ... on 'good authority', no less

 

This is either the time to spill the beans, or admit you're talking out of your hat

I've never claimed I have 'inside information'. The information I've passed on via this forum was given to me by a prominent BASC representative over the phone and is available to any member if they contact BASC. If I'm 'talking out of my hat' then perhaps David could refute any of the claims I've made regarding the prognosis for a GP's report becoming mandatory regardless of an applicants medical history. The debate about who will be paying for this is still that, a debate, but I'll give you three guesses as to who it will be; why else would the 10 year certificate be mooted ?

[David BASC]

Scully,

 

I am not aware of any blanket policy on the horizon that there must be a medical report with every application / renewal over and above the self declaration on the current form.

 

In the vast majority of cases there will be nothing on the form that alarms the police that would necessitate any further medical investigation.

 

If the applicant puts on their form something along the lines of them suffering from some mental illness, then its probable that the police will contact the GP to ask about that condition in specific regard to that persons fitness to possess firearms - ie is their condition one that if they had access to firearms run a risk of them harming themselves or others.

 

BASC's view is and has always been that this level of investigation should be at no cost to the applicant. We await and keep asking for members to get in touch if the police are asking them to pay for this.

 

The BMA have the same view, ie the police should pay and the BMA are clear in their guidance that if GP believes an applicant is a danger than the question of 'who pays' is far less important then telling the police of their concerns.

 

If, in even rarer cases the police are still undecided and ask for the applicant to go for a further check with their GP them as far as I can see under current treasury rules the applicant pays, there are no fixed feed for what a GP may charge in this case.

 

BASC maintains dialogue with ACPO, the BMA and the Home Office over this with the aim of coming to a conclusion that we are all content with, this is still very much a live issue and as it develops we will do our best to keep all members advised.

[bedwards1966]

Betwards

 

List here the things that you claim are inconvenient for me that I have not answered:

 

Right here, in the very post you have just provided a response to:

 

 

 

No, you ignore things that I post which are inconvenient for you, as is normal for a politician. Is BASC actually interested in doing all it can to help its members, or does it have the same objectives and morals of most politicians? Answer the questions that help them, ignore the rest, and campaign hard to get support without then actually doing what they promise and allegedly stand for?

 

 

Such as where you ask for information on constabularies who are asking people send in additional medical forms, with the clear implication that you (BASC) will sort it out.

Yet you yourself have said that Durham are doing this earlier on in the thread, attempting to show the achievements of BASC. It really does appear that you've stopped fighting them where it isn't clearly unlawful and therefor easy.

 

And despite your constant suggestions to the contrary, it is not lawful for the police to demand a medical report even when there is something declared in the applicants history. Would you like to explain what BASC is doing about that, as all your posts so far seem to be saying that you aren't doing anything about it because they can demand it.

They can't, so what are you doing?

 

 

This is what you said:

 

David BASC, on 22 May 2014 - 9:16 PM, said:

 

Having said that, please can any BASC member in any of these or any other constabulary area who have been asked to send in additional medical forms, please let me know.

 

 

David BASC, on 20 May 2014 - 11:30 AM, said:

 

Yes we instructed Durham to make this clear that complying with this request is voluntary, indeed they go on to say, in the covering letter that goes with the renewal / application forms that it is not a legal requirement to complete the medical form.

 

 

 

[David BASC]

Yes Durham are running a new pilot study - they are perfectly entitled to do this and its perfectly lawful, and as I have said we have ensured that they make it clear that the additional medical forms they send are NOT part of the formal application process and do not have to be returned. They are doing this

 

As to your second point, look at my last post.

 

Is that it?

[welsh1]

Scully,

 

I am not aware of any blanket policy on the horizon that there must be a medical report with every application / renewal over and above the self declaration on the current form.

 

In the vast majority of cases there will be nothing on the form that alarms the police that would necessitate any further medical investigation.

 

If the applicant puts on their form something along the lines of them suffering from some mental illness, then its probable that the police will contact the GP to ask about that condition in specific regard to that persons fitness to possess firearms - ie is their condition one that if they had access to firearms run a risk of them harming themselves or others.

 

BASC's view is and has always been that this level of investigation should be at no cost to the applicant. We await and keep asking for members to get in touch if the police are asking them to pay for this.

 

The BMA have the same view, ie the police should pay and the BMA are clear in their guidance that if GP believes an applicant is a danger than the question of 'who pays' is far less important then telling the police of their concerns.

 

If, in even rarer cases the police are still undecided and ask for the applicant to go for a further check with their GP them as far as I can see under current treasury rules the applicant pays, there are no fixed feed for what a GP may charge in this case.

 

BASC maintains dialogue with ACPO, the BMA and the Home Office over this with the aim of coming to a conclusion that we are all content with, this is still very much a live issue and as it develops we will do our best to keep all members advised.

 

David i don't want to get into the argument but i am getting confused,could you please clear this up for me.

 

You say that any initial check with your GP is done by the police at their expense,that is fine.

 

But if anyone has anything of further concern then the police can ask you to go for a further check at your(the applicant) expense.Is this laid down in law,and if it is could you please post up the relevant part of the law.

I know you state "as far as i can see" but could you give a definite answer and show the law behind it please.

 

Cheers.

[bostonmick]

at the end of the day things are going to change.or are you all silly enough to think that the pittance that you currently pay for renewing is going to stay the same forever and the police and joe public are just going to smile and say oh well it is for our shooters and they should be subsidised.no amount of ranting on here is going to change the fact.in the end it will be pay up or pack up.simple

[David BASC]

Morning Welsh 1 - that's part of the problem, under the new guidance there is nothing to say who pays for the initial checks, nor is it enshrined within the firearms Act and that's what we are working on with ACPO, Home Office, BMA etc.

 

Historically the police have always paid, just as they pay for the home visit, the checks with referees etc.

 

Personally I agree with bostonmick, the cost of the licence is likely to increase, and when it does then for sure it should cover all costs for application.

 

David

[welsh1]

Cheers for that David,sounds like the usual rushed rules by someone with no idea,unfortunately that does not surprise me.

Could it not be argued that a precedence has already been set by the police,as they have in the past accepted that they pay.

 

I do agree that the cost will eventually rise, but it is by how much ,and if paying for medicals by some of the applicants would this not be seen as "victimising" them just because they had a medical history,it looks like there will be a two tier system,those who never see their doctor will pay the normal fee,and those that see the doctor could end up paying more.

[David BASC]

I suspect the police would have been happy to carry on paying if there was a standard charge across the UK and if the licence fee had risen to cover it.

 

I don't see a two tier fee on the horizon, but a single fee that covers the costs.

 

David

[Kes]

Let us hope that the NSRA get their way as they seem rather more 'fired up' than BASC. The Home Office Guidance 2013 may be 'silent' on who pays for medical information but the intent and principle are crystal clear, I would suggest and strong enough to give the NSRA it's sense of righteous indignation.

However, £500 for ten years isnt that bad - we are already being prepared for a massive hike. Taken together with the future of lead and NE's proposals on the GL, not very inspiring IMHO.

A number of Police Forces are requesting individuals, on issue or renewal of firearm and shotgun certificates, to provide a letter from their local GP. The NSRA, working with other shooting organizations is attempting to stop the police firearms departments from instigating this unlawful practice. We advise members not to co-operate with a move by police firearms licensing departments demanding that shooters provide and pay for a medical report from their GP when applying for shotgun or firearm certificates.

Currently the law only requires applicants to declare any medical conditions on their licensing application forms; under current Home Office guidelines, police may then ask an applicant’s GP for an opinion on his or her fitness to hold a certificate. We believe that police firearms departments are exceeding their legal authority by requiring applicants to submit medical reports – and pay any extra fee the doctor may demand for preparing them. We are advising members not to comply but instead stick to the established legal process when applying for certificates.

Home Office Guide on Firearms Licensing Law (November 2013), states:

Medical Information

10.21 The application forms for firearm certificates require the applicant to give permission for the police to approach the applicant’s General Practitioner (GP), who should be registered in the UK, in order to obtain factual details of the applicant’s medical history so far as it relates to the safe possession of firearms.

10.25 Once the applicant’s consent is given, it is open to the police to approach the applicant’s GP at any time during the life of the certificate if there are concerns about the applicant’s continued fitness to possess firearms.

At no point does guidance suggest that the individual provides the letter from the GP, rather the individual gives permission for the police to approach the GP.

[David BASC]

Which is exactly what BASC have been saying for ages!

[Kes]

Really ?

£500 ?

Lead is about to be banned?

Or "At no point does guidance suggest that the individual provides the letter from the GP, rather the individual gives permission for the police to approach the GP"

Or that Durham are allowed legally to run a pilot?

Greylag have more protection on the general licence ?

 

 

Enough for me, is enough.

JMO but still 'emperors new clothes'

[Scully]

I can't believe some of the comments on this thread.

In February the police claimed it costs £196 to process a licence, and ACPO stated it wanted to end the 'police subsidy'( neatly ignoring the fact that the money they are talking about is provided by the taxpayer for this very purpose as part of their budget, and NOT a 'police subsidy' ) and wants the licence to rise to £92 then rise each year in line with inflation. Apart from the 'police subsidy' bit I would find this acceptable IF their processing methods were consistent and greatly improved.

But now we have some shooters advocating the £500 licence, with one even suggesting this was per annum!! You really couldn't make it up. Bearing in mind the above,how the hell did we arrive at the figure of 500 quid?! Air rifles on licence (in Scotland; 500 quid?) and a £500 licence for SGC/FAC (each?) plus the cost of a GP's report, plus insurance through a shooting organisation, will firmly slam the door in the face of most teenagers I know for a start.The latter being the only non compulsory aspect guess which one doesn't get paid. Get a grip people pleeeeaaase.

Now we have the prospect of a compulsory GP's report regardless of medical history (I still have it on good authority and still have not heard any BASC comments to the contrary ) with the added cost of this on top of the licence fee, being met by the applicant for an insignificant effect on the safety of the general public. Chip chip chip chip...........Not only do we get what we deserve, we truly deserve what we get.

[Penelope]

I know, some on here would price me out of shooting, but I guess it's ok for the big buck earning oil execs.

 

I suppose next he'll be saying it's my fault for not a well enough paid job for his £500 a year licence fees.

 

I can't believe some of the comments on this thread.

In February the police claimed it costs £196 to process a licence, and ACPO stated it wanted to end the 'police subsidy'( neatly ignoring the fact that the money they are talking about is provided by the taxpayer for this very purpose as part of their budget, and NOT a 'police subsidy' ) and wants the licence to rise to £92 then rise each year in line with inflation. Apart from the 'police subsidy' bit I would find this acceptable IF their processing methods were consistent and greatly improved.

But now we have some shooters advocating the £500 licence, with one even suggesting this was per annum!! You really couldn't make it up. Bearing in mind the above,how the hell did we arrive at the figure of 500 quid?! Air rifles on licence (in Scotland; 500 quid?) and a £500 licence for SGC/FAC (each?) plus the cost of a GP's report, plus insurance through a shooting organisation, will firmly slam the door in the face of most teenagers I know for a start.The latter being the only non compulsory aspect guess which one doesn't get paid. Get a grip people pleeeeaaase.

Now we have the prospect of a compulsory GP's report regardless of medical history (I still have it on good authority and still have not heard any BASC comments to the contrary ) with the added cost of this on top of the licence fee, being met by the applicant for an insignificant effect on the safety of the general public. Chip chip chip chip...........Not only do we get what we deserve, we truly deserve what we get.

[wymberley]

This - the situation, not the thread (well, OK, just a tad) - is getting silly. All I hope is that the prevarication can drag on for another 18 months - looks as though the LAG is also going to achieve that with ease. Then, all being well, I'll bang in for my final renewal after which I'm out.