New firearms licensing guidance for GPs.

[mick miller]

Typical licensing dog's breakfast. I don't expect anything good, or reasonably costed, to come from this when it's conclusion is reached.

 

Surely, the 'flag' on a patients record should be enough to assume fitness to hold a certificate? The answer seems remarkably simple to me, unless your GP has reason to question your fitness to hold a firearm licence or shotgun certificate (maybe you report that you are depressed to them or need medication that may affect your mental acuity) then it should be assumed that you are fit. Ergo, licenses are issued in the absence of any communication from your GP and only considered for revocation when your GP makes contact as a result of a medical review and the 'flag' attached to your medical records?

 

No onerous work load, no unnecessary communications, only triggered when the flag and medical diagnosis prompts a GP to do so. Simples.

[mossy835]

yes it could be simple,but its the simples above.

[kody]

Is this post only if anyone has put a medical condition on there form

If no medical condition then police just write a letter to the doc saying his or her cert is up for renewal and doc makes a marker against it and if nothing heard in 21 days all is well

Is this correct

[mossy835]

thats how it was,we will have to see now.

[Wb123]

Is this post only if anyone has put a medical condition on there form

If no medical condition then police just write a letter to the doc saying his or her cert is up for renewal and doc makes a marker against it and if nothing heard in 21 days all is well

Is this correct

 

The old system was along those lines but with the request that the GP inform the police if they have concerns, if they develop one of a list of conditions deemed to be worthy of reporting, and to add a firearms marker to the notes. Some forces (Scotland) would only issue after receiving a response, no response no certificate.

 

This had many unsatisfactory aspects as it is a flagrant risk dump onto GPs, has major issues re security of information, and transfers a not insignificant amount of work which is entirely unfunded and not without risk. Therefore it is unsurprising that GPs expect to be paid for it.

 

It is important to note that the key risk areas for firearms ownership are around personality disorder which no sane/insurable GP in the land will profess to be able to offer an opinion on.

 

The new guidance attempts to address these issues by providing a few template letters to help alter the current system which seems to function as the police letter informing the GP but with few shooters paying for a response.

 

Letter one for 'conchies', I do know a few, is just the application of the normal approach when a therapeutic relationship breaks down for whatever reason or requests for abortion etc directed to doctors theologically opposed to it. In essence if you don't feel you can remain suitably impartial or the like you direct them to somebody else.

 

Letter two is the most defensive of all the templates, it translates as 'not able to offer a safe opinion'. If these were issued in very large numbers it could force a rethink of the whole system.

 

Letters three and four are for long and short responses. Note the statement that until the report is received you should assume the applicant has declined to pay the fee. It will be interesting to see if the police will issue where evidence is given to them that licence holders are not engaging fully with the new system.

 

Letter five is the door mat approach of roll over and do the extra work for free.

 

 

 

What is interesting around fees for this work is that it bucks the normal trend for extra-contractural private work. Most GPs are stretched on the NHS work till the eyeballs bleed and will rightly want a decent rate for any extra work which will have to be performed once all the NHS work is done. HGV, flying, other medicals etc you can shop around for and usually get a much lower rate with a clinic set up to do nothing but private medicals. This more or less has to be your GP in time he would far rather be with his kids, consequently the usual rules of supply and demand are skewed as you cannot readily go up the road to someone else unless you want to change GP also. If paying employer and employee NI, a marginal tax rate of 40-60%, and indemnity cover around 10-15k a year this rate will have to be rather juicy before the take home amount becomes appealing.

 

I suspect we will see some surgeries only issuing number twos, some three and fours with varying prices depending what the market will support (most GP surgeries I have worked in charge circa £140 for an HGV medical for example). Another potential issue is that the insurers may come out and push for number twos only unless extra cover is purchased.

 

 

Assuming this change in guidance has a clear effect on clinical practice I suspect it will either make a positive reply from your GP mandatory before a certificate can be issued, or if number twos are given in huge numbers it will effectively remove medical involvement bar the firearms markers on records.

[Guest stevo]

I'm not saying this to sound selfish. But I'm glad I'm doing my renewal now and not in a yrs time. Blimey it's bad enough now with all the confusion and what have you. With luck all this might be sorted out by the time mine comes round again.

I'm far from an expert on this sort of thing. To be honest the whole lot is beyond me. But I have a feeling it's going to get worse before the shooting orgs get a handle on it. That's of course if they can.

If ever there was a time for just ONE big organisation .......

[kody]

I'm not saying this to sound selfish. But I'm glad I'm doing my renewal now and not in a yrs time. Blimey it's bad enough now with all the confusion and what have you. With luck all this might be sorted out by the time mine comes round again.

I'm far from an expert on this sort of thing. To be honest the whole lot is beyond me. But I have a feeling it's going to get worse before the shooting orgs get a handle on it. That's of course if they can.

If ever there was a time for just ONE big organisation .......

I'm doing mine now as well been in a month

It is getting dam deciduous

[CharlieT]

Wb123

 

Spoken like a true BMA member.

 

Can you please tell me why, when your union was first approached by the HO, they (the BMA) felt it necessary to voice their concerns regarding the lack of medical input into firearms licensing and were therefore enthusiastic to become involved in the process.

It must also be pointed out, that at that time, because of these concerns and the fact that it was not an onerous task to complete a very simple tick box questionnaire, they agreed the work would not incur a fee.

 

Now, more than year or so down the line, it appears to me that some GP's see this simple tick box exercise as a means to increase earnings and to substantiate this, they are exaggerating the work involved and muddying the water in an attempt to justify swinging charges.

 

Call me a cynic, but I am minded to believe the BMA's initial enthusiasm to become involved in the licensing process for the greater public good smacks of nothing more than a ploy to generate more income for its members.

 

I'm afraid I now see the only outcome will be GP's holding their patients to ransom until the HO come up with a solution.

I fear it inevitable that the GP's will win and to me the solution is for parliament to legislate on the matter and set a fixed fee that is commensurate for this simple task and for that amount to be included in the renewal/application fee. GP's would then bill the police the fixed fee, not their patient.

 

The whole sorry saga stinks.

 

I am, however, warmed by the fact that my GP sees this little task as something he is only too pleased to do FOC for his patients. As he tells me, in a rural practice, it's the least he can do for his patients and after all, it hardly takes more than a few minutes unlike a medical report.