Looks like Lincolnshire have kicked off compulsory doctors reports

[panoma1]

31 minutes ago, stagboy said:

Perhaps a more apt analogy would be with the  legal doctrine of benefit and burden;  ie he who reaps the benefit of owning a gun should bear the cost of medical checks in aid of public safety, just as happens elsewhere in Europe. I am not saying I agree - just that this is what politicians, most of whom think private gun ownership is an unnecessary  risk to public safety  - will say. Any by raising the spectre of public safety in direct connection with mental health and gun ownership, we might be falling into a trap.

The problem with the requirement  for GPs (many of whom say they are badly overworked) to conduct the initial screening free pf charge (as the BMA originally  said) is that the task does not lie within GPs' contractual duties.  So, demanding that GPs provide this additional service free of charge is akin to tapping a bricklayer on the shoulder when he is already busy on a paying job, and saying "leave that for a moment, and just do a little wall around my fishpond, for free, please - and hurry up".

It is a pity there isn't a single, centralised national medical screening service for applicants, with a consistent fee of, say £40 and a contractual turnaround time of, say, 10 days. I haven't a clue who "my " GP is anyway. They might even be an anti, for all I know. I was reading that there are online GP services popping up, which can give you skype appointments within three hours. Food for thought?

On the other hand, is it not the public that reaps the benefit of more rigorous police checks on certificate applicants? The SGC/FAC applicant did not ask for and does not gain anything extra from these medical reports, it was suggested, agreed and adopted as an enhancement to public safety/protection, not as an extra tax on gun ownership and use! There is an arguement that SGC/FAC should be like driving licences (which are another public safety/ protection safeguard!) free of charge!

Any solicitor worth his/her salt could maintain the argument that the public purse should be used to pay for any enhanced (so called) public protection/safety measures!

[mossy835]

my mate had to contact basc about some thing, and he told them he payed the doctors fee,basc were not happy with it.they said he should not have payed it.

[Scully]

I think we're all missing the point. Lincolnshire's newly adapted policy has nothing whatsoever to do with 'public safety'. In my opinion it is possibly more to do with chiefs of police getting together at an ACPO meeting and several saying something along the lines of 'if anyone thinks I'm playing scapegoat for some nutter going ape**** with his guns and me losing my job as a result, they can think again' . It's an aris covering exercise, nothing more nor less. How on earth is getting a GP to 'sign off' an applicant going to prevent anyone going doolally with his guns? Anyone?

The police have been offered a  get out of jail card and they're going to use it. The fact that GP's wont be held responsible.....that lays with the chief officer granting the application, simply because the chief rozzer has to 'satisfy himself' that the applicant poses no threat to public safety, but at least now he can point out that the applicants GP 'signed him off'. 

If this 'no GP's letter then no ticket' is the assurance it's being made out to be, then we should be able to have our handguns back, shouldn't we? Not a chance! 

Like I said, it would be interesting to know if any of those suicides Lincolnshire are citing as one of the reasons behind their decision actually contacted their GP's beforehand, and if so why weren't they prevented under the present scheme? Like ALL firearms legislation, it has nothing to do with public safety. 

I don't mind paying a GP's fee, but it has to be reasonable, it has to be consistent and it has to be set in legislation so no one can interpret it as they see fit. I'll just cancel my organisation membership to pay it, dependant on membership insurance costs compared to independent insurance costs only. 

[motty]

1 hour ago, stagboy said:

But BASC has challenged it and is now paying for a legal opinion. No other org is doing that . The CA has issued a jolly fierce press release (oo-er!) You might be better asking SACS, The pay-your-GP-or-else system has been operating in Scotland for 18 months. The unfortunate  fact is that, many applicants in England and Wales  are currently paying their GPs anyway. Why should they pay for you, as well? If everybody had followed BASC's advice not to pay in the first place, there is a chance that we might not have got into this situation. But GPs know damn well that many will pay up when asked, for a quiet life.

But while we are indulging in flights of fantasy, I wonder if there is any technical legal reason why the shooting orgs could not set up and jointly own a centralised agency for initial checks?  Existing GP practices are private commercial enterprises, after all. And a doctor is bound by professional standards monitored by the GMC, or whatever. Aren't medical records computerised?  The idea would be to have have a low, consistent charge and fast turnaround, with any profits flowing back into shooting sports,.(I know, I know,,,)

Regardless of anything else, I have paid enough taxes for any checks etc to be free! Why can't my tax money benefit me? I am sick of paying for benefit scroungers and health tourists etc!

[panoma1]

I too believe it's nothing to do with public safety, but this is claimed by the police to be the reason it is being introduced/imposed, the shooting community can only act/comment on the reason given by the police......not what we suspect or believe is the real police agenda!

[bostonmick]

1 hour ago, mossy835 said:

my mate had to contact basc about some thing, and he told them he payed the doctors fee,basc were not happy with it.they said he should not have payed it.

So what advice did they give instead 

[bostonmick]

It will be nationwide within the next few years and I say just get used to it. Some say the state should pay for these checks under the guise of public safety. I have two daughters that went to university to train as mental health nurses. Both came out with debts. Both have to pay a registration fee each year to be able to work. And this work is helping the most vulnerable of our society. So paying a few pounds every five years for our pleasure pastime isn't to much to bear is it. 

Edited April 15, 2018 by bostonmick

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, Scully said:

I don't mind paying a GP's fee, but it has to be reasonable, it has to be consistent and it has to be set in legislation so no one can interpret it as they see fit

Totally agree, the GP fee should be set and built into the price of the certificates.

[panoma1]

4 minutes ago, bostonmick said:

It will be nationwide within the next few years and I say just get used to it. Some say the state should pay for these checks under the guise of public safety. I have two daughters that went to university to train as mental health nurses. Both came out with debts. Both have to pay a registration fee each year to be able to work. And this work is helping the most vulnerable of our society. So paying a few pounds every five years for our pleasure pastime isn't to much to bear is it. 

With respect it's not the same! they chose to go to university and train as nurses, they were fully aware there would be a cost to this, they would also have been aware of the yearly registration fee, they went ahead and did this to qualify for a career and earn money! Not for public safety.....it was for their benefit so is it not reasonable they should pay?

Gun owners didn't ask for, require and don't, in any way benefit from holding a gun license, licencing was imposed by the authorities for the 'safety' of the public, this further requirement is also imposed for public safety.....so why should the public purse not foot the bill!

[bostonmick]

15 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

With respect it's not the same! they chose to go to university and train as nurses, they were fully aware there would be a cost to this, they would also have been aware of the yearly registration fee, they went ahead and did this to qualify for a career and earn money! Not for public safety.....it was for their benefit so is it not reasonable they should pay?

Gun owners didn't ask for, require and don't, in any way benefit from holding a gun license, licencing was imposed by the authorities for the 'safety' of the public, this further requirement is also imposed for public safety.....so why should the public purse not foot the bill!

Well let's all just hope that someday you don't need one of these people who went into the caring profession. It might open the eyes of some of our hard done by shooters to spend a couple of weeks volunteering with our health workers then come back and whine. Yes they chose to help people. And thank god they do for all our sakes. 

[Scully]

46 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

 

Gun owners didn't ask for, require and don't, in any way benefit from holding a gun license, licencing was imposed by the authorities for the 'safety' of the public, this further requirement is also imposed for public safety.....so why should the public purse not foot the bill!

I have to admit this is my opinion also. The firearms act as regarding to the licensing system was brought about for the sake of public safety, and for no other reason. It is of no benefit to the shooter at all; quite the contrary in fact. 

[motty]

1 hour ago, bostonmick said:

It will be nationwide within the next few years and I say just get used to it. Some say the state should pay for these checks under the guise of public safety. I have two daughters that went to university to train as mental health nurses. Both came out with debts. Both have to pay a registration fee each year to be able to work. And this work is helping the most vulnerable of our society. So paying a few pounds every five years for our pleasure pastime isn't to much to bear is it. 

What exactly has your two daughters occupation got to do with anything?

[bostonmick]

3 hours ago, motty said:

What exactly has your two daughters occupation got to do with anything?

Absolutely nothing. Just trying to put it in context. There are people who have to pay fees to be able to work in the interest of public health and safety. Then there are those who whinge and whine at having to pay for their pleasure. Of course you can avoid these fees and give up shooting and they could also not pay but who would we be worse off without. 

[old man]

16 hours ago, Vince Green said:

We need to think outside the box. Is there actually a reason why we can't ALL en mass affiliate to the NRA of America and get their support? Their legal dept would terrify Putin let alone some  FEO making up rules as he goes along.

Now that's a thought?

[Vince Green]

10 hours ago, panoma1 said:

 licencing was imposed by the authorities for the 'safety' of the public, this further requirement is also imposed for public safety.....so why should the public purse not foot the bill!

Technically that's not true, gun licencing was first introduced in the years after WW1 because the government feared a communist uprising similar to what had happened in Russia. The rise in communism and socialism in Britain preaching revolution was a real concern.

[Scully]

25 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Technically that's not true, gun licencing was first introduced in the years after WW1 because the government feared a communist uprising similar to what had happened in Russia. The rise in communism and socialism in Britain preaching revolution was a real concern.

Technically you’re correct, but it had no effect on the ownership of firearms and incurred no cost initially. Licensing as we know it today was born out of a claim of public safety. 

[Vince Green]

9 minutes ago, Scully said:

Technically you’re correct, but it had no effect on the ownership of firearms and incurred no cost initially. Licensing as we know it today was born out of a claim of public safety. 

The more significant thing about the early firearms legislation was that it set out to limit the purchase and ownership of ammunition to prevent stockpiling by revolutionaries. Its interesting that they ignored shotguns although potentially they could be regarded as the most lethal in a riot..  

Even when I started shooting 40 odd years ago a good chain fixed to a wall was regarded as adequate security for a rifle. So much has changed 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Vince Green

[bostonmick]

47 minutes ago, old man said:

Now that's a thought?

Yes and here is another one. Why can't all shooters enemass join the organisation we have had all these years. You know the 65%. Who can't be ar##d now. Except to pop up and complain about nobody doing anything to help shooters. What makes you think they would pay to join a foreign organisation when they are baulking at a few quid for doctor. 

[Scully]

Joining the American NRA would be futile even if it were possible; it has absolutely no influence in British politics, nor would it be democratic even if it were allowed to....American citizens with their dollars influencing British political policy? ?

 

[Graham M]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

Technically that's not true, gun licencing was first introduced in the years after WW1 because the government feared a communist uprising similar to what had happened in Russia. The rise in communism and socialism in Britain preaching revolution was a real concern.

Strange isn't it. The government of the day introduced gun licensing because of the fear of an uprising by socialists.............and now it's the socialists who are the most fearful of firearms ownership.

We can scream and shout all we want, but, as with the confiscation of our semi-auto CF rifles and then our pistols, we will comply because we are amongst the most law-abiding section of the population. There is nothing we can do about it and as such we will do as we are told, after all we are, according to the government, much safer now with all of those guns off the streets.

Yup, I feel much safer now walking the streets of downtown Birmingham knowing there aren't any guns on the streets.

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Graham M

[Scully]

35 minutes ago, bostonmick said:

Yes and here is another one. Why can't all shooters enemass join the organisation we have had all these years. You know the 65%. Who can't be ar##d now. Except to pop up and complain about nobody doing anything to help shooters. What makes you think they would pay to join a foreign organisation when they are baulking at a few quid for doctor. 

I really don’t think that would make any difference. All that would incur is an increase in funds, and if our organisations can’t influence policy with the funds they now have then an increase in those funds isn’t going to help. 

Much still also depends on all of us then singing from the same sheet, and the reason we have so many organisations is because we don’t sing from the same sheet.

[rogcal]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

Technically that's not true, gun licencing was first introduced in the years after WW1 because the government feared a communist uprising similar to what had happened in Russia. The rise in communism and socialism in Britain preaching revolution was a real concern.

There was a fact that couldn't be ignored and that was the plentiful supply of war trophies that had found their way back to this country after WW1. 

I recall my father (born 1902) telling me that he and many of his friends would walk around with British or German pistols in their leisure time just because it was the in thing.  Like today's teenagers they had to have an image to live up to and at that time a pistol in the pocket was one of them. 

I don't think it was something that was particular to the East End where he lived at the time and was likely a countrywide phenomenon. 

He also told me that the market for pistols was such a good one and people with the right contacts would find ways of getting more war trophies into the country other than by returning soldiers. He had a friend who was a steward on a ship that regularly plied between London and Sydney and on his return it wasn't unusual for him to half a half a dozen or so pistols with him that he'd purchased in OZ which had arrived their with the returning ANZAC troops. Perhaps this scenario was part of the equation when the Government decided to introduce legislation they did.

[panoma1]

6 hours ago, bostonmick said:

Absolutely nothing. Just trying to put it in context. There are people who have to pay fees to be able to work in the interest of public health and safety. Then there are those who whinge and whine at having to pay for their pleasure. Of course you can avoid these fees and give up shooting and they could also not pay but who would we be worse off without. 

If those people had gained qualification purely in the interests of "public health and safety", with no material reward, then they should not pay. People who choose a particular field of employment, including the caring professions, who do so for access to a paid career......why should they not pay?

If shooters materially gained from holding of a certificate, then there may be a case for them to pay, equally if they are certificated purely for "public health and safety" then they should not be required to pay either!

In my case It is not about the money, that is largely irrelevant..............it's about the principle of what is right and what is wrong!

[panoma1]

As I see it the government are responsible for the safety of the public, this responsibility is devolved to the police, the police seemingly have arbitrarily decided that in the interests of public safety, gun owners must be assessed by their GP for suitability, GP's are demanding a fee for this assessment, so there is a monetary cost to it! whilst anything that enhances public safety is to be welcomed, gun owners didn't ask or require this GP's assessment, the police did! 

So it is fair that government, via the police should pay for it!

[bostonmick]

38 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

If those people had gained qualification purely in the interests of "public health and safety", with no material reward, then they should not pay. People who choose a particular field of employment, including the caring professions, who do so for access to a paid career......why should they not pay?

If shooters materially gained from holding of a certificate, then there may be a case for them to pay, equally if they are certificated purely for "public health and safety" then they should not be required to pay either!

In my case It is not about the money, that is largely irrelevant..............it's about the principle of what is right and what is wrong!

You can go around in circles all you like on this one. Plain truth is the general public largely do not like or understand guns. I believe that it was government that brought in driving licence for safety reasons along with vehicles requiring a mot certificate going some way to ensuring public safety. So maybe the public purse should cover the costs of obtaining these also.