And now Kent have jumped on the band wagon.

[Cranfield]

There seems to be some contradictions in what Kent Police intend to do if no medical report is forthcoming.

In the Kentish Express this week, "Temporary Assistant Chief Constable Steve Corbishley said, "It is a dangerous assumption to believe that just because someone has not provided medical information that they are safe to own and use firearms, shotguns, or explosives, and we are no longer prepared to accept that risk".

So it would seem that no medical report, means no licence.

It is difficult to argue against his logic. Surely applicants are unlikely to volunteer any information about a situation(s) that would prevent their application being approved.

[panoma1]

49 minutes ago, Cranfield said:

There seems to be some contradictions in what Kent Police intend to do if no medical report is forthcoming.

In the Kentish Express this week, "Temporary Assistant Chief Constable Steve Corbishley said, "It is a dangerous assumption to believe that just because someone has not provided medical information that they are safe to own and use firearms, shotguns, or explosives, and we are no longer prepared to accept that risk".

So it would seem that no medical report, means no licence.

It is difficult to argue against his logic. Surely applicants are unlikely to volunteer any information about a situation(s) that would prevent their application being approved.

It is not a question of providing medical information, it is a question of who obtains it and who pays the provider, to obtain it? Unless I have a notifiable medical condition, why should I obtain it and why should I pay for it? 

When filling out an official document, be it passport, driving licence etc etc, We sign to say it is a truthful declaration, likewise, when completing a Gun licence application we sign to say it is a truthful declaration, and authorise, the police, if neccesary (i.e. In the case of a declared medical condition) to contact our GP,  in order to obtain further information/opinion regarding the declared medical condition, in relation to the individuals suitability to hold a gun licence..............the police are then authorised to carry out further checks as they feel necessary!..........But if an applicant has made a "no relevant medical condition" disclosure, why should they pay for any further checks the police choose to pursue?....this is the police treating applicants not as "innocent until proven guilty" but as "guilty until proven innocent"....................This is not how the British legal system should work!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wymberley]

1 hour ago, Cranfield said:

There seems to be some contradictions in what Kent Police intend to do if no medical report is forthcoming.

In the Kentish Express this week, "Temporary Assistant Chief Constable Steve Corbishley said, "It is a dangerous assumption to believe that just because someone has not provided medical information that they are safe to own and use firearms, shotguns, or explosives, and we are no longer prepared to accept that risk".

So it would seem that no medical report, means no licence.

It is difficult to argue against his logic. Surely applicants are unlikely to volunteer any information about a situation(s) that would prevent their application being approved.

Damn nigh impossible. The problem is is that it's going to be equally so to achieve a win situation for all stakeholders. Accepting that the applicant has registered with his GP (this is taken care of on the application form) and is sufficiently physically well enough not to warrant a visit to the surgery, then the applicant could be quietly raving barking and with no one the wiser, his application is granted. I really don't know the answer, but do wonder if instead of concentrating on the medical aspect which is patently failing at present, having a look at the choice of the applicant's referee(s)  with regard to the nature of the relationship in terms of frequency of meeting with the applicant and knowledge of his/her nature might be advantageous and particularly as, as the GPs are at great pains to point out, the medics have no psychiatric qualifications this might just be a better option.

Just a thought because as said I haven't a clue.

[Scully]

2 hours ago, Cranfield said:

There seems to be some contradictions in what Kent Police intend to do if no medical report is forthcoming.

In the Kentish Express this week, "Temporary Assistant Chief Constable Steve Corbishley said, "It is a dangerous assumption to believe that just because someone has not provided medical information that they are safe to own and use firearms, shotguns, or explosives, and we are no longer prepared to accept that risk".

So it would seem that no medical report, means no licence.

It is difficult to argue against his logic. Surely applicants are unlikely to volunteer any information about a situation(s) that would prevent their application being approved.

As I understood it, it wasn't a case of an applicant not providing information, but rather one of GP's refusing to forward such information unless an applicant first paid them. It appears police are asking for a GP's report regardless of whether an applicant has anything to declare or otherwise, which again as far as I'm aware, is in contradiction to HO advice. 

As Panoma has said; it appears the police are presuming an applicant has something to hide until receipt of a GP's report proves otherwise. It is a classic example of 'passing the buck.'

 

[Cranfield]

The original premise is that if an applicant does not disclose any "relevant" medical (or other ) conditions and signs the application as being a truthful declaration, then they should be waved through.

I don't think its unreasonable, where guns are concerned, for the authorities to think that this is rather a loose control.

They are able to run background checks on most issues affecting the applicant, is it too much of an impediment for the applicant to be liable to pay for a medical certificate/report to accompany their application ?  If the Police have to pay for it, that means we are all sharing the cost, is that fair ?

The matter of referees for applications has always been a weak link, I have doubted their value going back to the days when a Postman was deemed qualified. Nowadays it just has to be someone (not a relative) that has known you for over two years (probably varies round the country), how challenging is that ?

[wymberley]

29 minutes ago, Cranfield said:

The original premise is that if an applicant does not disclose any "relevant" medical (or other ) conditions and signs the application as being a truthful declaration, then they should be waved through.

I don't think its unreasonable, where guns are concerned, for the authorities to think that this is rather a loose control.

They are able to run background checks on most issues affecting the applicant, is it too much of an impediment for the applicant to be liable to pay for a medical certificate/report to accompany their application ?  If the Police have to pay for it, that means we are all sharing the cost, is that fair ?

The matter of referees for applications has always been a weak link, I have doubted their value going back to the days when a Postman was deemed qualified. Nowadays it just has to be someone (not a relative) that has known you for over two years (probably varies round the country), how challenging is that ?

Agreed. The options having been relaxed would need to be tightened up again and possibly more so than previously. Like most of us I suspect, I'm not in favour of any change but believe that there will be. At the end of the day, we're going to either have to put up or tighten up. It would be good though to see the poverbial goose poisoned by greed.

[panoma1]

34 minutes ago, Cranfield said:

The original premise is that if an applicant does not disclose any "relevant" medical (or other ) conditions and signs the application as being a truthful declaration, then they should be waved through.

I don't think its unreasonable, where guns are concerned, for the authorities to think that this is rather a loose control.

They are able to run background checks on most issues affecting the applicant, is it too much of an impediment for the applicant to be liable to pay for a medical certificate/report to accompany their application ?  If the Police have to pay for it, that means we are all sharing the cost, is that fair ?

The matter of referees for applications has always been a weak link, I have doubted their value going back to the days when a Postman was deemed qualified. Nowadays it just has to be someone (not a relative) that has known you for over two years (probably varies round the country), how challenging is that ?

Certification of shooters/gun owners is purely a public safety matter! How does being a certificate holder benefit me as a Shooter/gun owner?  Except as a member of the public! ........consequently the cost of certification should be bourne by the public purse

[Cranfield]

21 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Certification of shooters/gun owners is purely a public safety matter! How does being a certificate holder benefit me as a Shooter/gun owner?  Except as a member of the public! ........consequently the cost of certification should be bourne by the public purse

Equally you can say why should the public purse pay for us to enjoy your pastime/hobby and/or how are we as shooters benefiting the public ?

I expect there are many other pastimes/hobbys that require certification/licences and require medical clearance that the applicant has to pay for. A private pilot licence springs to mind, but I am sure there are others. 

The cost of a medical exam does not seem excessive when you consider it covers five years. The suggested costs I have heard were between £25 and £35.

 

 

Edited June 16, 2018 by Cranfield

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 hour ago, Cranfield said:

Equally you can say why should the public purse pay for us to enjoy your pastime/hobby and/or how are we as shooters benefiting the public ?

I expect there are many other pastimes/hobbys that require certification/licences and require medical clearance that the applicant has to pay for. A private pilot licence springs to mind, but I am sure there are others. 

The cost of a medical exam does not seem excessive when you consider it covers five years. The suggested costs I have heard were between £25 and £35.

 

 

But it is not a medical examination, it is the Police passing the buck for the chance that some taxi driver has a grievance, goes nuts and kills people and then the Police can say, "well Dr Whatisname said it wasn't a problem."

They just require the Doctor to state that he knows of no reason why you should not be allowed an SGC.

Then when the proverbial hits the fan they will blame the Doctor.

[panoma1]

38 minutes ago, Cranfield said:

Equally you can say why should the public purse pay for us to enjoy your pastime/hobby and/or how are we as shooters benefiting the public ?

I expect there are many other pastimes/hobbys that require certification/licences and require medical clearance that the applicant has to pay for. A private pilot licence springs to mind, but I am sure there are others. 

The cost of a medical exam does not seem excessive when you consider it covers five years. The suggested costs I have heard were between £25 and £35.

 

 

But the public purse would not pay for our pastime/hobby, we pay for that, it would pay for certification. Gun certification is there as a public safety measure!.............Not to provide an income stream for the police and medical profession!

Licensing/certification is either a public safety issue or a tax....or both?........It certainly doesn't materially benefit the holder....except as I said previously....... as a member of the public.

[Cranfield]

45 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

But the public purse would not pay for our pastime/hobby, we pay for that, it would pay for certification. Gun certification is there as a public safety measure!.............Not to provide an income stream for the police and medical profession!

Licensing/certification is either a public safety issue or a tax....or both?........It certainly doesn't materially benefit the holder....except as I said previously....... as a member of the public.

The Law/System states that to perform certain activities we are required to be certified/licensed. The certification authority states that we have to provide a medical certificate, at our own expense,  to confirm our fitness to perform that activity.

Its our choice, comply or don't apply, but we shouldn't insist that someone else pays for it.

I don't think we can object to some sort of medical screening prior to the issue or renewal of a certificate/licence, it does make sense. To do so its very close to insisting we don't need the certificates or licenses in the first place.

Its unlikely we are going to agree on this, but thats fine, we are all entitled to our opinions.

 

[CharlieT]

On 12/06/2018 at 17:03, Benkent said:

What does this medical report involve exactly? They already have access to your doc notes.

Again, it must be stressed that Kent police or any other police force are not requesting a medical report or for that matter, a declaration from ones GP on his or her view at to one's suitability to possess a firearm.

What the police are requesting is that the GP inform the CC as to whether or not the patient suffers or has ever suffered from any of the listed illnesses.

Where Kent Police are overstepping the mark is by shifting the onus onto the applicant to contact their GP and not following the HO Guidelines regarding non reply.

What is interesting is that the letter makes no mention of the enduring marker that the HO wishes to be placed on firearms certificate holders medical file, I would suggest this is a serious gaff by Kent Police as is the fact that they keep referring to it as a licence no a certificate !,. So much for correct terminology from those who issue them. 

This is the letter Kent Police require the applicant submit to their GP...................

Dear Doctor

 I have applied for a Firearms / Shotgun / Explosives licence.  I am required to supply a factual medical report to Kent Police which I am willing to pay for.  Should a fee be payable please forward an invoice to my home address. 

 The report will need to include whether or not I have EVER been diagnosed with or been treated for the following conditions/illnesses:

 ·         Acute Stress Reaction or an acute reaction to the stress caused by a trauma

·         Suicidal thoughts or self-harm

·         Depression or anxiety

·         Dementia

·         Mania, bipolar disorder or a psychotic illness, or a personality disorder

·         A neurological condition: for example, Multiple Sclerosis,  Parkinson’s or Huntington’s diseases, or epilepsy

·         Alcohol or drug abuse

·         Any other mental or physical condition which you think may be relevant.

Furthermore, can I please request that only information relating to the relevant medical conditions impacting upon my suitability to possess a Firearm, Shotgun or Explosives are commented upon. The provision of a simple print out of my medical history will not be acceptable for this purpose.

 

The report needs to be forwarded to Kent Police, by email to firearms.licensing@kent.pnn.police.uk or by sending via post addressed to the Firearms Licensing Dept, Kent Police HQ, Sutton Road, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 9BZ.

 

Please note that Kent Police do not seek your professional opinion as to my suitability to hold a Firearms/Shotgun licence, as this decision lies solely with them.

 

I would be grateful if you could expedite as soon as possible.

 

Yours sincerely,

[bluesj]

35 minutes ago, CharlieT said:

Again, it must be stressed that Kent police or any other police force are not requesting a medical report or for that matter, a declaration from ones GP on his or her view at to one's suitability to possess a firearm.

What the police are requesting is that the GP inform the CC as to whether or not the patient suffers or has ever suffered from any of the listed illnesses.

Where Kent Police are overstepping the mark is by shifting the onus onto the applicant to contact their GP and not following the HO Guidelines regarding non reply.

What is interesting is that the letter makes no mention of the enduring marker that the HO wishes to be placed on firearms certificate holders medical file, I would suggest this is a serious gaff by Kent Police as is the fact that they keep referring to it as a licence no a certificate !,. So much for correct terminology from those who issue them. 

This is the letter Kent Police require the applicant submit to their GP...................

Dear Doctor

 I have applied for a Firearms / Shotgun / Explosives licence.  I am required to supply a factual medical report to Kent Police which I am willing to pay for.  Should a fee be payable please forward an invoice to my home address. 

 The report will need to include whether or not I have EVER been diagnosed with or been treated for the following conditions/illnesses:

 ·         Acute Stress Reaction or an acute reaction to the stress caused by a trauma

·         Suicidal thoughts or self-harm

·         Depression or anxiety

·         Dementia

·         Mania, bipolar disorder or a psychotic illness, or a personality disorder

·         A neurological condition: for example, Multiple Sclerosis,  Parkinson’s or Huntington’s diseases, or epilepsy

·         Alcohol or drug abuse

·         Any other mental or physical condition which you think may be relevant.

Furthermore, can I please request that only information relating to the relevant medical conditions impacting upon my suitability to possess a Firearm, Shotgun or Explosives are commented upon. The provision of a simple print out of my medical history will not be acceptable for this purpose.

 

The report needs to be forwarded to Kent Police, by email to firearms.licensing@kent.pnn.police.uk or by sending via post addressed to the Firearms Licensing Dept, Kent Police HQ, Sutton Road, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 9BZ.

 

Please note that Kent Police do not seek your professional opinion as to my suitability to hold a Firearms/Shotgun licence, as this decision lies solely with them.

 

I would be grateful if you could expedite as soon as possible.

 

Yours sincerely,

It looks like kent are asking for a medical report and for the doctor to make a judgement as that is what the letter is asking for!

I would change the word report to information if I was sending it to my doctor and be getting them to send the information  to me to pass to the police.

[panoma1]

59 minutes ago, Cranfield said:

The Law/System states that to perform certain activities we are required to be certified/licensed. The certification authority states that we have to provide a medical certificate, at our own expense,  to confirm our fitness to perform that activity.

Its our choice, comply or don't apply, but we shouldn't insist that someone else pays for it.

I don't think we can object to some sort of medical screening prior to the issue or renewal of a certificate/licence, it does make sense. To do so its very close to insisting we don't need the certificates or licenses in the first place.

Its unlikely we are going to agree on this, but thats fine, we are all entitled to our opinions.

 

But I am not arguing against "some sort of medical screening" we already, as required, declare and sign the application form to confirm whether we currently have, or have ever had, a particular, relevant medical condition, as itemised in the application form. 

As I understand it, where no such relevant medical conditions is declared, HO guidence stipulates this should be adequate, however should the police decide to make further enquiries with your GP, this should not Incur any expense to the applicant, so why are we being compelled by certain police forces, to pay?....on the threat that if we don't, we won't be granted a certificate.

On the other hand, If disclosure of a relevant current or past medical condition is made by an applicant, and the police require further medical facts, then the onus is on the applicant to obtain a suitability report from their GP, at the applicants own expense!...this seems fair!

If I confirm I have "no relevant current or historical medical condition" I object to the police arbitrarily requiring (contrary to HO guidence) my GP to confirm my declaration is true, in writing.........at my expense!

What next? If an applicant has a criminal record, are they to try to convince a high court judge, a magistrate or a probation officer etc to confirm the applicant is a reformed character and is not currently involved in any criminal activities?....and in the unlikely event of them agreeing..........pay any professional fees demanded?

Or shall we just let the police decide who should and who should not be granted a SGC/FAC?

[Scully]

3 hours ago, CharlieT said:

Again, it must be stressed that Kent police or any other police force are not requesting a medical report or for that matter, a declaration from ones GP on his or her view at to one's suitability to possess a firearm.

What the police are requesting is that the GP inform the CC as to whether or not the patient suffers or has ever suffered from any of the listed illnesses.

Where Kent Police are overstepping the mark is by shifting the onus onto the applicant to contact their GP and not following the HO Guidelines regarding non reply.

What is interesting is that the letter makes no mention of the enduring marker that the HO wishes to be placed on firearms certificate holders medical file, I would suggest this is a serious gaff by Kent Police as is the fact that they keep referring to it as a licence no a certificate !,. So much for correct terminology from those who issue them. 

This is the letter Kent Police require the applicant submit to their GP...................

Dear Doctor

 I have applied for a Firearms / Shotgun / Explosives licence.  I am required to supply a factual medical report to Kent Police which I am willing to pay for.  Should a fee be payable please forward an invoice to my home address. 

 The report will need to include whether or not I have EVER been diagnosed with or been treated for the following conditions/illnesses:

 ·         Acute Stress Reaction or an acute reaction to the stress caused by a trauma

·         Suicidal thoughts or self-harm

·         Depression or anxiety

·         Dementia

·         Mania, bipolar disorder or a psychotic illness, or a personality disorder

·         A neurological condition: for example, Multiple Sclerosis,  Parkinson’s or Huntington’s diseases, or epilepsy

·         Alcohol or drug abuse

·         Any other mental or physical condition which you think may be relevant.

Furthermore, can I please request that only information relating to the relevant medical conditions impacting upon my suitability to possess a Firearm, Shotgun or Explosives are 'COMMENTED' upon. The provision of a simple print out of my medical history will not be acceptable for this purpose.

 

The report needs to be forwarded to Kent Police, by email to firearms.licensing@kent.pnn.police.uk or by sending via post addressed to the Firearms Licensing Dept, Kent Police HQ, Sutton Road, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 9BZ.

 

Please note that Kent Police do not seek your professional opinion as to my suitability to hold a Firearms/Shotgun licence, as this decision lies solely with them.

 

I would be grateful if you could expedite as soon as possible.

 

Yours sincerely,

I'm not really sure how this works for me personally, as the GP who diagnosed me with anxiety attacks over 25 years ago is no longer with the practise, and is possibly retired by now. How does someone who has never met me comment about a condition I had? 

The parts I've highlighted above would seem to contradict each other. 

As I've already stated, I don't mind paying a GP for whatever information I am required to provide, as long as that fee is a standard national fee.....but this will be money I'd otherwise spend on membership of a shooting organisation. 

What narks me is the cynical methods employed by the police in attempting to mislead the general public, ministers and the shooting fraternity into believing they are doing this for the sake of the safety of all involved. They're not; it is a monumental **** covering exercise; nothing more, nothing less.

I'd be a little more convinced if they could supply just one reason why they claim their proposals will prevent anyone topping themselves or otherwise going loopy with a gun. It's a slippery slope for the simple reason one wonders what other measures they will insist upon when this strategy fails. 

Edited June 16, 2018 by Scully

[CharlieT]

20 hours ago, panoma1 said:

But I am not arguing against "some sort of medical screening" we already, as required, declare and sign the application form to confirm whether we currently have, or have ever had, a particular, relevant medical condition, as itemised in the application form. 

As I understand it, where no such relevant medical conditions is declared, HO guidence stipulates this should be adequate, however should the police decide to make further enquiries with your GP, this should not Incur any expense to the applicant, so why are we being compelled by certain police forces, to pay?....on the threat that if we don't, we won't be granted a certificate.

On the other hand, If disclosure of a relevant current or past medical condition is made by an applicant, and the police require further medical facts, then the onus is on the applicant to obtain a suitability report from their GP, at the applicants own expense!...this seems fair!

If I confirm I have "no relevant current or historical medical condition" I object to the police arbitrarily requiring (contrary to HO guidence) my GP to confirm my declaration is true, in writing.........at my expense!

What next? If an applicant has a criminal record, are they to try to convince a high court judge, a magistrate or a probation officer etc to confirm the applicant is a reformed character and is not currently involved in any criminal activities?....and in the unlikely event of them agreeing..........pay any professional fees demanded?

Or shall we just let the police decide who should and who should not be granted a SGC/FAC?

As this topic is about Kent Police policy, I will only address that issue, although my personal thoughts regarding the whole sorry saga of GP medical charges are the same as yours.

When the IPCC produced their report on firearms licensing, they were critical of many aspects of different police force's handling of licensing together with various aspects of procedure.

One of their criticisms was of the lack of any medical report, hence the current saga. The IPCC report made many recommendations for licensing improvements, one being recommendation 11 which I copy below.

It could be argued that the new Kent Police policy on this matter merely reflects the IPCC recommendation and as such is a sensible,  pragmatic policy given that the HO has failed, as yet, to introduce legislation to compel GP's to take part.

 

 

Recommendation 11

Immediately, and with a view to implementation within 18 months, the Home Office should ensure that the current proposals for the sharing of medical information between medical professionals and the police for the purpose of firearms licensing, allow the police effectively to discharge their duty to assess the medical suitability of an applicant for a section 1 firearms or shotgun certificate. This should have due regard to ensuring the system: 1. does not allow licensing to take place without a current medical report from the applicant’s GP, obtained and paid for by the applicant in advance of an application for the granting or renewal of a certificate, and which meets requirements prescribed by law; and 2. is supported by a process whereby GPs are required, during the currency of a certificate, to notify the police of any changes to the medical circumstances (including mental health) of the certificate holder which are relevant to the police assessment of suitability for such a certificate, and within which the certificate holder is statutorily required to notify the police of any such changes

[rbrowning2]

Quite clearly the Police now regard all gun owners as liars and potential mass murders or suicide victims.

We sign to say we have no relevant medical conditions that could make us a risk by owning a firearm. The police say some lie on the application form well that's a criminal offence so how many have been prosecuted for making a false application?

Apparently only around 2% of applications currently require further information from a Doctor but they now want said information for all.
And lets face it Doctors are no longer the bed rock of society they used to be they come and go but they are expected to know your medical history since birth.

If the process worked as proposed then when the police applied to the doctor to mark your records as a firearms owner surly at that time a professional doctor would put the marker on confirm no relevant historic conditions and if that flagged an issue they would immediately contact the Police who would stop the application/renewal process or revoke the certificate.

As for, well you own a gun for your fun etc so why should you not pay up and shut up you need to go back to why the firearms law ever came about and the fundamental concept that society as a whole benefited and hence shared the cost.

What has changed so much since the days of buying a SGC in the local post office?

Look back and see just how much we the law abiding are persecuted by the licensing system and just how few incidents there are with privately legally owned firearms.
Yet more and more restrictions are put on both the person and the type of firearm we can own and each time we yield they come back for more.

The Police will only be happy when any risk associated with privately owned firearms is reduced to zero and the only way to achieve that is no personally owned firearms.

Personally I think this is all about the money, the medical process was never satisfactory agreed between all parties, Police, Gun Owners and Doctors it was to grey and relied on gentlemen's agreement and hence the Police were burdened with the responsibility to pay which they do not like. The shooting organisation went along in the vein belief they would get a great victory with a ten year certificate when in reality we got ****.

Don't get me wrong if I believed this up front medical information would achieve the goal of zero mass shootings or suicides by gun owners then I would support it but in reality it is just like an MOT only valid on the day of issue.

And of course when the Police claim what a great success the medical process is and how much safer we all are they will have no excuse when we ask for our pistols back will they?

I give you my modified letter, given more are killed by vehicles, drink driving for example than legal guns.

Dear Doctor

I have applied for a driving licence I am required to supply a factual medical report to DVLA which I am willing to pay for.  Should a fee be payable please forward an invoice to my home address. 

The report will need to include whether or not I have EVER been diagnosed with or been treated for the following conditions/illnesses:

Acute Stress Reaction or an acute reaction to the stress caused by a trauma

Suicidal thoughts or self-harm

Depression or anxiety

Dementia

Mania, bipolar disorder or a psychotic illness, or a personality disorder

A neurological condition: for example, Multiple Sclerosis,  Parkinson’s or Huntington’s diseases, or epilepsy

Alcohol or drug abuse

Any other mental or physical condition which you think may be relevant.

Furthermore, can I please request that only information relating to the relevant medical conditions impacting upon my suitability to possess a Driving Licence commented upon. The provision of a simple print out of my medical history will not be acceptable for this purpose.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 17, 2018 by rbrowning2

[Benkent]

On 16/06/2018 at 16:35, CharlieT said:

Again, it must be stressed that Kent police or any other police force are not requesting a medical report or for that matter, a declaration from ones GP on his or her view at to one's suitability to possess a firearm.

What the police are requesting is that the GP inform the CC as to whether or not the patient suffers or has ever suffered from any of the listed illnesses.

Where Kent Police are overstepping the mark is by shifting the onus onto the applicant to contact their GP and not following the HO Guidelines regarding non reply.

What is interesting is that the letter makes no mention of the enduring marker that the HO wishes to be placed on firearms certificate holders medical file, I would suggest this is a serious gaff by Kent Police as is the fact that they keep referring to it as a licence no a certificate !,. So much for correct terminology from those who issue them. 

This is the letter Kent Police require the applicant submit to their GP...................

Dear Doctor

 I have applied for a Firearms / Shotgun / Explosives licence.  I am required to supply a factual medical report to Kent Police which I am willing to pay for.  Should a fee be payable please forward an invoice to my home address. 

 The report will need to include whether or not I have EVER been diagnosed with or been treated for the following conditions/illnesses:

 ·         Acute Stress Reaction or an acute reaction to the stress caused by a trauma

·         Suicidal thoughts or self-harm

·         Depression or anxiety

·         Dementia

·         Mania, bipolar disorder or a psychotic illness, or a personality disorder

·         A neurological condition: for example, Multiple Sclerosis,  Parkinson’s or Huntington’s diseases, or epilepsy

·         Alcohol or drug abuse

·         Any other mental or physical condition which you think may be relevant.

Furthermore, can I please request that only information relating to the relevant medical conditions impacting upon my suitability to possess a Firearm, Shotgun or Explosives are commented upon. The provision of a simple print out of my medical history will not be acceptable for this purpose.

 

The report needs to be forwarded to Kent Police, by email to firearms.licensing@kent.pnn.police.uk or by sending via post addressed to the Firearms Licensing Dept, Kent Police HQ, Sutton Road, Maidstone, Kent, ME15 9BZ.

 

Please note that Kent Police do not seek your professional opinion as to my suitability to hold a Firearms/Shotgun licence, as this decision lies solely with them.

 

I would be grateful if you could expedite as soon as possible.

 

Yours sincerely,

Thanks matey will be fun come renewal time as it's hard enough getting an appointment from them lol. Although luckily I've never once had any problems that would effect me holding a certificate.

[wymberley]

5 hours ago, CharlieT said:

As this topic is about Kent Police policy, I will only address that issue, although my personal thoughts regarding the whole sorry saga of GP medical charges are the same as yours.

When the IPCC produced their report on firearms licensing, they were critical of many aspects of different police force's handling of licensing together with various aspects of procedure.

One of their criticisms was of the lack of any medical report, hence the current saga. The IPCC report made many recommendations for licensing improvements, one being recommendation 11 which I copy below.

It could be argued that the new Kent Police policy on this matter merely reflects the IPCC recommendation and as such is a sensible,  pragmatic policy given that the HO has failed, as yet, to introduce legislation to compel GP's to take part.

 

 

Recommendation 11

Immediately, and with a view to implementation within 18 months, the Home Office should ensure that the current proposals for the sharing of medical information between medical professionals and the police for the purpose of firearms licensing, allow the police effectively to discharge their duty to assess the medical suitability of an applicant for a section 1 firearms or shotgun certificate. This should have due regard to ensuring the system: 1. does not allow licensing to take place without a current medical report from the applicant’s GP, obtained and paid for by the applicant in advance of an application for the granting or renewal of a certificate, and which meets requirements prescribed by law; and 2. is supported by a process whereby GPs are required, during the currency of a certificate, to notify the police of any changes to the medical circumstances (including mental health) of the certificate holder which are relevant to the police assessment of suitability for such a certificate, and within which the certificate holder is statutorily required to notify the police of any such changes

That's interesting. How does that work? The GPs have already said that they're not necessarily qualified to comment on a patient's mental condition. That would seem reasonable so let's for a minute accept its validity. So why is it that the certificate holder 99.9% of whom are probably laymen in medical terms have been given that qualification? The damage to the recommendation is done by the inclusion of the word, "such" which means that "(including mental health)" is part and parcel and is deemed to be diagnostically possible by said laymen.

It's high time that they stopped sitting around playing with words and actually did something - facto non verba.

[bluesj]

It would seem Sussex/Surrey are still playing by the rules, and good on them ?

[Gordon R]

Merseyside have now jumped on the bandwagon.

https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/featured-news/basc-challenges-merseyside-police-change-in-firearms-licensing-policy/

They state that if the GP will not provide a letter, a copy of the applicants medical records will do. If the fall back position is the records, why ask for a letter in the first place? Just how this is making things safer for the public is open to question. Shooters can already obtain this for free - so why ask for a letter?

 

[stagboy]

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

 

They state that if the GP will not provide a letter, a copy of the applicants medical records will do. If the fall back position is the records, why ask for a letter in the first place? 

 

Good point. And if the police do accept a copy of the medical records, does this mean the GP is simply absolved from putting the requisite  encoded marker on the certificate holder's medical records?

[Scully]

4 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Merseyside have now jumped on the bandwagon.

https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/featured-news/basc-challenges-merseyside-police-change-in-firearms-licensing-policy/

They state that if the GP will not provide a letter, a copy of the applicants medical records will do. If the fall back position is the records, why ask for a letter in the first place? Just how this is making things safer for the public is open to question. Shooters can already obtain this for free - so why ask for a letter?

 

Good points. I'd also be interested how 'medical records' is interpreted. Does it mean in it's entirety ( which I'm pretty sure the police have no right to view ) or just the parts relevant to the issuing of tickets? If the latter, who is going to sift through an applicants medical records to search for those relevant bits? I'm pretty sure the police aren't going to accept an applicant obtaining their own records and then vetting them themselves before handing in.  

The entire business is farcical and designed for no other reason than those I've already mentioned. 

[Old Boggy]

I have just received in this mornings post, a letter from BASC entitled `Kent Police - Change in Firearms Licensing Policy`. This apparently has been sent to all BASC members in Kent.

The letter advises that Kent Police have `unilaterally` introduced a new medical record check policy. I therefore give below the wording of the main part of the letter :-

`Under the policy, Kent Police has stated that every person who applies for a new firearm, shotgun or explosives licence will be required to provide medical information verified by a GP ; that they will not progress any applications received without the required medical verification ; and that some GPs may charge for this service, which is payable by the applicant. In the online guidance a template letter for applicants to send to their GP has been provided.

This change in policy applies to all new applications from 31 May 2018 and for all renewals from 1 October 2018 onwards.`

The BASC letter then goes on to declare their opposition to this decision, with various meetings proposed with MPs, Nick Hurd et al.

I think that the emphasis is on the word `Unilaterally` as this could, if left, spread to other Constabularies.

OB

 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Closing the proverbial stable door long after the horse has bolted!