new medical procedures from 1st April.

[And]

And,sorry but you will have to explain your point?

Sorry, I'm just disappointed with the adversarial nature of some of the posts on this and other threads.

Maybe that's normal for most people and SD just isn't for me.

 

[tFl]

Doctors, or is it just GPs, have one of the highest(perhaps THE highest) suicide rates. Does that mean they are the ones who should decide on our mental state?

The GPs are not giving a certificate of health or forecast of behaviour. They are just providing information to the police as they are CURRENTLY DOING. The scheme just hightens the probability if instant information echange i.e. that if a person reports to their GP with a condition/behaviour that causes concern the police can take action before its too late.

Christopher Foster shot dead his wife and daughter, shot the pets and horses then set his house alight before shooting himself. The coroner asked the GP whether he knew Mr Foster had any worries. The GP was treating him for stress and depression following severe financial difficulties. The GP told the coroner that if he knew Mr Foster had guns he would have wanted to speak to the police.

Are you sure this is not a good scheme?

 

[kes]

Sorry, I'm just disappointed with the adversarial nature of some of the posts on this and other threads.

Maybe that's normal for most people and SD just isn't for me.

Sadly there are some confrontations - usually some people or some topics - I am guilty with one subject. However, moderation and people who are not confrontational are the only way to make excessive and wild personal criticism disappear, so you are needed. Think again - its good to see a 'normal' person !!!

 

[Toxster]

...Christopher Foster shot dead his wife and daughter, shot the pets and horses then set his house alight before shooting himself. The coroner asked the GP whether he knew Mr Foster had any worries. The GP was treating him for stress and depression following severe financial difficulties. The GP told the coroner that if he knew Mr Foster had guns he would have wanted to speak to the police....

There is always a danger in knee-jerk legislation where none is needed. There is no legal reason, data protection or otherwise, that would prevent a GP or any other member of the public from reporting to the local Police if they believe someone in possession of firearms might present a public risk. There is a perfectly sound Public Interest defence for such actions. No scheme is required.

Fast forward three years and GPs won't have anything to do with the scheme. It'll be privatised and run for profit by companies that have a vested interest in monetising the Application and Appeals processes. See what happened with disability assessments...

 

[kes]

There is always a danger in knee-jerk legislation where none is needed. There is no legal reason, data protection or otherwise, that would prevent a GP or any other member of the public from reporting to the local Police if they believe someone in possession of firearms might present a public risk. There is a perfectly sound Public Interest defence for such actions. No scheme is required.

Fast forward three years and GPs won't have anything to do with the scheme. It'll be privatised and run for profit by companies that have a vested interest in monetising the Application and Appeals processes. See what happened with disability assessments...

I hope not but see your point - worth a few preventative enquiries first. I have just sen an article about fire chiefs going on early retirement with payoffs of hundreds of thousands and being re-employed the following day, so oit seems nothing is impossible where self-interest is concerned.

 

[kib16]

I don't wish to alarm anyone but when they came out to do a home check, it was mentioned by my gp that I suffered from being depressed 15 years ago. My point was I was going through a divorce at the time and had not put it on my application form this year. So they do go back a long time

 

[tFl]

I don't wish to alarm anyone but when they came out to do a home check, it was mentioned by my gp that I suffered from being depressed 15 years ago. My point was I was going through a divorce at the time and had not put it on my application form this year. So they do go back a long time

the forms have always required your declaration of that condition regardless of how long ago it took place.

 

[ChesterP]

Amongst all the bickering on this thread, has anyone actually stopped and asked their GP what their view is, or what information they have been given on what constitutes medical fitness to possess a firearm? I have.

The answer was ambiguous to say the least and open to interpretation by those who do not have the personal knowledge of the individual nor the medical training to make such decisions. The safety net in this case is meant to be referral for confirmation by specialists (of course at the cost of the individual). Before we all get hung up on data protection, shouldn't we first focus, as one unified group on what exactly these medical flags are? Does anybody actually know? Thought not. Until this is bottomed out, we are left with ambiguity and speculation. I, for one, want to see no ambiguity on such an important issue. Can BASC answer this?

 

[Dalua]

Amongst all the bickering on this thread, has anyone actually stopped and asked their GP what their view is, or what information they have been given on what constitutes medical fitness to possess a firearm? I have.

The answer was ambiguous to say the least and open to interpretation by those who do not have the personal knowledge of the individual nor the medical training to make such decisions. The safety net in this case is meant to be referral for confirmation by specialists (of course at the cost of the individual). Before we all get hung up on data protection, shouldn't we first focus, as one unified group on what exactly these medical flags are? Does anybody actually know? Thought not. Until this is bottomed out, we are left with ambiguity and speculation. I, for one, want to see no ambiguity on such an important issue. Can BASC answer this?

As far as I can tell, there is no change in what the GP is being asked; and it certainly isn't whether anyone is 'medically fit' to possess a firearm. I'm not aware that any medical practioner in any speciality would be happy to sign anyone off as that.

As far as I can tell, just like now, the GP will be asked something along the lines of whether the declared medical (or psychiatric, neurological, or whatever) condition/s might impair the applicant's safely possessing or using the firearms.

The unfortunate new thing from my perspective is that the applicant will have to pay the GP to provide the FLD with that opinion, over and above what he's already paid the Government to provide the Health Service and the Police to administer the Firearms Act. I'm almost surprised that the extra cost does not infringe equal opportunities legislation, impacting as it does only on those with a history of infirmity of some kind.

I also hope the flag on the GPs record doesn't adversely impact anyone's domestic security. It should be fairly straigtforward to make it visible only to registered practitioners who are actually treating a patient, rather than to everybody else; and I hope this is what they're going to do.

 

[ChesterP]

As far as I can tell, there is no change in what the GP is being asked; and it certainly isn't whether anyone is 'medically fit' to possess a firearm. I'm not aware that any medical practioner in any speciality would be happy to sign anyone off as that.

As far as I can tell, just like now, the GP will be asked something along the lines of whether the declared medical (or psychiatric, neurological, or whatever) condition/s might impair the applicant's safely possessing or using the firearms.

The unfortunate new thing from my perspective is that the applicant will have to pay the GP to provide the FLD with that opinion, over and above what he's already paid the Government to provide the Health Service and the Police to administer the Firearms Act. I'm almost surprised that the extra cost does not infringe equal opportunities legislation, impacting as it does only on those with a history of infirmity of some kind.

I also hope the flag on the GPs record doesn't adversely impact anyone's domestic security. It should be fairly straigtforward to make it visible only to registered practitioners who are actually treating a patient, rather than to everybody else; and I hope this is what they're going to do.

Dalua,

yes, fair points and I guess "medically fit" was not as good a choice of words as what I meant was exactly what you have implied, ie whether in the GP's opinion, there is anything that might impair the licence holder from safe use of a firearm or otherwise impact upon safe possession. My GP and I have had a chat about this and he was not at all happy with being asked to provide such information unless there were patently obvious concerns such as a history of mental illness, serious drug or alcohol abuse (none of which apply to my good self I hasten to add!). His view was that an FEO might press for further information on physical capability in the case of someone with a chronic physical injury, and that is something that he would refuse to respond to as his concerns are on potential positive discrimination. All speculative of course, but it may yet have a bearing for many shooters. The domestic security bit concerns me too because what might seem to you or I to be "fairly straightforward" in making it only visible to practitioners is not where it may end up. It would be naive to assume that best practice would always be followed and you just don't know for sure who might end up with this information.

 

[tFl]

newly amended Home Office guidance document is now online.


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._on_Firearms_Licensing_Law_April_2016_v20.pdf


Chapter 2 has been upgraded in respect of deactivation standards post EU Regulation at the end of 2015. New specifications will take effect on the 8th April and will be posted on the Home Office website nearer the time.


Chapters 10, 11 & 12 have been amended in respect of the medical and forms changes.


Appendix 3 - quarry condition 1 now has the word 'practice' built in.

 

[Whitebeard]

Amongst all the bickering on this thread, has anyone actually stopped and asked their GP what their view is, or what information they have been given on what constitutes medical fitness to possess a firearm? I have.

Chester, you are priviliged that your GP has given you the time to discuss these issues with you, i like many others on this site have a job getting to see our GP when we are ill let alone having a conversation with the guy about FAC licensing.

Ian.

 

[willie_gunn]

I received an email from the CA this morning and I see they also "fully support the implementation of the new system":

E-news: Firearms licensing & GPs

 

[JTO]

I think GPs should be given back the £6,000 pa they were docked in exchange for having weekends off.

 

[Dalua]

Appendix 3 - quarry condition 1 now has the word 'practice' built in.

I quote:
1. Quarry Shooting (for vermin, fox or deer)
• The *calibre RIFLE/COMBINATION/SMOOTH-BORE GUN/SOUND MODERATOR and
ammunition shall be used for shooting vermin including fox, and ground game/ deer (delete as
appropriate) and any other lawful quarry, and for zeroing-practice on ranges, on land deemed
suitable by the chief officer of police for the area where the land is situated and over which the
holder has lawful authority to shoot.

So actually, it has the word -practice built in: as in zeroing-practice.

Now given that 'zeroing' is already defined in some detail in 10.35, and the word 'practic/se' is used throughout the document in its usual English meaning of action, performance, actually doing and so on, I can conclude only that zeroing-practice is the practice of zeroing, or as we might also say in English, zeroing (as defined in 10.35)

There has in fact therefore been no useful change in meaning of this condition at all.

If it's any help, I think I understand what they mean; and that is zeroing and target-practice. Target-practice, or the practice of shooting at inanimate targets (as opposed to quarry) is what we colloquially call practice.
It's not what it actually says, though!

I wonder whether BASC would be able to get them to change this to zeroing and target-practice, so it makes a bit more sense; before zeroing-practice starts turning up on people's FACs?

PS:
Obviously, if you have a target-shooting, as well as quarry, condition for your rifles this doesn't matter at all.

However, is that it is increasingly common for folk who don't have a target-shooting condition to have their FAC scrutnised for appropriate conditions when they sign in to a range as a visitor for formal or informal target-practice. It is hard to justify more than a handful of rounds for 'zeroing' (or 'zeroing-practice') as defined in the HO Guide - and an organised sporting target-practice session might need a good many more rounds than that, and be shot from positions and at targets which no-one would use to 'zero'.

It might actually just be easier if quarry-shooters were all given a 'target-shooting on ranges' condition in addition to the original 'zeroing' one.

 

[kes]

I received an email from the CA this morning and I see they also "fully support the implementation of the new system":

E-news: Firearms licensing & GPs

I noticed that and no concerns whatsoever about the confidentiality of data. Another org that has been on the Health implementation Working Group for a long time and also (i presume) failed to ask its members. First time I have been disappointed with the CA and hope its the last.

 

[Bandit Country]

either way, firearms data nor the encoded reminder is passed to the nhs. Only info relative to your health such as medication prescribed, chronic conditions. The parties involved with this scheme have sought/given assurances as to where the firearms marker sits.

Did you read the link I posted about enriching SCRs? It clearly states that, for EMIS Web, anything entered in 'Active Problems' will be included and that's exactly where my being a SGC holder is recorded. As for assurances sought and given by "the parties involved" (what an interesting turn of phrase to use?) I think that I can safely let the record of data protection failures speak for itself - along with all the other 'assurances' trotted out by Government.

 

[Whitebeard]

What will happen if the majority of GPs in the country decide not to comply? will the scheme collapse? will the police use other means to get the information (warrant for instance) or will only those whos GPs go along with the scheme get FACs?

Ian.

 

[tFl]

I quote:
1. Quarry Shooting (for vermin, fox or deer)
• The *calibre RIFLE/COMBINATION/SMOOTH-BORE GUN/SOUND MODERATOR and
ammunition shall be used for shooting vermin including fox, and ground game/ deer (delete as
appropriate) and any other lawful quarry, and for zeroing-practice on ranges, on land deemed
suitable by the chief officer of police for the area where the land is situated and over which the
holder has lawful authority to shoot.

So actually, it has the word -practice built in: as in zeroing-practice.

Now given that 'zeroing' is already defined in some detail in 10.35, and the word 'practic/se' is used throughout the document in its usual English meaning of action, performance, actually doing and so on, I can conclude only that zeroing-practice is the practice of zeroing, or as we might also say in English, zeroing (as defined in 10.35)

There has in fact therefore been no useful change in meaning of this condition at all.

If it's any help, I think I understand what they mean; and that is zeroing and target-practice. Target-practice, or the practice of shooting at inanimate targets (as opposed to quarry) is what we colloquially call practice.
It's not what it actually says, though!

I wonder whether BASC would be able to get them to change this to zeroing and target-practice, so it makes a bit more sense; before zeroing-practice starts turning up on people's FACs?

PS:
Obviously, if you have a target-shooting, as well as quarry, condition for your rifles this doesn't matter at all.

However, is that it is increasingly common for folk who don't have a target-shooting condition to have their FAC scrutnised for appropriate conditions when they sign in to a range as a visitor for formal or informal target-practice. It is hard to justify more than a handful of rounds for 'zeroing' (or 'zeroing-practice') as defined in the HO Guide - and an organised sporting target-practice session might need a good many more rounds than that, and be shot from positions and at targets which no-one would use to 'zero'.

It might actually just be easier if quarry-shooters were all given a 'target-shooting on ranges' condition in addition to the original 'zeroing' one.

yawn! For god sake the police put this in, they have agreed to it but you want to argue against it.

The practice but is purely for expanding ammo and means target practice.

Anyone with the quarry condition isn't barred from going to a range and target shooting because they dont have a target condition. Obviously with solids where practice with expanding cannot be justified.

 

[tFl]

What will happen if the majority of GPs in the country decide not to comply? will the scheme collapse? will the police use other means to get the information (warrant for instance) or will only those whos GPs go along with the scheme get FACs?

Ian.

it wont come to that. If it did the home office would force it into gp contracts. The were warned about the stick, they chose the carrot. They are also being paid for the report dont forget