POLL - Are you happy to pay for a medical certificate?

[Laurie]

Your twin statements actually bolster the argument against this particular additional layer of regulation. You rightly state those who were involved in illegal use of legally held firearms "had not been near their doctors" though they may have benefitted from that. So this scheme would never have detected them. They were unknown to their GPs. Worse, GPs in this forum believe introducing this measure will further deter those needing help from seeking it. Hayduke, we all want safer outcomes. Per the professional opinions here, this won't confer that result.

That's exactly what my doctor said to me when I discussed this issue with her prior to renewal last year. She also pointed out that it isn't a new dilemna for medical professionals as there are a growing number of conditions that should be reported to the DVLA and will result in the driving licence being revoked thereby affecting people's lives and often their means of making a living drastically.

Rightly or wrongly, I know several certificate holders who are very nervous of visiting their doctor for any reason at all now. It is not just psychiatric illnesses that can see a certificate revoked, but some police forces apparently believe a whole range of debilitating conditions should debar one from shooting.

Incidentally my doctor didn't charge and no GP in this particular practice does. She said that not only would the GPs not wish to do so, but their contracts don't allow it - not a view I've heard elsewhere.

 

[Odders]

You're the one who's arguing in defense of a guilty dead murderer

His crime was used, along with Hamilton et all, to attack our legal rights to hold certain firearms, which he should have had removed. john

You sir are talking out your arse, as nowhere did I defend Bird's actions.

Pillock.

 

[Odders]

Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for a medics time so that we can peruse our hobbies ? When the NHS is at breaking point I don't think it's too unreasonable for us to contribute.

Why should firearms owners foot the bill for something that even members of the medical profession consider to be a pointless PR exercise?

If the police & politicians want this charade to enhance their standing in the eyes of the gullible, then I suggest general taxation should foot the bill, as that way at least, the sheep will be paying something towards their illusion of "something being done".

 

[Wapinschaw]

If it’s the only way for me to keep my fac/sgc then yes I’m happy...

This sums it up for me, it's blackmail but if I want to continue to shoot in the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of Caledonia then I will have little choice but to pay up.

 

[Hornet 6]

Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for a medics time so that we can peruse our hobbies ?

Because it was the government of the day, voted for by the majority who said the public should be protected from armed members of the public.
Because the police have the right to ask your doctor for an opinion on your suitability, does not mean they should insist on a report for everyone.
If they do insist then they should pay for it, using the extra money we have been told we must pay so the police can do a proper job.

A point not raised so far, a doctor is a GP, means general practitioner, he or she is not a expert in mental health, which is where the police are going with this buck passing exercise. A doctor is no more capable of assessing a persons likely mental state than an orthopaedic surgeon is, and you don't hear or see the police asking them for a statement about someones suitability to hold firearms.

What is my doctor going to tell the police, sorry I haven't seen this person for 10 years, but I have received many letters from local hospitals to say he has had surgery.
Surgery which the GP knows nothing about, because i haven't seen him/her, I was not even seen by my doctor, or contacted after the hospital found I had cancer.

Neil.

 

[Dalua]

A point not raised so far, a doctor is a GP, means general practitioner, he or she is not a expert in mental health, which is where the police are going with this buck passing exercise. A doctor is no more capable of assessing a persons likely mental state than an orthopaedic surgeon is, and you don't hear or see the police asking them for a statement about someones suitability to hold firearms.

I think there might be a misunderstanding here. The GP is asked, as far as I can tell, because the GP has the overview of a person's healthcare. General practitioner - general enquiry.
The reasons for reduced fitness to hold firearms might sit in a number of disciplines - cardiology, neurology, even orthopaedics, I guess - in which cases it might be the specialists who are asked for further reports.
As far as I'm aware, GPs are not being asked specifically 'to assess someone's mental state' - something which within the context of general practice they are of course qualified to do. Nearly all the depressed people in the country are treated by GPs, for example.

And just to be clear - even psychiatrists cannot see into the future.

 

[Whitebeard]

Police spokesman: "But you said there was nothing wrong with him" GPs spokesman: "Yeah but you issued the firearms certificate" Police spokesman: "Only cos you said he was alright" GPs spokesman: "we never said he was alright" Police spokesman: "Yes you did" GPs spokesman: "No we didnt" Police spokesman: "But you did" GPs spokesman: "But we didnt"........................ see where i am going!

Ian

 

[Dalua]

Police spokesman: "But you said there was nothing wrong with him" GPs spokesman: "Yeah but you issued the firearms certificate" Police spokesman: "Only cos you said he was alright" GPs spokesman: "we never said he was alright" Police spokesman: "Yes you did" GPs spokesman: "No we didnt" Police spokesman: "But you did" GPs spokesman: "But we didnt"........................ see where i am going!

Ian

I can - but that's supposing that any medico would actually sign something that said 'he's alright' and left it at that.

I think the dialogue would be more like
Police: 'You said that there was nothing in his notes that suggested he might not be fit to hold a FAC/SGC.'
GP 'That's right - there wasn't. Please have a look, if you don't believe me.'
Police (looking) ' Oh yes, I see. Sorry to disturb you Doctor.'
GP: 'Think nothing of it, Inspector. Please give my receptionist 250guineas on your way out.'

 

[Hayduke]

Why should firearms owners foot the bill for something that even members of the medical profession consider to be a pointless PR exercise?

Do they? Not the medics I know. Where's your evidence that the medical profession as a whole thinks it is a pr exercise?

A point not raised so far, a doctor is a GP, means general practitioner, he or she is not a expert in mental health,

Rubbish, GPs are specialists in this field, they will have extensive understanding, knowledge, training, and experience working with patients with the range of mental health conditions and their pathologies, treatments and outcomes. They will also have immediate and direct access to further care or psychiatrists if necessary.

Medics can be a safety net and stop nutters getting guns. They can also prevent gun suicides, either thorough consideration of an application in light of medical history and current patient condition, and/or by supporting patients through mental health conditions. They can also help people recover from mental health conditions. I am all for their involvement in the licencing/approvals process. And as posts on other threads on this topic have shown medics have helped gun owners with mental health problems. There should be no stigma about seeing ones medic about mental health conditions. Some posts on here are borderline paranoid. Some people should not have guns at all, or for a period until they are better. Medics are better placed than anyone to assess this.

Hunting is something I choose to do, therefore I don't mind paying. Most of us are relatively ok financially, I think those who are getting all huffy are a bit tight.

 

[Highlandsjohn]

Do they? Not the medics I know. Where's your evidence that the medical profession as a whole thinks it is a pr exercise?



Rubbish, GPs are specialists in this field, they will have extensive understanding, knowledge, training, and experience working with patients with the range of mental health conditions and their pathologies, treatments and outcomes. They will also have immediate and direct access to further care or psychiatrists if necessary.

Medics can be a safety net and stop nutters getting guns. They can also prevent gun suicides, either thorough consideration of an application in light of medical history and current patient condition, and/or by supporting patients through mental health conditions. They can also help people recover from mental health conditions. I am all for their involvement in the licencing/approvals process. And as posts on other threads on this topic have shown medics have helped gun owners with mental health problems. There should be no stigma about seeing ones medic about mental health conditions. Some posts on here are borderline paranoid. Some people should not have guns at all, or for a period until they are better. Medics are better placed than anyone to assess this.

Hunting is something I choose to do, therefore I don't mind paying. Most of us are relatively ok financially, I think those who are getting all huffy are a bit tight.

+100% I believe doctors are being set up to take the flack on behalf of the police if things go wrong. However, this is an excellent post Hayduke, a very accurate summation. G. P.'s are very well placed and trained for the job. john

 

[kes]

+100% I believe doctors are being set up to take the flack on behalf of the police if things go wrong. However, this is an excellent post Hayduke, a very accurate summation. G. P.'s are very well placed and trained for the job. john

I have my doubts - how many doctors regularly deal with FAC certs - not that many I suggest and largely i more rural practices where this has perhaps always been the case. I think doctors rely on the BMA to deal with 'new things' and changes to contracts etc so I think doctors have been (individulally) brought in to this by their advice.
Doctors can help and should help but the overall responsibility lies with the police who have singularly failed to detect problems in the past. I think the police regard this as 'insurance' for their processes and will blame doctors if things go wrong and they have an excuse. That obviously depends on how gross is the error in assessment of an individual and at what stage that happened.
Whatever the final process is, I for one wont be paying where I did not pay previously.

 

[Hornet 6]

. Most of us are relatively ok financially, I think those who are getting all huffy are a bit tight.

You base that on what.
I'm not getting huffy at all, but I will not pay for something that I don't have to pay for.
Government guidelines say I don't pay, that's good enough for me.
GP's are not specialists in mental health, and round here at least have as little do do with it as is possible.
As for tight, many of us are on a fixed income, so skint would be the word, not tight.

 

[finnbear270]

So those running around in top of the range motors, living in half million quid homes are "I'm All right Jacks" then?

Don't come running to us when your little bit of the sport comes under fire.

 

[kes]

Just done a straw poll at our BASC registered shoot (in Wales) four recent renewals and all have been asked to pay and paid the tickbox 'fee' of £20.
Bit of a change from when I renewed - a fee wasnt mentioned (Oct 17).
It may be that inactivity by our shooting orgs has already let us down - AGAIN. I dont see anyone getting their fee back and if doctors expect a fee, who can or will hold out against that expectation ? Long past time to act I suggest.

 

[Whitebeard]

Most of us are relatively ok financially, I think those who are getting all huffy are a bit tight.

In my experience its the people who have got a bit of money who are tight.

Ian.

 

[Miki]

This sums it up for me, it's blackmail but if I want to continue to shoot in the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of Caledonia then I will have little choice but to pay up.

That was the main result of the BASC's poll last year. Up here (in Scotland) since the middle of 2016 that has been the case. No one had the courage to 'not pay' and so force a legal confrontation. I beleive in part this would have been unsuccesful as there is a "Not in Scotland" clause in the HO guidelines however this is not the case in England and Wales.

Is there anyone out there who is willing to 'not pay' (as the BASC have oft stated) so that BASC can take legal action against the Police Division involved ??

I guess the immediate question is "if I don't pay and the police refuse to issue a certificate, would BASC mount a legal challenge ?".... anyone @ BASC care to answer that ?

 

[JTO]

I guess the immediate question is "if I don't pay and the police refuse to issue a certificate, would BASC mount a legal challenge ?".... anyone @ BASC care to answer that ?

That was answered several pages back, or on another thread, the answer seemed to be NO.
They don't seem to think that the doctrine of judicial precedent applies in this situation. Must be unique in English Law.

 

[HotDogsForTea]

Answer to the original poll: NO

As for this comment;

Originally Posted by Hayduke
. Most of us are relatively ok financially, I think those who are getting all huffy are a bit tight,

Surely this is a wind up!!!!!

 

[Hayduke]

Cue circular conversation about class and who is poorer than the next person. . . . Yawn.

 

[Hayduke]

I just think if you can afford it, why not pay.

Our NHS is a very precious national asset that needs all the support it can get. And some of you lot are getting all up and outraged because you're asked for a few quid