BASC opposes new proposals for medical fees

[Hornet 6]

After all "we voted" for this crap PC European run country. Not quite what I remember, I was happy to join a "Common market" ... but I do not remember a ballot on an EU membership.

I remember the same, however thats a cop out isnt it.
The country today is in a mess it is because the elected government(s) put us here.
You may not personally have voted for the government of the day, but they were voted for by the majority.

Also anyone who thinks guns will stay in private hands for deer control as it's the 'only method of control there is' is going to be very disappointed.
The government will do as they wish, you cant can't stop them, just like we couldn't stop the handgun ban, or the semi auto rifles ban before them, the introduction of firearms licensing before that, government were scared of privately held weapons all those years ago, and they still are today.

Neil.

 

[slider]

[FONT=&amp]The United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community (as[/FONT][FONT=&amp] it[/FONT][FONT=&amp] then was) on 1 January 1[/FONT][FONT=&amp]973 with Denmark and Ireland. This[/FONT][FONT=&amp] proved controversial at the time. The Labour party initially sought renegotiation of membership. This was toned down to requiring a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain part of the Community. This referendum was duly held in 1975 with a 67% vote in favour of continued membership.[/FONT]​

 

[Dalua]

Remove BASC's support for GP's in this process - lacking expert opinion (as it is primarily an issue of intemperence or mental health)

I'm not sure whether this is just my understanding of the matter: I think that GPs are being asked whether, as far as they're aware, there's anything in the applicant's medical history that would raise concerns about their being granted a certificate - with oarticular reference to certain specified conditions.

As such, GPs are not being asked for 'expert advice' so much as a statement based on a brief review of the facts contained in their notes.

This is not in any way the same as asking GPs to make a statement about likely future conduct - something which not even a forensic psychiatrist could reasonably be expected to make with any degree of accuracy.
The concept of 'raising the bar' in this is likely to be synonymous with 'raising the cost' - probably to a minimum of £500 for a multidisciplinary psych/neuro report of some kind.

 

[slider]

I'm not sure whether this is just my understanding of the matter: I think that GPs are being asked whether, as far as they're aware, there's anything in the applicant's medical history that would raise concerns about their being granted a certificate - with oarticular reference to certain specified conditions.

As such, GPs are not being asked for 'expert advice' so much as a statement based on a brief review of the facts contained in their notes.

This is not in any way the same as asking GPs to make a statement about likely future conduct - something which not even a forensic psychiatrist could reasonably be expected to make with any degree of accuracy.
The concept of 'raising the bar' in this is likely to be synonymous with 'raising the cost' - probably to a minimum of £500 for a multidisciplinary psych/neuro report of some kind.

Initially you are correct, the "tick box" form just asks if there are any concerns - yes or no.

If the answer is "no" then that is the end of the matter - If it is yes the Police can request a full report.

 

[User00006]

Just in case anyone is still swallowing the line that we have the ERU to thank for our property rights, here are some key dates:

1215 Magna Carta
1950 European Convention on Human Rights
1957 EEC formed
1993 EU formed

If you want a detailed explanation of how our protection from expropriation of property without compensation pre-dated the EU by a mere 800 years, See: https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/seeur.2015.11.issue-1/seeur-2015-0018/seeur-2015-0018.pdf

I shall now go away and lie in a dark room with a wet towel around my head.

 

[Dalua]

Initially you are correct, the "tick box" form just asks if there are any concerns - yes or no.
If the answer is "no" then that is the end of the matter - If it is yes the Police can request a full report.

That's right.

As far as I'm aware, that 'full report' is still from the GP, but at the applicant's cost. That, of course, is the curious position with which the BASC agreed, whereby applicants with those particular conditions are exposed to the risk of likely £couple-of-hundred bills from their GP: and which, worst of all, has set a precedent that applicants are liable for costs incurred during process, over and above the statutory fee.

 

[slider]

That's right.

As far as I'm aware, that 'full report' is still from the GP, but at the applicant's cost. That, of course, is the curious position with which the BASC agreed, whereby applicants with those particular conditions are exposed to the risk of likely £couple-of-hundred bills from their GP: and which, worst of all, has set a precedent that applicants are liable for costs incurred during process, over and above the statutory fee.

Yes, my Son, who has suffered from depression in the past was asked, had had to pay dearly for, a full report.

My concerns with this are twofold.
1. People with certain medical conditions are being discriminated and put to financial disadvantage due to their medical disability. Surely this must be against a GP's ethical code?
2. Some people suffering from conditions that need treatment will simply not visit their GP for fear of jeopardising their FAC. The simply compounds the issue - both for he individual and in terms of public safety

 

[Dalua]

Yes, my Son, who has suffered from depression in the past was asked, had had to pay dearly for, a full report.

My concerns with this are twofold.
1. People with certain medical conditions are being discriminated and put to financial disadvantage due to their medical disability. Surely this must be against a GP's ethical code?
2. Some people suffering from conditions that need treatment will simply not visit their GP for fear of jeopardising their FAC. The simply compounds the issue - both for he individual and in terms of public safety

I think your second point is certainly valid - and the greater empasis on the GP's role might worsen this, which was in fact already a concern before the recent debacle.

With respect to the first point, I agree there is discrimination - but it is important to note that it us very clearly not originating from the GPs.
IMO the discrimination, agreed to by the BASC and Home Office, is in the form of the liability for unspecified costs for medical reports incurred by applicants suffering from, or with a history of, particular health problems.

I do not think it is inappropriate that the FLD should request further information on the health of people with such problems. It is certainly not inappropriate for medical practitioners to charge fees for work not otherwise funded as part of their contact.

However, the idea that an applicant with a particular medical history might have to pay several hundred pounds more that someone without that history, just for the completion of a regulatory process for which they've already paid the statutory fee: that, to me seems to be discrimination.

 

[JTO]

A local scumbag has repeatedly been refused a SGC. In the past, he has been diagnosed with ADHD and has played on this for stupid behaviour as he grew up. He has recently fathered his 6th illegitimate child(5 different mothers, some under 16) and some have been taken from the mother because of wounding. His uncle recently topped himself! Existing rules have prevented him getting hold of a weapon(legally), so why are more rules needed.

 

[Dalua]

so why are more rules needed.

This, IMO, is always an essential question when regulatory processess are made more restrictive and/or more expensive.

Further restriction, imposition and expense can only be considered reasonable if there's some actual problem which they're intended to address; which they are in fact likely to address, and to which they are a proportionate response.

 

[Leadwasp]

I'm not sure whether this is just my understanding of the matter: I think that GPs are being asked whether, as far as they're aware, there's anything in the applicant's medical history that would raise concerns about their being granted a certificate - with oarticular reference to certain specified conditions.

As such, GPs are not being asked for 'expert advice' so much as a statement based on a brief review of the facts contained in their notes.

This is not in any way the same as asking GPs to make a statement about likely future conduct - something which not even a forensic psychiatrist could reasonably be expected to make with any degree of accuracy.
The concept of 'raising the bar' in this is likely to be synonymous with 'raising the cost' - probably to a minimum of £500 for a multidisciplinary psych/neuro report of some kind.

Have a look at the post in its entirety. Removing support says 2 things, that the deal has been broken and that perhaps GP's and the police are not the best people to make an assessment of this sorts. How does a brief assessment/statement qualify as proper factual input, and if GP's are not the 'experts' in this assessment process then by elimination surely the police are then acting in this capacity? Is that correct and is that reasonable? It could also be argued that by throwing a spanner in the works GP's are not acting in a socially responsible manner - puts the BMA on the defensive instead of us for a change. So if we reject these two bodies as being qualified to assess it raises the bar towards more specialised assessment. This might be seen as excessive, so why not have BASC actually challenge the definition of a Chief Officer being satisfied. We might win, we might not, but at least we'll have tried rather than sitting around bleating AND the mess of who pays what where when and why will have been resolved to boot. It is quite clear that the parties presently involved in developing the current system cannot reach an mutually agreable position.

 

[Dalua]

...so why not have BASC actually challenge the definition of a Chief Officer being satisfied.

That would be interesting - particularly as it seems to be the nub of the matter, certainly in Scotland. The question might be why they've decided to change the criteria for being 'satisfied' which seem to have worked since 1920.

I worry that as far as the FLD and the HO are concerned, no level of medical assessment would be seen as excessive - since both have over the years shown themselves to be in favour of every increase in restriction and expense on lawful holders of firearms that they've felt able to apply. This could result in the requirement for a full set of medical, psychiatric and psychological reports costing thousands of pounds - yet adding nothing to the safety of the public.

As things stand, the information from the GPs medical record whould be adequate to 'satisfy' the FLD of an absence of medical impediment, if there indeed is none, to issuing a certificate. If there is a concern, then it is better that they do indeed get a full report, either from the GP or a more appropriate expert, than simply dismiss the aplication out of hand.

 

[enfieldspares]

You miss the point Whitefront. It is not about the right to compensation it is about who decides what the compensation is, or isn't.

Burmah Oil v Lord Advocate confirms the eight hundred year right to reparation...but the War Damages Act subsequent that usurped that case re-asserts that it is Parliament alone that decides what it, the Parliament, will or will not compensate.

And in 1986 Lithgow v UK was the "Vosper" case where the owners took the UK Government to the ECJ as they were not satisfied with the compensation offered (again that compensation is a right under UK Law isn't disputed by me) which was "Government Bonds and Securities". Lithgow was about whether the UK Parliament alone could decide the level of compensation which went to the ECJ as the House of Lords, I understand, had upheld that Parliament alone could decide.

The ECJ has increasingly, as I understand, begun to lessen the scope of a national Parliament to do that...to set their own level of compensation or, indeed, no compensation. So the ECJ has moved beyond Lithgow v UK with cases such as Papachelas v Greece. That despite particular local (national) circumstances that, nevertheless, compensation must, at least, be proportionate.

So I do not believe that now the restrictive compensation terms of the 1988 rifle ban...nothing for the trade..would be allowed by the ECJ regardless of how a UK Parliament tried to dress them up as being a special local circumstance.

But irrespective of that we will lose the immediate remedy of using our European Firearms Pass to freely take our guns out of the UK to another EU country to pre-empt the passing into law of another ban before even any Parliamentary Bill proposing a ban is even drawn up.

AFAIR we didn't have this in 1988, nor 1996, so couldn't easily and without formalities, lock stock and barrel take our guns to, say Belgium or France of elsewhere. Either to then sell or to store.

The EFP at least means that if May, or Corbyn, announces a proposed ban at a Party Conference that we can take the next ferry or Eurostar to Europe and place our guns there at a moments's notice out of reach of such a ban. So taking them out of the reach of the Home Office even before it begins then to draft the legislation to ban them.

 

[JTO]

Deleted

 

[mealiejimmy]

Have a look at the post in its entirety. Removing support says 2 things, that the deal has been broken and that perhaps GP's and the police are not the best people to make an assessment of this sorts. How does a brief assessment/statement qualify as proper factual input, and if GP's are not the 'experts' in this assessment process then by elimination surely the police are then acting in this capacity? Is that correct and is that reasonable? It could also be argued that by throwing a spanner in the works GP's are not acting in a socially responsible manner - puts the BMA on the defensive instead of us for a change. So if we reject these two bodies as being qualified to assess it raises the bar towards more specialised assessment. This might be seen as excessive, so why not have BASC actually challenge the definition of a Chief Officer being satisfied. We might win, we might not, but at least we'll have tried rather than sitting around bleating AND the mess of who pays what where when and why will have been resolved to boot. It is quite clear that the parties presently involved in developing the current system cannot reach an mutually agreable position.

I have an e mail from inspector in the firearms licensing in Police Scotland which states that their definition of "satisfied" is "Full assurance or certainty".
I have looked long and hard for that definition and can find it nowhere, and when I asked PS where they got it from they did not reply.
As you correctly say, the word "satisfied" has been in the firearms Act since 1920 and it's meaning cannot have changed. In fact, I think giving it a definition is a mistake, it should be left undefined in the same way as "reasonable doubt" in criminal trials.
I think that if there was a legal challenge to the current PS policy of no "GP letter = No certificate", that the PS definition of "satisfied" is something on which a good QC would rip them to shreds.

Cheers

Bruce

 

[Tom D]

I think your second point is certainly valid - and the greater empasis on the GP's role might worsen this, which was in fact already a concern before the recent debacle.

With respect to the first point, I agree there is discrimination - but it is important to note that it us very clearly not originating from the GPs.
IMO the discrimination, agreed to by the BASC and Home Office, is in the form of the liability for unspecified costs for medical reports incurred by applicants suffering from, or with a history of, particular health problems.

I do not think it is inappropriate that the FLD should request further information on the health of people with such problems. It is certainly not inappropriate for medical practitioners to charge fees for work not otherwise funded as part of their contact.

However, the idea that an applicant with a particular medical history might have to pay several hundred pounds more that someone without that history, just for the completion of a regulatory process for which they've already paid the statutory fee: that, to me seems to be discrimination.

I think you’re spot on here, one of the things that makes our gun laws in this country so effective at preventing shootings with legally held weapons is the proper assessment of an applicants mental health. These checks definitely should be taking place, anyone with any history of mental illness or who is taking prescription medication for a psychological disorder should be looked at very carefully. In the US a very high number of the mass shootings that have taken place have involved a shooter who was on some form of psychiatric medication. What should not happen however is for individuals to be charged excessively. There should be a flat rate across the country for the medical and that should cover all eventualities.

 

[finnbear270]

I think you’re spot on here, one of the things that makes our gun laws in this country so effective at preventing shootings with legally held weapons is the proper assessment of an applicants mental health. These checks definitely should be taking place, anyone with any history of mental illness or who is taking prescription medication for a psychological disorder should be looked at very carefully. In the US a very high number of the mass shootings that have taken place have involved a shooter who was on some form of psychiatric medication. What should not happen however is for individuals to be charged excessively. There should be a flat rate across the country for the medical and that should cover all eventualities.

All well and good generally, BUT why is it we always end up short changed?...... erratic time periods for processing, completely differing law interpretation county to county?, & Alice in wonderland at the helm!, OH! & almost (not in my own personal case)an ineffectual support from a fractured support system, why don’t / won’t they amalgamate?

 

[reloader54]

All well and good generally, BUT why is it we always end up short changed?...... erratic time periods for processing, completely differing law interpretation county to county?, & Alice in wonderland at the helm!, OH! & almost (not in my own personal case)an ineffectual support from a fractured support system, why don’t / won’t they amalgamate?

the law knows no other way to work, when stopped by cops as a youngster their opener was almost certainly "where are you going", "where have you been" followed by "empty your pockets" no crime had been committed but it was assumed "they knew the law of the land" so it became the norm to blindly obey, now there are too many who seem to think they can stop you from doing anything they like by simply applying their own interpretation of any laws, guidelines, including made up rules. who is the courts/juries likely to believe a well dressed officer of the law or someone for instance wears black leather, or has tattoos or shoots poor little animals or birds. of course "Real Criminals have Rights" and they know it.

 

[slider]

I think your second point is certainly valid - and the greater empasis on the GP's role might worsen this, which was in fact already a concern before the recent debacle.

With respect to the first point, I agree there is discrimination - but it is important to note that it us very clearly not originating from the GPs.
IMO the discrimination, agreed to by the BASC and Home Office, is in the form of the liability for unspecified costs for medical reports incurred by applicants suffering from, or with a history of, particular health problems.

I do not think it is inappropriate that the FLD should request further information on the health of people with such problems. It is certainly not inappropriate for medical practitioners to charge fees for work not otherwise funded as part of their contact.

However, the idea that an applicant with a particular medical history might have to pay several hundred pounds more that someone without that history, just for the completion of a regulatory process for which they've already paid the statutory fee: that, to me seems to be discrimination.

Dalua, I have no disagreement with those with mental health issues being looked into fully - in fact I fully support this. Where I do think GP are originating a problem is the practices that are refusing to co-operate at all.

 

[kes]

I think you’re spot on here, one of the things that makes our gun laws in this country so effective at preventing shootings with legally held weapons is the proper assessment of an applicants mental health. These checks definitely should be taking place, anyone with any history of mental illness or who is taking prescription medication for a psychological disorder should be looked at very carefully. In the US a very high number of the mass shootings that have taken place have involved a shooter who was on some form of psychiatric medication. What should not happen however is for individuals to be charged excessively. There should be a flat rate across the country for the medical and that should cover all eventualities.

I agree with the flat rate charge and nothing else in your post. The bit about 'proper assessment of mental health' is a travesty -in my humble opinion. Hamilton was a paedophile and obviously a sado- masochist, from the treatment of boys in his care. He received a licence because the police allowed it, despite a recommendation from a member of the authorising force that he was 'unsuitable'. Her decision, the only police person to see him, was overruled.
Bird was hardly normal and was showing noticeable signs of paranoia - nothing done to take his guns.
Raul Moat (Durham) was given his guns back in contravention of standard police recommendation - by the police.
Ryan was 'schizophrenic and psychotic' according to a doctor at Broadmoor, AFTER the shootings for which there is no adequate explanation still. He would not have been diagnosed.
So, medical evidence affects less than 1 % of renewals/grant and further medical investigation is unlikely to affect the possibilty of another event. Currently, in England a medical is not paid for by the applicant - changing the system of payment wont make the slightest difference except to change the person who pays.
The police need better training although ost of the older FLO's know what to look for but are failed by the system at HQ.
I would do anything beneficial to stop another massacre in this country - IF THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT COULD BE DONE. This proposed change is not it.
You either take away our freedom to shoot at all, not far off in my opinion, or you constantly test and update your assessment systems and make individuals who issue certificates responsible. Medicals haven't found a single mass murderer authorised to hold firearms.
Just my opinion which I have rather carefully researched.

So