Doctor wants me to attend a 'medical appointment' before completing police report form for renewal
- Thread starter C h r i s
- Start date
ContinShots
Well-Known Member
Medical records are frequently wrong (I worked for a medial charity and came across incorrect patient records very regularly), but they are also extremely hard to amend. I had an issue where an arrogant consultant included an incorrect line about me in a record that was patently untrue. That guy didn't even know who I was when I went in for one consultation and mixed me up with someone else entirely, until I realised and corrected him. I am certain the line he put in my records was about someone else too, but when I queried it and later challenged it, he outright refused to amend the records and there is nothing you can do (other than perhaps seek judicial review). I ended up agreeing with the health board that they would insert a record adjacent to it outlining that the patient disputed the accuracy of the line from the consultant and outlining my position on it. That was the best I could do. It was years before I applied for FAC or anything similar, so even if it did every come up, I can at least point to my 'correction' on file and show it was lodged long before I was trying to get FAC. But, back to the OP's point, I actually wouldn't be worried about the GP asking to see me before completing the form, that sounds line they're taking their job seriously and just wanting to avoid any issues.
I have as the police told me to book an appointment and it was fine.
eggy74
Well-Known Member
My G.P wanted to see me, but also wanted £185 for the privilege. I went with Shootcert (£90) and got a snotty text from my G.P's receptionist informing me they would wait 30 days before sending the info request to Shootcert and that the next time I ask for a F.O.I. request there would be a fee ! 
. They also cocked up the paperwork saying I had a neurological condition when it is neuropathic, Luckily i kept the discharge paperwork from my hospital visit and the F.E.O seemed happy.
. They also cocked up the paperwork saying I had a neurological condition when it is neuropathic, Luckily i kept the discharge paperwork from my hospital visit and the F.E.O seemed happy.
Of course the GP practice can refuse , they can also charge whatever they want OR refuse to do it no matter what . All of this tells what your practice priorities and attitude to their patients are of course.
I paid a bit more than my daughter who is only 18 and neither was a lot of money at all . Lucky to have a small very rural GP . Lets be fair we get 5 years of shooting from a cert , its likely the least expensive bit . I would not really want to certify anyone i didn't know well .
Still I do not agree with GP certification on the following grounds
. Will it create an issue if a shooter tries to muddle through a depression say ? Rather than nip it in the bud ? so it doesn't effect their shooting?
. Its not fair on the GP if they get it wrong and many practices dont really know all their patients especially in the large towns and cities.
However i do agree with marking of medical records to show the patient has firearms before they start certain treatments or referrals for certain treatments .
Its really the job of an FEO and the head of that firearms dept or chief / dept chief of police to make the call ( that is after all their job ) If they cannot pick up the rest its a training issue
I paid a bit more than my daughter who is only 18 and neither was a lot of money at all . Lucky to have a small very rural GP . Lets be fair we get 5 years of shooting from a cert , its likely the least expensive bit . I would not really want to certify anyone i didn't know well .
Still I do not agree with GP certification on the following grounds
. Will it create an issue if a shooter tries to muddle through a depression say ? Rather than nip it in the bud ? so it doesn't effect their shooting?
. Its not fair on the GP if they get it wrong and many practices dont really know all their patients especially in the large towns and cities.
However i do agree with marking of medical records to show the patient has firearms before they start certain treatments or referrals for certain treatments .
Its really the job of an FEO and the head of that firearms dept or chief / dept chief of police to make the call ( that is after all their job ) If they cannot pick up the rest its a training issue
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
Get it wrong?
GPs are asked to 'tick' a box on whether or not a patient/applicant has ever suffered from a list of issues.
They are not asked to give any opinion on anything - it is a basic factual report.
south-nofolk-stalker
Well-Known Member
If it’s included in the price, what’s the problem?
Only strengthens your application or renewal.
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
It shouldn't.
It is a simple (over complicated) process to try and filter out those who should not own firearms.
It follows on from several tragic events, (all well documented) whereby people have used 'lawfully' possessed firearms to commit murder.
It is a further 'check and balance', which (should) provide Police with additional information on whether or not, to grant/renew firearms ownership to people.
The costs are passed to the applicant and are 'postcode' dependant. Some get real VFM - others get shafted.
The GP is asked to identify 'historic' medical episodes that may have a bearing on one's suitability to possess firearms. No drama there.
My concern, my real concern, is that this process may prevent/deter folk seeking help for mental health issues, that may manifest themselves throughout one's lifetime. I have absolutely no doubt that folk will be dissuaded from seeking the help they need, for fear of losing their FAC/SGC. And therein lies the real tragedy.
There is another thread running which discuses Mental Health - it makes for powerful reading.
C h r i s
Well-Known Member
There is (was) no problem, I was just asking if this was the regular routine.
The GP just says the applicant had or doesn’t have any reportable issues.
They have little input other than that as far as I know.
Medcert or whatever don’t know you from the next punter ,it’s just yes or no tick box answers.
The police read , digest and decide from there , going off what I read on here and people I know well , it’s not an issue ,within reason.
As S1962 says , it’s more worrying to me that people who may need help , won’t stick their mitt up for fear of being no longer in ownership of firearms.
They have little input other than that as far as I know.
Medcert or whatever don’t know you from the next punter ,it’s just yes or no tick box answers.
The police read , digest and decide from there , going off what I read on here and people I know well , it’s not an issue ,within reason.
As S1962 says , it’s more worrying to me that people who may need help , won’t stick their mitt up for fear of being no longer in ownership of firearms.
I guess I'm shaken, because I dont know anything about your British gun violence statistics. Here in Norway we practically dont have any gun violence. I haven't checked the 2023 statistics yet, but in 2022 we had a total of 28 murders, and with all our guns and gun owners, firearms were used in only 3 of this. And one of this gun killings was actually a double homicide, so we had in reality only 2 episodes with gun violence. On was a hate crime towards guy people were an illegal old submachine gun was used, and in the other killing an illegal gun was also used in a gang shooting. So now gun laws or psychiatric screening could have prevented this killings.
Stalker62
Well-Known Member
There is nothing on God's green earth that can prevent 'unknown', 'unexpected' or 'unknowable' incidents - which will continue to happen.
The theory with this system is to identify folk who have had 'issues' with 'issues'. It is a 'look back' at a person's history. With the 'historical' medical records to hand, the Police can (should) be in a much better position to make an informed assessment of the applicant's suitability.
However.
It cannot predict an applicant's future health.
And whilst repetition does not make the point, my own concern is that it will/may prevent folk, from seeking help for upcoming mental/health issues, for fear of losing their FAC/SGC.
You are very lucky our GP doesn’t want to see us even when we are ill
Firearm discharges from lethal-barrelled weapons account for about 9% of firearm offences. About 40% of all reported discharges are against the person, with most of these resulting in an injury. Serious injury from firearms is low, and fatalities rare, with 26 deaths in 2022 - close to an all time low. Most firearms enabled serious violence continues to occur in London, West Midlands and the North West.
Urban street gang activity accounts for most firearm discharges, including those that result in injury. The key drivers for firearms enabled serious violence is the drugs trade, ‘turf wars’, criminal debt and feuds. Some of these criminal feuds are long-standing and result in periodic escalations of violence. Violence can be directed by criminals elsewhere, for example, abroad or in prison. Most victims are other criminals although sometimes innocent people are shot in cross-fire or in cases of mistaken identity.
IIRC, unable to locate the source, but of these fatalities it was only about three were by licensed firearms holders and even then they did not separate intentional, accidental or justified.
