Medical Reports for Firearms

I’m all in favour of firearms cert holders with serious mental health issues or suicidal tendancies being brought to the attention of the FLD, but the worrying thing is that for some of these people, shooting sports are their only salvation... like a coping mechanism, something to look forward to at the weekend. Take this away and you have a recipe for disaster.
 
I've been a member of SD for a while now and have mostly lurked and posted a bit. I am aware it is a public forum so need to be suitably candid.

I am a GP and recently had my firearms certs renewed so thought I would share my thoughts as this has cropped up a few times causing lots of worry for both Doctors and the shooting community especially from the point of view of mental health problems and how they may be perceived. It has also given me pause for thought. I think the firearms teams have a difficult job with this in all fairness and have always found my local teams to be a reasonable and sensible bunch. They have pressure from above and the BMA and BASC have tried to represent doctors and shooters respectively as best they can.

A lot of it boils down to trust in the motives behind the legislation from the Government and how the information is to be used by the firearms teams. There also seems to be some misunderstanding and misgivings by Doctors when completing the paperwork

My main worry is that people in the shooting community may not come to see their Doctor with a treatable mental or physical health condition early on as they are worried about losing/not getting their license. This could then lead to the illness worsening to the point were their health suffers and they or others could come to harm as a result, or ironically become so bad that they would then have to give up their license.

The physical and psychological aspects of any type of shooting make it a protective and desirable hobby to have for a lot of mental and physical health problems. When feeling frazzled I can think of nowhere else that I would rather be than on top of a mountain concentrating on nothing else but my quarry, or the sky, or whatever else I choose to enjoy rather than ruminating negative thoughts.....

GP's and firearms owners have both been subject to knee jerk legislation. We can't predict which firearms owner will "go postal" and randomly start shooting folk no more than we can predict which Doctor will be the next Harold Shipman.

However, professionally, I do think it is useful to know that a suicidal patient has access to firearms. Access to an effective and successful means to kill yourself massively increases the risk of a completed suicide attempt. The suicide rate decreased when town gas was replaced by natural gas for example.

To be fair this argument about means holds true in other situations. In domestic violence one of the risk reduction strategies is to remove sharp knives from the drawers, suicidal airline pilots aren't allowed to fly. Also, It is actually quite tricky to (deliberately) kill yourself with a car nowadays too. It makes interesting philosophical discussion for sure.

Likewise we look after patients who may develop dementia, seizures or other illnesses that could cause them trouble handling a firearm or driving. Again, knowing they have access to firearms or motor vehicle is useful to both us and the police in keeping with the arrangements for HGV drivers, taxi drivers and airline pilots; who would want to be driven on a bus by a driver who had recently developed blackouts or seizures? I certainly would want to be in a hide with someone who may have a seizure and blow my head off either.

Having said that I would love to go shooting with a friend who was feeling low in mood or anxious in the hope it would help them feel better at least for a while

If you have wondered why some GP's are worried, it is difficult. The form is asking for a list of factual statements about certain illnesses and lifestyle choices. The local form asks clear questions like "are there is any mental health/stress related problems" but there was a sentence "anything else you feel is relevant?" or words to that effect which I can see would make many Doctors nervous as this is asking for an opinion. Would you be prepared to sign such an open ended statement? They have made it clear they have their own medical officer who makes the decision on issuing the license but I'm sure many GP's feel they could be held liable in the case of an adverse event despite reassurances to the contrary. Again this is no different to the other private forms and medicals we do so I'm not entirely sure this worry is justified.

The DVLA has crystal clear guidelines on many licenses and illnesses but the same doesn't exist for firearms as yet which is another source of discomfort.

Some GP's take the "bargepole" approach and either charge a ridiculous price, or refuse full stop. That is allowed as these forms are private work and not part of the NHS contract. I feel this is a gross over reaction as we already do similar work e.g. Taxi medicals with no problems commenting on mental health problems and drugs or alcohol. I reckon it is lack of understanding that drives this sort of behaviour rather than anti-shooting opinions of Doctors.

Loads more that can be discussed but wanted to give my perspective-it is a double edged sword and I completely understand why doctors and patients feel nervous about the legislation but hope it doesn't lead to unnecessary ill health and stresses as a result

Happy to discuss - these are my own views and I only represent myself :old:

ken
I suspect that the question that the FLD would really like answered is if the applicant is going to become mentally unstable during the 5 year lifetime of the certificate. It would be great if the medical profession would give the authorities an honest appraisal of what they are realistically capable of diagnosing.
 
I suspect that the question that the FLD would really like answered is if the applicant is going to become mentally unstable during the 5 year lifetime of the certificate.
I've no doubt the FLDs would like that very much. However I'm sure that whatever the GPs are being asked, it must be clear to both the GPs and the FLD that anything beyond giving a medical opinion at the time of writing based on the actual contents of the GP's notes would require a level clairvoyance that not even a forensic psychiatrist would claim to be able to exercise.
I'm very much in favour of the GP being asked at grant/renewal about the specifed conditions - indeed, I've signed with every renewal to allow the FLD to contact my GP for exactly that purpose - but the limits of that exercise have to be acknowledged.

BUT who should pay?
That really is the key question on which the organisations have let us down: from the perspective of the established practice of the administration of the Firearms Act since 1920, the payment for whatever is required must be made by the FLD. As the cost of the application process to the applicant is set by statute, the current practice of making the applicant liable for additional costs is inimical to the intention of the Act, and should be denounced as such.

If the involvement of GPs and/or other medical practitioners is indeed valuable to public safety (as the Home Office maintains), then the means to pay for that involvement must be made available to to the FLDs by the HO.
 
Last edited:
So, applications are governed by statute, why are plod ignoring the fact that they are applying external rules unapproved by the same statute frameworks, & why are these extra rules not being challenged by judicial review?
I asked basc why they continue to pursue a political solution to this when it is clearly not effective. The response was that their advice set out that the chief constable had broad ranging power under the firearms act, hence a judicial review would not be a worthwhile pursuit.
 
So, applications are governed by statute, why are plod ignoring the fact that they are applying external rules unapproved by the same statute frameworks, & why are these extra rules not being challenged by judicial review?
My understanding of our constitution is that parliament makes our laws and in respect of firearms licensing the police administer it with the assistance of HO guidance. On the face of it the police are usurping the sovereignty of parliament by adding a compulsory medical reference, so why haven't the shooting orgs taken this up with the Police & Crime Commissioners?
 
I asked basc why they continue to pursue a political solution to this when it is clearly not effective. The response was that their advice set out that the chief constable had broad ranging power under the firearms act, hence a judicial review would not be a worthwhile pursuit.
They need to think again but the P&C Commissioners route might be worth following up.
 
Kent

post 495 has the response to his complaint to the IOPC

Edit, sorry I misread your post earlier and you referred to the Police & Crime Commissioners, not the IOPC
 
Last edited:
Here’s a question that possibly needs clarification. If you hold an FAC and SGC and they are NOT coterminous will we be required to pay for a GP report twice?
Rgds
RS
 
You can only complain about the chief constable via the police crime commissioner and then the appeal is via the IOPC.
My complaint was recorded by the Kent PCC as a local resolution complaint and investigated by an inspector working for the PCC however at no time during the process was I consulted about the information fed to the inspector by the firearms manager.
Once you are given the complain response you have no right of response or appeal other than to the IOPC.
However the IOPC appeal is only regarding the process followed not the conclusion of the complaint.
In my case Kent police concluded that any GP can access an individuals completed medical records without the applicants permission and via a national central database. Significant parts of the report looked very much like they had been written by the firearms manager and the inspector took that as factually correct.

Both are totally wrong no GP can access your medical records especially for non direct medical use without your consent not even 111 or a hospital can do so.
Their is no national central database, NHS digital confirmed that, may be in 2025 if the government pays for it but not today your records are held by your registered GP practice on their servers, your GP is the data controller under GDPR.

But hell why would the police let facts stop them.

Currently I have my local MP on the case who has written to Priti Patel.
 
Here’s a question that possibly needs clarification. If you hold an FAC and SGC and they are NOT coterminous will we be required to pay for a GP report twice?
Rgds
RS
In theory no, but a friend who renewed his certificates eight months ago complete with GP report has recently moved house still within Kent and hence changed GP as part of his change of address process he has been asked to provide another GP report from his new GP. I ask you when will this madness stop. I told him to fight it but looks like he will just pay up again as to busy to want to waste time on it.
I guess this is because his new GP will not know he owns guns as transferring GP records can take awhile and no guarantee his old GP marked his records that he owns guns.
 
If anybody wants to try again I would be more than happy to help, learnt a lot from my failed attempt, one lesson was do not expect any help from basc.
 
Back
Top