The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

We ADDED 5000 and left the existing holding as was.

Technically that should give us 5000 more than we had before, but they may choose to DELETE our previous holding. It'll be interesting to see...

Which moron or collection of morons have thought that sending a letter to my GP advising the whole world that I have renewed my FAC is a good idea? ACPO? The Home Office?

What's the purpose of this letter when the police can access my medical records anyway?

Is their collective IQ inversely proportional to the numbers in the room?

Isn't this something that the so-called National Governing Bodies should be protecting us from?

Someone remind me why I'm an existing member of the NRA?

I quote "The new process has benefitted from substantial input from the National Governing Bodies through the British Shooting Sports Council and although still rather cumbersome is a considerable improvement."

Really?

My issue is this idiotic missive to the GP. Has anyone thought about how this data is going to be received and stored at your GP?

Who's vetted the GP and all their staff? Have these morons who signed up to this legislation considered data loss? The NHS is well known for not securing data.

Furthermore, if your GP is anything like mine then you may as well advertise to every unauthorised person in the local press as all the receptionists are gossiping bints and staff change all the time.

Perhaps the greatest threat to our sport is not diminishing access to ranges but the so-called National Governing Bodies themselves if this is an example of them securing the future of my sport.

What he said.................

H/man

What pees me off is the fact that I have been shooting more years than I care to remember and the first I know of this is when I read it on a shooting forum oh and apparently my licencing office moved to a new building two month ago so all the buying and selling info I have been handing in to Police headquarters for the attention of fire arms licencing could be any were in the old building. I have just put in for a variation using the new form if this goes through with out chew I will be amazed the forms are pap. They look like they have been knocked up in Microsoft excel by a twelve year old.

lapua338 wrote:Which moron or collection of morons have thought that sending a letter to my GP advising the whole world that I have renewed my FAC is a good idea? ACPO? The Home Office?

As it's sensitive information I assume all GP surgery staff with access to our records have passed, at least, a CRB. Although I'd prefer if they had to pass SC or similar, I'm not sure some of them could manage filling in the forms.
I'm not sure the HO/Police understand that this information could easily get into the wrong hands, as medical records are inherently insecure, especially with every surgery now able to choose their software provider and staff probably not being vetted properly, certainly not to the level we are to be granted an FAC.

Unless this is a ploy to go for more restrictions, hoping that some Doris in a GP's somewhere lets her scrote boyfriend know the potential whereabouts of of guns 'n ammo, he then robs the place and kills someone with a legally owned firearm, or the owner of said firearm ventilates said scrote. This can all then be blamed on the maniacal psychos who own WOMD.

I've just received one of the new types of FACs, mine was on six sides, crikey! The information is the same but the font is bigger, possibly to reflect the aging population. tongueout On the upside there is now a full page for ammunition purchased.

From the British Medical Association website:

Post-grant letter sent to GPs

To improve information sharing between the medical profession and the police with regards to firearms, the BMA reached an agreement with the Association of Chief Police Officers that the police will notify a GP (by letter) if any of their patients have been issued or reissued with a certificate, asking if they have any concerns about their suitability to hold a weapon,

We are aware the current system of obtaining information is causing concern for GPs. The BMA and ACPO are looking for a longer and more enduring solution, however owing to the current legislation governing firearms licensing this will take longer than initially expected.

In the interim the BMA has agreed that the letters will continue to be sent out to doctors. Doctors are reminded that they are under no obligation to respond to these letters, but should they decide not to, doctors should inform the police as it will otherwise be assumed that there is nothing relevant on the medical record.

Where doctors are happy to respond to these letters, consent to the disclosure of any information should be sought as the letter does not currently indicate that consent has been given. If the patient does not consent to disclosure, this should ordinarily be respected, although the police must be informed to that effect. If, however, the doctor believes that the patient presents an immediate risk of serious harm to themselves or others, information should be disclosed even in the face of an explicit refusal.

Although the current letter from the police states that it does not have to be retained, the BMA has been advised that doctors can record the request for information in the medical record and indicate what action, if any, they have undertaken. We are seeking to change the wording of the letter to reflect this position.

More to the point... when did a GP become qualified to comment on an applicants suitability? I do not believe a GP is capable of making that judgement.

Any concerns should be supported by medical evidence (to be examined) provided by the GP and not based on someones "opinion".

It should be remembered that simply because a person has received treatment in the past for certain illnesses or conditions, such as depression or stress, it does not automatically follow that they are unfit to possess a firearm. It is simply one of the factors to be considered.

Congratulations National Governing Bodies! Splendid work on your input!

A lot of the GPs I know, and I do know a few, other than practice GPs, are adamant that no one is fit to own firearms.

I wouldn't trust a GP either to apply the subjectivity required for such a call.

There are individual doctors I would trust but the more I see of the profession, especially the younger doctors coming into medicine, the less integrity and responsibility there seems to come with them. It is getting harder and harder for me to respect our healers. They just seem to be in it for themselves, patients are a nuisance and vocation is misspelling of a holiday, sweeping generalisation and apologies to those medical practitioners to which it doesn't apply.

However having many relatives and friends working in medicine I see quiet a lot of them off duty and on a regular basis.

lapua338 wrote:
Congratulations National Governing Bodies! Splendid work on your input!

From the BSSC website - BSSC report 2012:

As reported in 2011, General Practitioner involvement in the firearms licensing process has continued to attract strong support in Government and police circles, while the shooting associations have remained concerned over data security in doctors’ surgeries, clarification of what is, and is not, expected of GPs and the cost implications of a process which was to be applied to every person granted a Firearm Certificate or Shot Gun Certificate. Following the meeting at the BMA in December 2011, BASC, which has been leading on this issue, had further discussions in 2012 with the police, Information Commissioner, BMA and General Medical Council, but little progress was made. GP involvement was also discussed at Practitioners Group Meetings.

I know that further discussion and input has taken place throughout this year. So the NGBs have been consistently objecting to this for more than 2 years. Given the opening sentence above, it is perhaps unsurprising that the view of the National Bodies, acting in concert through BSSC and using mainly the professional staff at BASC to actually make the input, has not prevailed.

Iain

I suppose that inability to influence is a reflection on the lack of credibility and clout our fractured national organisations have with government and its instruments.