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

Found this while trying to look up the BBC story about the Durham "trial" of making applicants pay for medical reports they're not meant to be paying for.

http://www.cddlmc.org.uk/firearm-shotgun-licences/

You will be aware of the challenges that have faced GPs with the current process and the pilot hopes to address these difficulties. The essential change in the process is that all applicants will submit their completed application to their GP. The GP will then confirm/correct/amplify the applicant’s medical history and gain consent from the applicant to share information with the licensing authority. A fee can be charged for this work and will be payable by the applicant directly to the GP. Once this process is complete the GP will then post the entire application to the licensing authority.

This is dangerous and worrying. Why should FAC/SGC applications and renewals be "confirmed" by a GP? Why do these doctors think they are the first port of call for applicants, not the licensing authority established by statute? What controls are there over data generated by doctors in relation to FAC/SGC applications, or to prevent them from accessing inappropriate information, e.g. locations of secure storage, quantity of ammunition, etc.

I'm assuming all GPs are fully security cleared?

Isn't it absolutely amazing how far organisations are prepared to go to cover up their failings / blatent incompetencies!
So now it's our fault as shooters that they (Durham Constabulary) didn't perform their respective duties relating to firearm licencing and monitoring of the same.
Time for a petition methinks highlighting all the salient facts and indicating clearly to Joe Public that we already comply fully with all the requirements demanded by the licencing authorities. These additional requirements won't make the public any safer. That will only happen if Durham Constabulary do their jobs properly and stop blaming everyone else for their failings.



Mezzer

Mezzer wrote:Isn't it absolutely amazing how far organisations are prepared to go to cover up their failings / blatent incompetencies!
So now it's our fault as shooters that they (Durham Constabulary) didn't perform their respective duties relating to firearm licencing and monitoring of the same.
Time for a petition methinks highlighting all the salient facts and indicating clearly to Joe Public that we already comply fully with all the requirements demanded by the licencing authorities. These additional requirements won't make the public any safer. That will only happen if Durham Constabulary do their jobs properly and stop blaming everyone else for their failings.



Mezzer

If CSP were willing to threaten families who have just had their child murdered to cover their backs, a bit of red tape doesn't come up to much.

I presume this measure is being suggested to ensure that applicants aren't lying about/omitting anything on their application form under the medical section that may jeopardise their certificate. On the face of it i don't think that its a bad idea, however rather than get the applicant to send their application to the GP, risking its loss, compromise of sensitive information, incurring the cost, and without doubt delaying the application (and for the vast majority of people completely unnecessarily so), why don't the police just ring the GP and ask them if the applicant has anything in their recent medical history that is of concern?? Or is that just too much like common sense?

FEO: Hello Dr xxxxx, this is Durham Constabulary FLD, Mr Blackstuff who is registered with your surgery has applied for a renewal of his FAC and i need to check his medical history. In the last 5 years has he ever had treatment for any mental disorder, including depression, or developed any physical impairment that would make operating a firearm in a safe manner a problem?
Dr: No.
FEO: Thank you for your time. (All 2 minutes of it)

:cool2:

FEO: Hello Dr xxxxx, this is xxxxxxxx Constabulary FLD, Mr Blackstuff who is registered with your surgery has applied for a renewal of his FAC...
Dr: Well, I'm against people having guns so I won't be signing it...

This has been in place for almost a year, the article and related documents linked to above is from August 2013.

Since that time somewhere between 30 and 50% of applicants have refused to submit the extra report, none (as far as anyone knows) has been refused because of this.

The scheme is not being rolled out nation wide (despite Durhams claims) and BASC, who are in talks with ACPO, the Home Office etc. have said that ACPO are writing to all forces to remind them that requests for a GPs report should not be made for all applications, only where information supplied by the applicant or that has became apparent during the background checks indicate that it would be required.

There's yet another thread running on Pigeon Watch about this, http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/ ... l-reports/

SevenSixTwo wrote:FEO: Hello Dr xxxxx, this is xxxxxxxx Constabulary FLD, Mr Blackstuff who is registered with your surgery has applied for a renewal of his FAC...
Dr: Well, I'm against people having guns so I won't be signing it...

They wouldn't be signing anything, just interrogating their computer to the applicants medical history for the past 5 years which I'm 99% sure they have a duty to provide to the police. The GPs opinion of private firearms ownership would have no bearing unless there was a 'red flag' medical condition.

Blackstuff wrote:

SevenSixTwo wrote:FEO: Hello Dr xxxxx, this is xxxxxxxx Constabulary FLD, Mr Blackstuff who is registered with your surgery has applied for a renewal of his FAC...
Dr: Well, I'm against people having guns so I won't be signing it...

They wouldn't be signing anything, just interrogating their computer to the applicants medical history for the past 5 years which I'm 99% sure they have a duty to provide to the police. The GPs opinion of private firearms ownership would have no bearing unless there was a 'red flag' medical condition.

... on request from the police. Durham seem to be trying to get a GP's report issued for every single application, which is well out of order.

Officious, petulant, officials need to be put in their place & given a good slapping in the process. If there's one thing I hate more than an anti-gun whining plank of a person, its these jobsworth, officious, types. Most of them are little Hitlers in the making.

It's not just Durham, so far Durham, Warwickshire/West Mercia and I believe North Wales are "piloting" this scheme.

As well as the usual background checks on applicants both Durham and North Wales are also doing "intelligence packs" which include looking at their social media sites amongst other things.