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

That the checks are considered necessary is fair enough.

The argument that its for public safety and so it should be funded as such, seems reasonable but will get support from nobody except FAC holders, so we’re going to pay.

My objection is that in all this the fee we are expected to pay has not been set. Seeing as the example from kent asks about your whole medical history, perhaps there would be a higher fee for the first check, at which point its marked on your file, then subsequent checks would only be the previous 5 years (since last check) and as such be cheaper. Leaving the cost to be determined by individual surgeries makes it all too random. If on nothing else the national bodies should take a stance on the fee structure.

Under GDPR your GP practice has to provide you with a copy of your medical history on request without charge (Art 15 para 3 GDPR).

Might as well take advantage of the law of unintended consequences while it is available.

Good evening Iain , the information from kent police includes a template letter for the applicant to pass to their GP. This states that a print out of the applicants medical history is not acceptable. So negates that option.

https://www.kent.police.uk/getmedia/1c3 ... etter.docx

So is it the “paying for it” thing that is the issue?

It is !, and there is no fixed fee therefore they can charge what the bloody hell they wanted, what boils my pish is that if I wanted my nads chopped off because "I identified as a eunuch" I could get that done for free whether I had paid any national insurance or not, so as not to hurt my feelings, but this is forced on us against home office guidelines and we have to foot the bill.

artiglio wrote:Good evening Iain , the information from kent police includes a template letter for the applicant to pass to their GP. This states that a print out of the applicants medical history is not acceptable. So negates that option.

https://www.kent.police.uk/getmedia/1c3 ... etter.docx

Which takes the biscuit as like my Drs I see somebody different each time I go as there is only 1 fulltime GP the rest are locums so they would have to study your medical records to know what history you have, long gone are the days of having a local GP for life that you could see the same day you phoned up, our last surgery you didn't even get to see a Dr on your emergency appointment, you were seen by a nurse practioner who would assess you.
Sort of reminds me when I had to get a letter signed by the Dr for a diving course I was doing, he openly admitted I have no knowledge of diving and don't know what some of the questions relate to, he was still happy to take his fee though.

Hi Sim, yep cost, I don’t think anyone can argue about checks on medical history, ( though there needs to an appeal procedure where someone feels they’ve been refused on what they believe are poor grounds)
But to leave a pricing structure to individual GP’s/surgeries leaves too much scope for revenue raising and pricing due to “beliefs around firearm ownership”.
As a condition of licensing mandated by guidance/legislation then there should be a pricing structure. Ideally built into the application fee and so much for the initial grant and less for a renewal as that only requires a review of last 5 years.
A pricing structure is justifiable under the public safety argument. Also does it need to be done by a GP ? A nurse practioner or similar would be able to review a full history and if need be refer any queries to a doctor.
Without proper guidance/pricing the whole thing’ll be a dogs dinner.

I'm against it all to be frank. From the questionable payment scales to the questionable medical grounds. And, like an MOT, the opinion of the doctor is only valid until the person walks out of the door. Thereafter anything could happen health-wise in the next five years. Not that the doctor can be held accountable should his or her judgement prove incorrect. The only thing this measure will produce is a generation of shooters who will either not seek treatment in the first place or who will view every question their GP puts to them as a potential pitfall and lie accordingly. And, of course, there are an awful lot of people that haven't seen their doctors for years because they only go when they feel they have a serious enough illness to warrant the week / two week long appointment.
And just for the record - no I don't want to be one of those oft cited 'members of the responsible shooting community' that can be relied upon to be compliant in the docile piecemeal destruction of our sport over a decades long schedule. I may have to accept it but I'm not going to be a cheerleader for it. It's just another largely ineffective piece of window dressing for the "should be a law against it" brigade. Well, fudge 'em.

There was a perfectly adequate system in place, including the opinion of your GP, for FAC applications long before Hungerford and Dunblane which worked just fine - until some members of the police failed to act on the safeguards within the system and the rest is history.

It's just capitalism in action, guys, the tory mantra:"market forces".................
I bet a lot of the whingers on here would jump at the chance to trouser a few extra quid if they were in the same situation as the GP's.
They're just taking advantage of circumstances occasioned by totally incompetent government.

Pete

Dark Skies wrote:I'm against it all to be frank. From the questionable payment scales to the questionable medical grounds. And, like an MOT, the opinion of the doctor is only valid until the person walks out of the door. Thereafter anything could happen health-wise in the next five years. Not that the doctor can be held accountable should his or her judgement prove incorrect. The only thing this measure will produce is a generation of shooters who will either not seek treatment in the first place or who will view every question their GP puts to them as a potential pitfall and lie accordingly. And, of course, there are an awful lot of people that haven't seen their doctors for years because they only go when they feel they have a serious enough illness to warrant the week / two week long appointment.
And just for the record - no I don't want to be one of those oft cited 'members of the responsible shooting community' that can be relied upon to be compliant in the docile piecemeal destruction of our sport over a decades long schedule. I may have to accept it but I'm not going to be a cheerleader for it. It's just another largely ineffective piece of window dressing for the "should be a law against it" brigade. Well, fudge 'em.

There was a perfectly adequate system in place, including the opinion of your GP, for FAC applications long before Hungerford and Dunblane which worked just fine - until some members of the police failed to act on the safeguards within the system and the rest is history.

clapclap clapclap

Pete wrote:It's just capitalism in action, guys, the tory mantra:"market forces".................
I bet a lot of the whingers on here would jump at the chance to trouser a few extra quid if they were in the same situation as the GP's.
They're just taking advantage of circumstances occasioned by totally incompetent government.

Pete

Ok, settle down comrade! This whole mess was inevitable as soon as the principle of 'full cost recovery' was established, which i seem to remember many shooters and all (except perhaps the CA) cheering along to

As has been said many times before, this is an arse covering exercise simply so when the next 'legally' owned gun massacre happens, fingers can't be pointed at officialdom. Not that they should be bothered as its never brought any chickens home to roost in the past <cough>Hungerford<cough>Dunblane<cough>Horden....