Firearms for defensive purposes? - A good link

[12mp82]

I think it is down to how you interpret Access, I interpret it as asking a Doctor if you have any medical condition that would exclude you from owning a shotgun/firearm, the Doctor looks at your medical records and says "no" or "Yes" and that is the access to the information they require for your application, they don't need to know if you have ingrowing toe nails, a back ache or bad acne as a kid as it isn't in their remit.

It would all be done in writting rather than a phone call so only the FLO gets to see anything.

[redskies]

I think it is down to how you interpret Access, I interpret it as asking a Doctor if you have any medical condition that would exclude you from owning a shotgun/firearm, the Doctor looks at your medical records and says "no" or "Yes" and that is the access to the information they require for your application, they don't need to know if you have ingrowing toe nails, a back ache or bad acne as a kid as it isn't in their remit.

It would all be done in writting rather than a phone call so only the FLO gets to see anything.

Mmm, very open to interpretation, and, as I have said before, open to abuse. If SPINE had gone ahead, we would have been opted out of it - and that system was designed to share medical records with the police, social services, pharmacists and a whole host of other government agencies. My contact with several of them has done nothing to encourage me to trust them; rather the opposite, in fact!

Access is direct contact by my definition in this context. ''Allow the police access to'' - doesn't mention contacting your GP (mine doesn't know me anyway; seen her twice in the six years since we moved here!), by letter or phone, it states, flatly, that you would be allowing the police to access your medical records.


(I presume that means the digital copies, and they'll be scuppered there, because I wrote the appropriate letters to have our records only kept on paper. If I find out there's digital copies, there will be hell to pay!)

[12mp82]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /44706.htm

Those applying for a certificate must complete a form which asks them to declare any criminal convictions and supply details of relevant medical conditions and of their GP, provide two references (or counter-signatories in the case of shotguns) and a £50 fee.[69] Some 1% of new applications for firearm certificates and 2% of new applications for shotgun certificates were refused in 2008/09.[70] In considering applications, officers will visit the applicant's home to check storage arrangements, and may follow up any concerns about the medical information provided with the applicant's GP.

An interesting bit about hand guns in the US as an aside

We were interested to hear, as a comparison, the details of the registration process for handguns implemented by the authorities in Washington DC after their ban on handguns was overturned in 2008. Applicants are required to:

Submit fingerprints for a national criminal background check and for identification purposes.
Submit the handguns subject to the registration process to the police department for a ballistics identification procedure. If a crime is later committed with a firearm and that firearm has been registered, it can then be traced back to the individual who put the gun up for registration.
Take at least an hour of firearms training at a firing range and at least four hours of classroom instruction and then complete a test to show a significant familiarity with the laws pertaining to firearms as well as vision tests.
Undergo a background check (carried out once every six years).
Registration must be renewed every three years. If the gun is sold, lost or destroyed, that information must be given to the police department.[71]

Back to the UK

PROPOSALS FOR GREATER INVOLVEMENT OF MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS IN THE LICENSING PROCESS

56. During our inquiry, we heard about the current complexities of the licensing system. It was evident that there is a lack of clarity between the licensing authorities and the medical profession as to who is ultimately responsible for assessing the fitness of a person to hold a firearms licence. An applicant for a firearm or shotgun certificate must provide their firearms licensing department with the authority to approach their GP for medical information. Applicants are obliged to provide a number of medical details, including whether they suffer from any "medical condition or disability including alcohol and drug related conditions". They also have to make a declaration as to whether or not they have ever suffered from epilepsy or been treated for "depression or any other kind of mental or nervous disorder". Licensing officers only usually approach GPs for information when there are "genuine doubts" about the applicant's medical history which might have a bearing on their suitability to possess firearms. Where police do require additional information, the British Medical Association (BMA) advises that requests should be limited to specific factual issues and that requests for access to the applicant's entire medical record should not normally be agreed to.[82] Dr John Canning, giving evidence on behalf of the BMA, stated that GPs are "not very often" asked to provide medical evidence, but it does happen "from time to time".[83]
57. If a doctor subsequently becomes concerned about a patient who owns a firearm, the guidance on the BMA website states that "doctors should be prepared to breach confidence and inform the appropriate authorities if necessary".[84] Professor Vivienne Nathanson, also representing the BMA, confirmed that a doctor's duty of confidentiality is "never absolute". She believed that, if a doctor judges that an individual poses a risk of serious harm to themselves or others, they would be confident of the need to tell the authorities in a position to do something about it. She compared the issue to the more prevalent one of a doctor telling the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority that a patient is no longer safe to drive a vehicle, if the patient refuses to give up his licence.[85] Professor John Ashton, Director of Public Health for Cumbria, suggested that it may be more appropriate for specially-appointed doctors to play a role in licensing, rather than applicants' GPs, who may feel compromised in discussing their own patients.[86]

Then from the BASC website

Also see ques 15a to 15c

Question 16
This may seem an intrusion into your privacy but you must complete it if you want the
application to be processed. In fact it is not as bad as might first appear because it only
gives the police authority to approach your Doctor for "factual details" of your medical
history. They should not ask the Doctor for an opinion as to your fitness to possess
shotguns, nor are they allowed access to your medical records. The Home Office suggest
that Doctors will need to be contacted only where there are genuine doubts about the
applicant’s health; also that if the Doctor makes a charge for supplying information, the
police must pay it.

Sorry it is a lot of quoted information, but it is needed to clarify the position

[redskies]

So where did you get the quote you put up in your thread?


Also, the phrases used wrt to the police having access to an entire medical record and how often it happens are very open to interpretation. And, in the sort of community I live in, might not even be formally recorded.

Sorry, I don't trust em. Not the police, nor yet the BMA. I take GP's as I find them, but regulatory bodies tend to be about as useful as the average chocolate teapot.

As I said, I'd be happy to have a psych eval. Yearly. But no, they're not getting access to my GP or my medical records or any portion thereof.

[12mp82]

So where did you get the quote you put up in your thread?

Which one?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /44706.htm

Or

Then from the BASC website

http://www.basc.org.uk/

http://www.basc.org.uk/en/utilities/search-website.cfm

[redskies]

Ah, just gone and looked; it was from just shooting. I'm talking about this one - viewtopic.php?f=26&t=6245 but got it now.

[12mp82]

If I can I put a link back to where I get information, it makes it much easier for people to cross reference what I am saying so they can go and check for themselves.

[Triple_sod]

Nope, I still don't get it.......

At the end of the day, if a copper has it in for you to the point where they're prepared to bend rules and abuse power....you're pretty much f*cked
What is it, every time you get behind the wheel of a car you inadvertently break around 5 laws just driving from A to B...chalk em up.


and ‘Yearly psych evaluation’ as an preferable alternative?

[redskies]

I don't trust em. I don't assume they'll do anything. But I don't trust them to do what they should.


As for a yearly psych eval related to owning a firearm; why not? It's completely seperate to the rest of your medical records and can be tailored specifically. I'm not especially fond of trick cyclists either, but that sort of thing would be far easier to keep some sort of accurate records on.

[Triple_sod]

As for a yearly psych eval related to owning a firearm; why not? It's completely seperate to the rest of your medical records and can be tailored specifically. I'm not especially fond of trick cyclists either, but that sort of thing would be far easier to keep some sort of accurate records on.

Well to be honest I've never had one and I don't know much about them, (by which I mean nothing), and yet it all sounds pretty arbitrary and even more open to abuse or at least manipulation than the current system, not to mention expensive, who'd foot the bill? £200+ SGC anyone?

…and what happens when someone ‘passes’ the evaluation then goes out and shoots a few people or even just themselves….only for it to later emerge they had a long history of mental illness.

It’d probably be a case of,

‘right we'll keep the evaluation, but now also have full and continuous access to medical records.....oh and need to interview family members, partners, ex-partners as well’

Or we could just live with the fear that PC Plod might be asking the doctor questions he really shouldn’t be….that they aren’t even obligated to answer.