Doctors signature for applications and license renewals

[hitchphil]

Hello
Can anybody throw any light on this one.
Greater Manchester Police are now insisting on a Doctors signature on your medical records to allow firearms ownership;
A club member has tried unsuccessfully to obtain a signature for a renewal, as the Doctor refused.
GMP licensing were unhelpful and insisted they needed the doctors signature or they could not process the application.
There suggestion was that he changed Doctors !!!!. I think that Lancashire and a force in the south of England have already adopted a similar approach. This situation may have serious ramifications for the shooting community.
I was not aware of this change in the Home office guidelines to police forces.....

https://medcert.co.uk/ cheaper than most doctors from what i hear, but if my Doc refused then i would move surgery as every patient brings a financial contribution sum to their surgery so i would not help fund a Dr that does that. - if he finds a Dr that will then my advice is to publish that locally so other FAC SGC holders can move there too.

[DaveT]

1066 is bang on right.

Add to all the rest the ban on field firing ranges, spurious safety concerns at Rogiet moor , the 7.62 suspension, handgun ban etc etc....we are probably on cut 800 ex 1000!

[Mauserbill]

Hello
Very interesting I have Just read the post by hitchphil, regarding medcert.com. Could this be a viable alternative to using your own Doctor if refused. Has anyone successfully used this route. Wondering if it would be acceptable to the majority of licensing authorities if it has been accepted elsewhere.

[Fedaykin]

Unfortunately the medical certification issue is a mess that can be attributed to several different parties which leaves Sports Shooters having to work around a problem not of their making! BASC, the NRA, Home Office and the BMA need special mention for the sheer bungling that has led to this current situation and the Police are by in large hiding behind 'We have a process' and fairly uninterested in reasonable compromise.

BASC and the NRA refuse to move on from the original agreement between all parties that sports shooters would not have to pay more then they already are to the Police. The BMA utterly failed to consult their members who rather took umbrage at being asked to do a task for free. The BMA then reneged on the agreement with the shooting organisations and went ahead sending out handy and advice including standard letters stating they would refuse to do the process without payment plus a further letter for those who Conscientiously objected to guns and would not do it all.

The shooting organisations rather than facing up to reality and coming back to the table with the Home Office and BMA to discuss a standardised national fee and a mechanism to ensure those shooters who have conscientious objectors as their doctor have an alternative process to get medical sign off (or change the law forcing the doctors to do it) have dug their heals in stating their members shouldn't pay. The Police nationally have dug their heals in and won't look to any form of compromise as they have a process to adhere to.

In the end the only solution is for sports shooters as individuals to:

1) Ensure they are registered with a GP surgery
2) Ensure that Doctor is not a conscientious objector to guns
3) If they are it is up to you to change surgery ASAP
4) Make sure your medical records have been transferred
5) Suck it when it comes to the fee
6) Make sure you have done all the above well before your next renewal

[IainWR]

Unfortunately the medical certification issue is a mess that can be attributed to several different parties which leaves Sports Shooters having to work around a problem not of their making! BASC, the NRA, Home Office and the BMA need special mention for the sheer bungling that has led to this current situation and the Police are by in large hiding behind 'We have a process' and fairly uninterested in reasonable compromise.

BASC and the NRA refuse to move on from the original agreement between all parties that sports shooters would not have to pay more then they already are to the Police.

The shooting organisations rather than facing up to reality and coming back to the table with the Home Office and BMA to discuss a standardised national fee and a mechanism to ensure those shooters who have conscientious objectors as their doctor have an alternative process to get medical sign off (or change the law forcing the doctors to do it) have dug their heals in stating their members shouldn't pay.

All I will say is that:

1. This is a BSSC issue, not an issue for the various NGBs individually.
2. If you actually contact the NRA for assistance on this, you will get both the official view, and the practical advice, very much as Fedaykin has put it. And a comment and some explanation that the whole thing is a horrible mess. I can say that with confidence because I have given advice to that effect probably twice a month since this started.
3. It is beyond the power of anyone except government to bring consistency to this, unless we have a certificate holder willing to force the issue to the courts, and then we might well get a precedent we really don't want (as well as an ex-certificate holder).

[Fedaykin]

Thanks for the correction IainWR, indeed on the shooting side it is a BSSC issue albeit I will point out the BASC and the Countryside Alliance (I forgot them) have been operating off the ranch when it comes to this issue!

[Alpha1]

Does it have to be a Doctor in the practice you are registered with or can any Doctor do it?
I have a Doctor as a member of my Club. Actually he is an eminent Trauma surgeon. Can I not just bung him a few quid and get him to sign it. He has known me personally for a lot of years both of and on the range.

[Fedaykin]

As I understand it no is the simple answer, the longer answer is this is a process that has to be adhered to by the Medical Practice and the Police. When you put your renewal in or application if you applying for a Firearms/Shotgun certificate the Police contact the Practice you are registered at, that Practice will then need to put a mark on your medical file showing you to be a gun owner and then your GP must review your medical records and advise if your medical history shows your to be suitable to own a gun. If everything is OK the Practice then needs to inform the Police that the mark is on your medical file and they see no reason for you to not own a gun. So paying a random doctor to say you are fine to own guns does not adhere to the agreed process and the Police will not regard it as valid.

Of course this raises the underlying issues with the whole idea that Doctors and regular Sports shooters have pointed out but fallen on death ears by the authorities:

1) Security of Firearms in the UK relies on the minimum amount of people knowing who has guns at their home address, put a mark on your medical file increases the number of people who will now know that

2) One visit to the Doctor in five years about a fungal nail infection is probably not going to give the Doctor any clear picture of your suitability to own guns

3) General Practitioners are not mental health professionals and the short time they have with patients is hardly going to give them a suitable picture of their patients suitability to own guns!

[Alpha1]

So basically its a cluster fook.

[hitchphil]

Unfortunately the medical certification issue is a mess that can be attributed to several different parties which leaves Sports Shooters having to work around a problem not of their making! BASC, the NRA, Home Office and the BMA need special mention for the sheer bungling that has led to this current situation and the Police are by in large hiding behind 'We have a process' and fairly uninterested in reasonable compromise.

BASC and the NRA refuse to move on from the original agreement between all parties that sports shooters would not have to pay more then they already are to the Police.

The shooting organisations rather than facing up to reality and coming back to the table with the Home Office and BMA to discuss a standardised national fee and a mechanism to ensure those shooters who have conscientious objectors as their doctor have an alternative process to get medical sign off (or change the law forcing the doctors to do it) have dug their heals in stating their members shouldn't pay.

All I will say is that:

1. This is a BSSC issue, not an issue for the various NGBs individually.
2. If you actually contact the NRA for assistance on this, you will get both the official view, and the practical advice, very much as Fedaykin has put it. And a comment and some explanation that the whole thing is a horrible mess. I can say that with confidence because I have given advice to that effect probably twice a month since this started.
3. It is beyond the power of anyone except government to bring consistency to this, unless we have a certificate holder willing to force the issue to the courts, and then we might well get a precedent we really don't want (as well as an ex-certificate holder).

There is another way - the NGBs go into partnership with MedCert (or create their own version of it) & they make that the std process (& cheaper) so just take the Drs & their fees out of the equation.

None of the NGBs have been seen by their memberships to take a membership or public stand on this, none have taken a lead & they have lost credibility in the memberships eyes for that. when will they wake up? publish a policy & stance & then stand by it? I cant find anything on the NRAs website about this, nothing?