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

Now I wonder how this change in legislation will work on an individual case by case basis?

Most people are nominated a particular Doctor within their local practice (registered with) and with various forms nowadays you may have to declare that Doctors name and practice address, (definitely on your FAC application or renewal) if that particular Doctor to whom you are assigned is “ethically” opposed to Shooting Hunting and field sports in general, (without your prior knowledge at registration), I will pose the question what then happens in this scenario ?

For now I’ll let you mull this over!

Simple answer change Doctor within the same practice presuming there is a sympathetic GP, but what if there “isn’t” !!!

I have the aforementioned 'assigned' GP (i suspect he's actually the chief GP) at my srugery and i've never had an appointment with him yet!

Gundog wrote:Now I wonder how this change in legislation will work on an individual case by case basis?

Most people are nominated a particular Doctor within their local practice (registered with) and with various forms nowadays you may have to declare that Doctors name and practice address, (definitely on your FAC application or renewal) if that particular Doctor to whom you are assigned is “ethically” opposed to Shooting Hunting and field sports in general, (without your prior knowledge at registration), I will pose the question what then happens in this scenario ?

For now I’ll let you mull this over!

Simple answer change Doctor within the same practice presuming there is a sympathetic GP, but what if there “isn’t” !!!

You haven't seemed to grasp the purpose of firearms legislation, it not to help but hinder gun owners. It is not about public safety but political expediency and blame shifting the next time an unpredictable nutter goes radgy causing an unpreventable tragedy.

The conscie GP's will no doubt be asked to help you find another but if the cannot then the problem will be viewed solely as yours and no doctors report no FAC.

Remember police forces are targetted with delivering less FACs issued and less legal firearms possessed.

I certainly have grasped the purpose of firearms legislation ever since I started shooting, I dare say most owners have, and over the years seen it added to more and more.
I do agree with your comments but again it’s another reason why the shooting community should remain squeaky clean.

May I add that this slightly tangent subject is a little off the mark of the original post and perhaps will only serve to get people hot under the collar.

Tangents are the essence of forums and this is till pretty germane to the subject.

People should be getting hot under the collar over the way legal gun owners are treated and let down in this country both by our institutions and our "representative" organisations.

Gundog wrote:.... our ‘Institutionalised’ shooting organisations who I distinctly remember telling us at the time of Dunblane not to do anything say anything and rely on the Lord Cullen report...

In fairness that probably would've worked if it hadn't been an election year

At the risk of bucking the trend, look at this from another perspective.

To gain a racing licence (car, bike, Kart) you need a doctors certificate and they typically charge £50 odd. No doctors note (they have to counter sign the application form) means no licence.

From a liability point of view that doctor is also saying in that application that they dont know of any reason why that person cannot drive a racing car so if there is an issue (medically) and injury results then they cant be sued for it.

Same applies to firearms licences, the doctor is signing a piece of paper that they do not know of any reason why 'medically' that person cannot have a firearm, which also has a liability to it in that if the worse happens and a licensed holder then causes injury then there is an arguable claim from an injured third party that that injury may have been avoided if the doctor had considered otherwise.

if you take into account this includes mental capacity which is extremely hard to predict or diagnose you see why any given doctor might be reticent to sign off applications at the drop of a hat and wants a bit of wedge to write a letter/sign a form.

On the basis that they do it sensibly (check the records, check history of medicines prescribed etc etc) I can well see £50 worth of effort.

Blackstuff wrote:

Gundog wrote:.... our ‘Institutionalised’ shooting organisations who I distinctly remember telling us at the time of Dunblane not to do anything say anything and rely on the Lord Cullen report...

In fairness that probably would've worked if it hadn't been an election year

But it WAS and so it didn't. But it was surely as obvious as a drunk trying to throw a punch where that approach was going to lead, it being an election year and all.

Thorney +1...........I had to cough £50 for diving medicals 30 years ago, but I accepted the necessity of it because had I unknowingly been suffering from a condition that caused me to, say, pass out at depth, it could have put others in danger trying to sort me out.
Likewise psychological assessment in order to be hold an FAC.
In both of these scenarios, someone other than the perp can be exposed to danger, which is unacceptable.

Pete

No no no...you guys have got it all wrong.

The reason for the FAC/SGC etc medical check is for the safety of the public.
It is not for our benefit.

Therefore I struggle to understand why we shooters have to pay for something that is for somebody else's benefit.
Not that there is much of a benefit because the average shooter will not commit an atrocity, it is the one who escapes the system that will.

If you want to go flying, diving, be that water or the sky, you need a medical check, pay for it yourself as it has nothing to do with anyone else.