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

https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases ... d-shortly/

Could be good news.... but....

It certainly looks encouraging.

I'm not a member of BASC but have to applaud their efforts to get this mess sorted out.

Everyone needs to make sure they take part in the consultation and get as many other shooters to do so as well

If BASC's track record on this is anything to go by then legal gun owners will be yet again shafted.

BASC likes to start these debates/initiatives making all the right noises but when it comes to actually delivering sensible outcomes for legal gun owners they fail miserably.

Looking at the press release if BASC want to help shooters they need to be realistic and not travel the same tired ground they did the last time. Firstly making it statutory for Doctors to complete the process will cause great ill will from the medical profession especially combined with the request that there should be no fees for the service.

They need to be realistic, what needs to happen is:

a) A process to allow a certificate to be issued or renewed if a Doctor conscientiously objects to doing it, this could be via a different GP or the local NHS trust

b) If a fee is to be charged it needs to be nationally agreed by all parties and realistic taking account of GPs workload but also the fees that shooters already have to pay

c) Ten year certificates to reduce the workload on Firearms licensing departments and GPs. This will also reduce the cost burden for shooters

BASC going in and demanding Doctors comply and must do it for free will cause more ill will and make outcomes for us worse!

As an ex GP - I would suggest trying to force them to do anything for nothing is not a good move. Frankly, GPs are overstretched and not - in general - money grabbing and exploitative.

General practice is a private business contracted to the NHS. It has to be run as a business - otherwise it wont run. Time is money obviously and professional time reviewing notes - for example - costs more money because it carries a responsibility that goes with it. The time spent sorting out FAC applications either has to come directly from patient care - in which case others need to be employed to look after patients - or out of hours - as an addition to normal work - which obviously needs remuneration.

One solution is for FLO to request all the notes to be sent to them - with the patients permission of course - for an independent doctor to review. This has the advantage of being quick for the GP - an administrator can do this - and at a nominal admin cost - as it still takes some time. It also standardises procedure across all forces and should be quicker. The disadvantage is that they will see all you records - and under data protection, they still need to be looked through by someone at the practice to ensure no one else can be identified in the record and there is no information that may damage you. You could also ask for parts of the record to be redacted before it is sent - but then we are in to extra time and cost for the GP. And of course it will cost the FLO - or yourself - money for a doctor to then review.

Another solution is that there is a network of independent doctors available - for a fixed fee - who will review your records and see you - then report to the FLO. This is similar to taxi/HGV licensing procedures - and possibly aviation as well - although that is a lot smaller market. You still have the issue of getting your medical records to the independent doc maybe under a subject access request but there is still an issue of third party references and also other material which may not be included as it may be harmful to you.

So in the end - an individual own GP review may be the quickest and least expensive - depending of course if they agree to do it.... then as a backup - one of the other scenarios above would be needed.

That is of course if we agree that a background medical check is a good idea - which it is - up to a point. It can not say you are "medically fit" for a FAC (whatever that means) but it can indicate you are probably unfit - but even then - circumstances and conditions change.

Just a few thoughts - there are probably more possible solutions - would interesting to hear of any!

Agreed BestDruDoc, my concern is BASC are going into this with exactly the same attitude they had last time. All their posturing and telling their members and the wider shooting community to not pay Doctors fell on deaf ears by Police Licensing Departments who just refused to issue a ticket or renew one until they had a Doctors sign off.

From bitter personal experience during my own renewal in 2017, I ended up having to place my guns with an RFD or have them confiscated until I got the mess sorted out. The FEO made it absolutely clear that I was not getting a renewal until I got it signed off by my GP (a person I have never met personally). It was a Kafkaesque experience at times that I have no desire to repeat. All because my medical records got lost between England and Scotland! In the end I had to get my old GP in England to send it up via other methods!

Their statement about being told by the Government "there is no expectation that a fee will be charged" is worthless. Words have meaning! 'No expectation that a fee will be charged' is not the same as 'No fee will be charged'! Of course Doctors were going to charge for their time! If BASC and other shooting organisations had done their job properly last time rather than this vague Gentleman's agreement to not charge fees they could have thrashed an appropriate and fair fee structure!

I will respond but I am not holding my breath!

Over 5% of GPs in England have sought help for their mental health from the GP Health Service over the past two and a half years.
2,314 GPs have been assessed and treated ,of these, 69% were fully-qualified GPs .
The Office for National Statistics has data showing that between 2011 and 2015, 430 doctors died by suicide.

At the risk of annoying what is a decent group of people , I wonder if doctors are suitable to to say a shooter is safe .

No it is a reasonable point and it should be noted that many Doctors during the previous consultation stated they are not mental health professionals and don't feel qualified to make these kinds of judgements.

So thats less than a quarter of the prevalence of diagnosed mental illness than in the general population.

Sounds like a pretty OK bunch of people mental health wise then.

The challenge would be to find any relevant group with less mental illness - and dont even suggest psychiatrists...