CPSA solicitor advises to surrender certifcate voluntarily

[Aspire]

Doesn't matter if your sure you would pose no risk, end of shooting for you chap......

That's the point, you don't have to be depressed to go a murderous rampage and severely depressed people don't make good judgement calls so the suggestion you would be able to make the decision if it came is nonesense.

People change circumstances change to suggest any one suffering from any form of mental illness should not be able to have an SGC (terms of which are a danger to society and likely to breach the peace?) is so over handed its untrue! What this course will do is foster the "I'm not going to the doctor they will take my guns away" approach, the best way to treat mental illness is to de stigmatise it not stigmatise it further! Suggesting depression = not safe to have a SGC will just prevent more cert holders seeking treatment and increase the risks......

Sorry,where do I suggest that I could make that decision if it came to it?

I know depression does not mean you are necessarily dangerous. The point i'm trying to make is - if someone felt they needed to hand their guns in,because they didn't feel comfortable with their current mental state,then in my opinion they should never be allowed them back because you're a risk. You can be depressed and pose no threat to yourself or anyone else.

 

[sarachambers]

Nick - Thanks for your reply.

Taking your points in turn,

1. I, respectfully, disagree. If someone is having their right to hold a shotgun interfered with, it should be a qualified psychiatrist who makes the determination. Should a GP who has had no specialist training in mental health be tasked with determining this? I won't start listing my anecdotal experience of doctors who see any systems of tiredness/sleeplessness/pain as indicative of depression...

2. If a doctor is tasked with, in effect, making a decision as to someone's suitability to hold a shotgun, surely it would need to be recorded on medical records so that the 'flag' comes up when depression? It would be quite strange if it was down to doctors subjective knowledge of individual, particularly when many GP surgeries mean that people see the doctor available on the day. I think your suggestion would require some kind of medical tagging and a statutory obligation on medical professionals to report.

3. Noting necessity for statutory obligation, it would really have to be a penalty imposed under stature for failing to report - from either a new Regulator or the court. The GMC would not be appropriate for a statutory offence.

4. There would need to be a comprehensive list or statutory criteria. The problem is that many of these problems blur into other problems - there would need to be a clear tipping point. What about generalised anxiety disorder, anorexia, stress, OCD, nail biting...?

5. Why is it unenforceable? If someone has been found out to have avoided "usual" channels, should there be a statutory penalty for such avoidance? Should it be treated in the same way as lying on an application? Should it be simply revocation or go further, perhaps a summary criminal offence?

There is also the point that, in my understanding (statutory discretion to issue a gun licence lies with the police (the relevant chief constable). The automated approach you set out would remove that discretion and that would effectively land in the hands of doctors. These doctors may not want it. Could we find a situation where doctors seek not to have to treat patients with shotgun licences so as to avoid exposure to sanctions is they get it wrong?

The points I am making above are to emphasise that sweeping general policy makes bad law. If such a law is put in place it would have substantial implications and so all these things would need to be thought about.

Finally, as to your rather bizarre drink drive comparison (yes, it is a bizarre comparison given that you are talking about a criminal offence), I would first do (i) and then (ii) if (i) was not successful. If you are trying to question my moral judgment, go for it!!!!

 

[Aspire]

Aspire, I used to think just like you when I was younger. At your age (I don't know) I hadn't had too many personal traumas and I thought I could tough things out like you. The older you get the more things happen around round you. It may start with Grandparents dying, but you can handle that because you're not too close, and you only see them twice a year. Then it's your parents, this is harder to take as you are usually much closer. Then it's your close friends, girlfriend or maybe even your own child. You may even see one of them die infront of you traumatically. That hits you hard!

The point I'm trying to make is we all walk a knife edge. No matter how far to one side we think we are, it doesn't take much to tip you over the edge. Any one of us has the capacity to run right off the rails at very short notice, no matter how level headed you think you are. Until that situation arises, you will never be sure how you will react.

Well in that case,we all pose a risk and no one should be allowed a gun. But we don't all pose a risk,so if the individual feels he/she is not safe to be around guns while suffering depression,then they should never be allowed to have one,or have one back. Who knows if they'll make the same sensible decision if and when the next episode arises.

 

[Nick Selby]

Nick - Thanks for your reply.

Taking your points in turn,

1. I, respectfully, disagree. If someone is having their right to hold a shotgun interfered with, it should be a qualified psychiatrist who makes the determination. Should a GP who has had no specialist training in mental health be tasked with determining this? I won't start listing my anecdotal experience of doctors who see any systems of tiredness/sleeplessness/pain as indicative of depression...

2. If a doctor is tasked with, in effect, making a decision as to someone's suitability to hold a shotgun, surely it would need to be recorded on medical records so that the 'flag' comes up when depression? It would be quite strange if it was down to doctors subjective knowledge of individual, particularly when many GP surgeries mean that people see the doctor available on the day. I think your suggestion would require some kind of medical tagging and a statutory obligation on medical professionals to report.

3. Noting necessity for statutory obligation, it would really have to be a penalty imposed under stature for failing to report - from either a new Regulator or the court. The GMC would not be appropriate for a statutory offence.

4. There would need to be a comprehensive list or statutory criteria. The problem is that many of these problems blur into other problems - there would need to be a clear tipping point. What about generalised anxiety disorder, anorexia, stress, OCD, nail biting...?

5. Why is it unenforceable? If someone has been found out to have avoided "usual" channels, should there be a statutory penalty for such avoidance? Should it be treated in the same way as lying on an application? Should it be simply revocation or go further, perhaps a summary criminal offence?

There is also the point that, in my understanding (statutory discretion to issue a gun licence lies with the police (the relevant chief constable). The automated approach you set out would remove that discretion and that would effectively land in the hands of doctors. These doctors may not want it. Could we find a situation where doctors seek not to have to treat patients with shotgun licences so as to avoid exposure to sanctions is they get it wrong?

The points I am making above are to emphasise that sweeping general policy makes bad law. If such a law is put in place it would have substantial implications and so all these things would need to be thought about.

Finally, as to your rather bizarre drink drive comparison (yes, it is a bizarre comparison given that you are talking about a criminal offence), I would first do (i) and then (ii) if (i) was not successful. If you are trying to question my moral judgment, go for it!!!!

Sara, I'm guessing you are a lawyer?.....

We have to declare any mental health problems on our application form when applying for a SGC. Why should it be any different when we have the SGC?

Yes, maybe it should be a psychiatrist who should be the one who makes the diagnosis but I do believe that if anyone who has a diagnosis of MH condition whilst in possesion of a SGC should have it suspended until they have been assessed by a Psychiatrist (up to the authorities on that one) and it deemed that there is no potential risk. The police will always choose the least riskiest option, as like I stated in my previous post, they would be hammered if someone with a diagnosis then goes on to do something silly. It would also give the anti shooting lot further ammunition (excuse the pun) to then hammer the shooting community...

My comparison is not at all bizarre... I was simply stating that a person who is drunk is not in control of their actionsthoughts as a person who has a mental health condition might not be in control of their actionsthoughts thus potentially making them riskier than someone without..... I was also asking the question as to whether a person should i) have a word with the person and get them seek helpadvice re their condition ii) inform the authorities if they know of someone who has a diagnosis of depression etc whilst in posession of a SGC iii) hope that they are ok and that nothing serious happens.....I was not questionning anyone's moral judgement..  Surely if we have to inform the Police of any previous Hx of depressionMH diagnosis prior to gaining the SGC, surely we should also do the same for any current diagnosis?

 

[jwpzx9r]

Let me ask you a question: If you saw someone who you knew just leave a pub after drinking 10 pints of beer and then get in their car to drive home would you i) try to stop them ii) Call the police or iii) ignore it and hope that they get home ok without hurting themselves or anyone else?.......

Let me ask you a question if you were walking along the street and saw an individual strolling along towards you how would you know he was in a state of depression and a threat to themselves or others... and know that the police must be called?

 

[sarachambers]

I think having a continuing obligation on the individual licence holder to notify the licensing authorities of any changes to the matters declared on the licence application is a good idea.

This would cover criminal offences (which I accept the police should be aware of anyway) but also health. I think it's perfectly legitimate that if diabetes or epilepsy becomes uncontrolled or of someone has mental health problem, or other relevant health issue (eg brain tumour, or something requiring medication on which it would be unsuitable to shoot) that the individual should notify the police. Their doctor may be able to assist in guiding individual as to when that is required. I just don't think that the doctor should be under a legal obligation, nor that it should be automatic.

If health issue, then relevant specialist opinion may be sought if needed once the individual has spoken to police, perhaps?

Edited for typos so that it makes sense!

 

[Nick Selby]

Let me ask you a question: If you saw someone who you knew just leave a pub after drinking 10 pints of beer and then get in their car to drive home would you i) try to stop them ii) Call the police or iii) ignore it and hope that they get home ok without hurting themselves or anyone else?.......

Let me ask you a question if you were walking along the street and saw an individual strolling along towards you how would you know he was in a state of depression and a threat to themselves or others... and know that the police must be called?

Doesn't make any sense? You don't know anything about them in your scenario but in mine you know that they are clearly drunk and unable to drive, thus making them a danger on the roads to themself and other road userspedestrians......

 

[jwpzx9r]

"I just don't think that the doctor should be under a legal obligation."

Down here in darkest France any person who owns a shotgun has to supply a certificate stamped and signed by their doctor that they are a fit and proper person to own and use a shotgun... every year. This certification covers all medical aspects physical and mental... my doctor did testify that I am indeed mental

 

[Nick Selby]

I think having a continuing obligation on the individual licence holder to notify the licensing authorities of any changes to the matters declared on the licence application is a good idea.

This would cover criminal offences (which I accept the police should be aware of anyway) but also health. I think it's perfectly legitimate that if diabetes or epilepsy becomes uncontrolled or of someone has mental health problem, or other relevant health issue (eg brain tumour, or something requiring medication on which it would be unsuitable to shoot) that the individual should notify the police. Their doctor may be able to assist in guiding individual as to when that is required. I just don't think that the doctor should be under a legal obligation, nor that it should be automatic.

If health issue, then relevant specialist opinion may be sought if needed once the individual has spoken to police, perhaps?

Edited for typos so that it makes sense!

LegalMoral obligations is a tricky one, especially when it comes to patient confidentialitysafety for the personsafety for the publicbest interest etc....... I just hope I never have to makebe involved in that decision...

 

[jwpzx9r]

Doesn't make any sense? You don't know anything about them in your scenario but in mine you know that they are clearly drunk and unable to drive, thus making them a danger on the roads to themself and other road userspedestrians......

And you know that someone is in a state of depression because?? They told you... or you guessed simply because the are having a hard time going through a divorce or family problem ? Clearly if you knew someone who came to you suicidal then you would do something but my guess is that same person would should be pointed in the direction of their doctor first and not just picking up the phone to call the police. Being in a state of depression does not mean a person is hell bent on harming themselves or anybody else... having a serious psychosis may be a different matter, but again a doctor should be your first concern not phoning the police.

Let me ask you this if one of your friends who owns a shotgun got drunk one night and had words with someone in the bar before leaving ... would you phone the police?

 

[Nick Selby]

And you know that someone is in a state of depression because?? They told you... or you guessed simply because the are having a hard time going through a divorce or family problem ? Clearly if you knew someone who came to you suicidal then you would do something but my guess is that same person would should be pointed in the direction of their doctor first and not just picking up the phone to call the police. Being in a state of depression does not mean a person is hell bent on harming themselves or anybody else... having a serious psychosis may be a different matter, but again a doctor should be your first concern not phoning the police.

Let me ask you this if one of your friends who owns a shotgun got drunk one night and had words with someone in the bar before leaving ... would you phone the police?

Depression is a clinical diagnosis (by a Psychiatrist preferably or even a GP who is more qualified than the rest of us), not something Dr (insert search engine) has given you, therefore you would have already sought medical help..... Obviously, without a diagnosis, it is very difficult to do anything about unless they are actively stating that they feel unsafe towards selfunsafe towards others.

With regards to your question, it would depend on what the person actually (exact words) said to the other person but no doubt, if they threatened anything stupid , I expect the police would be called by either the person threatened or by someone else in the bar. Anybody who says anything stupid like that to someone else, drunk or sober, deserves to lose their licence in my opinion....but like I said, it would depend on what was said.

 

[jwpzx9r]

Bud I worked in major pharmaceutical research on anti depressant and psychosis drug development. I don't need to be told by you what it is and I have not done any bingle bashing to justify anything I have said.

Regarding my question ... that is exactly the response I would expect... but how do you know what is going through his head? He may not have actually made serious threats but been removed from the bar how do you know what he is thinking and what he may do? Presumably if you knew him it would be out of character to act in that way... alarm bells about something unknown to you but a trigger to the situation mentioned?

 

[Nick Selby]

Bud I worked in major pharmaceutical research on anti depressant and psychosis drug development. I don't need to be told by you what it is and I have not done any bingle bashing to justify anything I have said.

Regarding my question ... that is exactly the response I would expect... but how do you know what is going through his head? He may not have actually made serious threats but been removed from the bar how do you know what he is thinking and what he may do? Presumably if you knew him it would be out of character to act in that way... alarm bells about something unknown to you but a trigger to the situation mentioned?

And I work in mental health working with people of all ages, all backgrounds all with a mental health diagnosis..... I see it daily at work, bud. Medication can be effective, if the person actually takes it....... but what happens when they stop taking it?....

like I said, totally dependent on what was actually said. I'm guessing if he made serious threats, the police would be called and they would know he is a SGC holder and probably remove his guns.....

 

[sarachambers]

Nick, out of interest, what's your position about people with drug controlled epilepsy or insulin dependent diabetes holding shotgun licences?

 

[Nick Selby]

Nick, out of interest, what's your position about people with drug controlled epilepsy or insulin dependent diabetes holding shotgun licences?

I would imagine that this has been cleared by some medicalfirearms licencing board that people with these conditions are fit to hold a SGC. I would imagine that there is a period of time where a person with epilepsy has not had a fit before being able to have a SGC but don't know that for sure. As far as I am aware, having an epileptic fit can stop you from driving for a period of time (check with DVLA), therefore would imagine it is the same for holding a SGC

I have a medical condition too, which I take medication for but does not prohibit me from holding a SGC.

As I have stated before, it is all about the risk and for some conditions be it mental or physical, it is deemed some conditions put people in a riskier category than others....... You can never eliminate risk but you can do your best to reduce it..

 

[sarachambers]

To my knowledge, diabetes and epilepsy would be treated in same way as other condition that could affect suitability to hold a licence.

Uncontrolled (or if someone failed to take medication) such disabilities could be a risk to safety of both individual and others.

I fail to distinguish why such conditions (and other medical conditions) differ from mental health conditions. There is a reliance on individual responsibility with both physical and mental conditions.

I know of many people with drug controlled diabetes who are deemed safe to shoot. I also know an epileptic (who is not permitted to drive) who shoots.

My point is that no condition should automatically prevent a person from holding a licence. It is a matter of judgment. I think it's quite right that the police can look into the matter and seek medical opinion before they make a decision, but it should be a police, and not a doctor's decision, in my opinion.

FYI - interesting read re revocation of diabetics licence in Scotland

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/B88598.html

 

[PhilS]

Me too! But,I'm sure I'd pose no risk if I did! If a person doesn't trust themselves to have access to a shotgun,they should never be allowed near them again. Full stop.

That, I'm afraid, is something you will not know until you get there (and please god, you never do!).

 

[Nick Selby]

Uncontrolled (or if someone failed to take medication) such disabilities could be a risk to safety of both individual and others.

My point is that no condition should automatically prevent a person from holding a licence. It is a matter of judgment. I think it's quite right that the police can look into the matter and seek medical opinion before they make a decision, but it should be a police, and not a doctor's decision, in my opinion.

FYI - interesting read re revocation of diabetics licence in Scotland

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/B88598.html

sara, I don't totally disagree with you but my point is that does someone with a mental health problem necessarily have the capacity to make the right decision or will their illness alter their view? Is their judgement the same as it might be if they are well? I understand this is fairly restrictive and not particularly pleasant for the person but surely it is better to be safe than sorry.....

 

[sarachambers]

But quite a lot of diabetics can be fairly headstrong about their ability to control their condition.... I'm sure the same goes for many medical conditions.

My point is that discretion should be used and applied as appropriate. A medical professional can give their objective view on the person's condition, whatever that condition may be. The police can consider that advice and ask more questions as necessary to determine whether the person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

As the law stands, this is a decision held by the police and they cannot fetter their discretion by allowing another party (a doctor) to make a decision prescribed to then by law.

 

[Nick Selby]

But quite a lot of diabetics can be fairly headstrong about their ability to control their condition.... I'm sure the same goes for many medical conditions.

My point is that discretion should be used and applied as appropriate. A medical professional can give their objective view on the person's condition, whatever that condition may be. The police can consider that advice and ask more questions as necessary to determine whether the person is a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

As the law stands, this is a decision held by the police and they cannot fetter their discretion by allowing another party (a doctor) to make a decision prescribed to then by law.

i guess the police see it as a serious risk and therefore suspend first and ask questions later. You will have to ask the police why they see it this way. I'm pretty certain they delay/investigate any applications that do state previous Hx of mental health problems, therefore will do the same with current diagnosis.