CPSA solicitor advises to surrender certifcate voluntarily

[sarachambers]

You are referring to what you think they do? I'm not sure that's the case, simply from anecdotal evidence from people I have spoken to over the years. My understanding is that they take each case on it's merits, although the approach no doubt varies between forces. I get the impression from the honorary solicitor's article that nothing is automatic.

But your point is that the law should be changed so that suspension should be automatic if there is a "diagnosis" - so police shouldn't have a discretion regardless of the severity of the condition or even the doctors view of risk of harm?

 

[ehb102]

But we don't all pose a risk,

I'd disagree with that, on a technical interpretation really but I think it's important. So long as you have a gun there is a possibility that you could use it illegally, either to shoot someone, shoot yourself, or threaten to do so. Control of legally owned guns relies on managing the probability that we won't do those things.The probability is never technically zero, it's never totally impossible. Gun control is about minimising that probability and therefore the risk.

What I think is missing from the conversation now is proper analysis of what illegal activity legally owned guns are used for and how the probabilities can actually be calculated. The biggest illegal use of shotguns that I can find in the last five years is by farmers committing suicide. So are we going to ban farmers from having guns? 

4. What mental health issues would be covered by this automatic ban/suspension? Would these be listed? Would all DSM conditions be covered?

Dear goodness! I hope not. The DSM is now over medicalising the very state of human existence. 

Depression is normal. Most people will have it at one time. Saying that anyone who has anything less that perfect mental health at all times is an unacceptably high risk of using a gun illegally is about as fair as saying that any man getting a divorce is going to shoot his wife. It's statistically more likely, but the possibility and the probability are not the same thing and shouldn't be treated as such. Legislation and policing can make a huge difference in the number of incidents but they are unlikely to reduce the number of incidents to actually zero. Big improvements come first, then small improvements, but actual elimination won't be possible until all the contributory causes are addressed and dealt with.   

 

[PhilS]

Legislation and policing can make a huge difference in the number of incidents but they are unlikely to reduce the number of incidents to actually zero. 

unfortunately you will never reduce incidents to zero - purely because we are human.

 

[Nick Selby]

You are referring to what you think they do? I'm not sure that's the case, simply from anecdotal evidence from people I have spoken to over the years. My understanding is that they take each case on it's merits, although the approach no doubt varies between forces. I get the impression from the honorary solicitor's article that nothing is automatic.

But your point is that the law should be changed so that suspension should be automatic if there is a "diagnosis" - so police shouldn't have a discretion regardless of the severity of the condition or even the doctors view of risk of harm?

not sure I actually said the law should be changed and do agree that each case is individual. I do know of a few people who have had their SGC suspended following in episode of illness. Also know of a friend who had their application delayed/investigated due to mentioning on their application that they had a short episode of depression 35 years ago.....one mention of mental health/alcoholism/drug abuse etc and the police appear to get very twitchy...

 

[Gnasher]

The problem about doctors is they aren't all good and don't all behave in the same way. Depending on them to make a judgement about whether someone is mentally fit enough to get/retain a SGC assumes that they 1) know the patient 2) don't have preconceived ideas about shooting sports 3) understand shooting as a hobby - ie the mental health benefit someone gets from getting out in the fresh air, hanging out with other people/friends who share your hobby.

I went to the doctor - years ago before I started shooting - working mother, 3 young kids, less than helpful husband - and discussed whether I would benefit from antidepressants. Fortunately I saw an excellent GP that day who concluded that I didn't tick the right boxes for being prescribed antidepressants. She decided I needed counselling instead. I decided I needed a hobby - took up clay shooting - and a divorce. Turns out I wasn't depressed, just unhappy.
If I had been prescribed drugs no SGC for me probably.
My dad was prescribed antidepressants without his knowledge by his GP. He only took them for a week then binned them but didn't realise what they were until it affected his medical insurance years later. Once they were prescribed, they were on his record and that's that.

We cannot expect doctors or the police to know the state of our mental health. If you don't go to the GP they don't know you. The people that we are friends with know us and can probably judge our mental state best.
If we have a friend who has a SGC and is going through a bad time - work/family/divorce/bereavement - maybe we are the ones who should be offering the advice to voluntarily give up their guns until things settle down?
Just like we would try to stop a friend drink driving....

 

[HDAV]

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.

So by people taking the sensible course of action voluntarily surrendering their gun due to their current circumstances that is the right thing to do. By saying they can never have them back and stigmatising them it won't make anything safer but just prevent people surrending them at all.

Far better to let people surrender then and get them back than stigmatise them for life......

You suffer a tragedy in your 20's that results in depression and in your 50's you're a risk because of something that happens 30 years ago? Yet you manged to live your life with no issues for 30 years......

I'm glad you aren't in charge of policy....

 

[Aspire]

So by people taking the sensible course of action voluntarily surrendering their gun due to their current circumstances that is the right thing to do. By saying they can never have them back and stigmatising them it won't make anything safer but just prevent people surrending them at all.

Far better to let people surrender then and get them back than stigmatise them for life......

You suffer a tragedy in your 20's that results in depression and in your 50's you're a risk because of something that happens 30 years ago? Yet you manged to live your life with no issues for 30 years......

I'm glad you aren't in charge of policy....

Yep,you got it. I'd rather deny somebody a hobby,than potentially someone else their life.

 

[HDAV]

Yep,you got it. I'd rather deny somebody a hobby,than potentially someone else their life.

BY that logic (and accepted scientific wisdom that is impossible to screen for possibility/potential of mental illness, everyone is at risk) then we should ban all private ownership of firearms................. Denying us all a hobby and more...

Best add knifes, golf clubs, cars, planes, and pointy sticks to the list as well................

 

[Aspire]

BY that logic (and accepted scientific wisdom that is impossible to screen for possibility/potential of mental illness, everyone is at risk) then we should ban all private ownership of firearms................. Denying us all a hobby and more...

Best add knifes, golf clubs, cars, planes, and pointy sticks to the list as well................

Yep,I said that earlier that everyone is a risk. But people with previous mental health issues that didn't trust themselves to have access to a firearm,what's to say they can be trusted now they apparently feel better? Not worth the risk IMO. It's sure a great way to potentially get shooting banned across the board. If I remember rightly,there's been a few cases of shootings by people with previous mental health issues. First thing everybody says? "How did they even get a licence!?"

I'm not saying everyone with depression poses a risk,but those who don't trust themselves at any point in their lives,pose a risk at any unforeseen time. So,if you want these people to have licences and potentially ruin it for everyone...great!

 

[HDAV]

People who don't trust themselves are not the ones to worry about.... By the very nature of them taking action and being proactive they are trustworthy.......

Dont know about you but i still have my certificates despite the long list of people we can reel off who have misused theirs.... People who get treatment are not the risk its those who don't and your idea to stigmatise them doesn't make it more likely people will seek treatment.

Depression is a very hard thing to calculate and quantify it isnt like a broken bone, so if you are saying 

I'm not saying everyone with depression poses a risk, but those who don't trust themselves at any point in their lives,pose a risk at any unforeseen time. So,if you want these people to have licences and potentially ruin it for everyone...great! 

How do you classify those who are and are not? The proactive ones are the risk? Because that is what you are saying.... We all pose a risk at an unforeseen time..... 

HAve a read: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs369/en/ 

 

[Aspire]

I'm not going to debate this continually,I have my views,you have yours. I'm not going to change my opinion,just as you aren't going to change yours...and rightly so! For that reason...I'm out

 

[JonathanR]

Although I may not totally agree with the article, I can see some sense in it. I once had first hand experience of a friend, who's ex wife of some 3 years, found out that he had taken up clay shooting. She promptly notified his certificate issuing Constabulary, that, during their divorce, her ex had been receiving treatment for depression. This led to what ammounted to a Police 'raid' and his 1 shotgun was seized. It transpired that when applying for his shotgun certificate, he had failed to mention his depression (some 3 years previous). He was informed that if he surrendered his certificate voluntarily, he would not be prosecuted for NOT making this declaration on his application form. He opted for that course of action and gave up a shortlived shooting career.

As someone who is new to this (grant application submitted last week), this situation is really topical. I was struggling to remember the details of my one road offence in 1992 or 93 to make sure I declared everything of interest. In the end, I was advised by the police to give as many details as I could remember and let them try to find it on the system.

What I don't understand here is that your friend would have named his GP on his application. I then assume the police then make an enquiry with the named doctor as to whether this person is fit and proper for an SGC. The doctor looks at their notes, sees the depression was related to a divorce, occurred some time ago with no recurrence, and (presumably) says there is nothing to report.

As a result of this, your friend friend receives their SGC. However, the ex-wife reports to the police the depression incident, and (again, presumably) the offence now is 'failing to disclose' a condition that occurred in the past? Am I right in thinking that the issue the police have here is not whether the person was fit and proper, but they failed to mention something in their past that needed disclosing, even though the doctor apparently thought it of no matter?

 

[Angelfire]

I voluntarily handed in my FAC and S/Cert when I had "depression". I asked the Police to send by return a letter stating that they were handed in voluntarily, and not seized in any way. I duly received a letter from them stating such. I hoped by doing this if I ever wished to re apply for the same, they would be re granted.

Depression is a truly vile affliction, it sneaks up on you and grabs you without you knowing. It starts off with mild symptoms, which can turn into full blown depression as quick as lightning.

Phil*

 

[HDAV]

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.

Yes we do...................... That's the point we are all capable of flipping given the right mixture of circumstances. Anyone who thinks they aren't are deluded and in denial......

The whole point of the liscencing process is to minimise this risk..... Otherwise there would be no need for renewals.....

 

[Salopian]

I think we might be missing the point just a little.

If we have circumstances such as depression / illness/ matrimonial, it may be sensible to find alternative storage and perhaps be supervised in friends company. There is really no need to surrender your licence, because it may be troublesome to get it replaced at a later date.

None of us can really legislate against the powers of mental health issues.

To flag this situation up in an Association magazine is not the brightest thing to do in my opinion.Surely it should be covered in the Safety Officers Course as advisory?

 

[RobertBeard]

But how many people would hear the message if it was only flagged up in a Safety Officers course?

I don't think that we can try and hide these matters under the mat.  We have to be open and above board.  The honorary solicitor, an officer of the court, is duty bound to play a straight bat.

It is a perfectly legal solution if you feel that it is right to do so in the circumstances.  The issue comes at the next renewal as you have to declare any new relevant medical issue.  If they choose then to refuse to renew you might have to accept the loss of your certificate and appeal or not, funds permitting.  If you are refused a certificate you are then confined to shooting when your friendly holder of your guns can oblige and then that relationship needs to be regularised as how can you own guns with no certificate and have them held by someone else if you have been refused or had your certificate taken away on a long term basis?

 

[Salopian]

Robert ,

Wise words indeed, but frankly , we are all dancing around the issue.

Aspire has his views to which he is entitled, but all that this magazine article has done is prodded a hornets nest , in fact rather than look upon her as the 'honorary solicitor' I look upon her as a meddling nuisance.

How do you legislate against a person who has no known history, with no need to be honest and open about their circumstances who chooses to use a gun at a club with a section 11.6? The Law as written allows the club to supply guns and ammunition to raving head cases if they choose to lie? In fact I believe they could even purchase a gun and keep it at the gunclub?

I am sorry but I think that bringing this subject up and making a debate of it is washing dirty laundry in public and I think that we are highlighting a flaw in the owning of guns that gives the naysayers leverage to have them taken out of the public domain.

 

[** Pending Removal **]

I have to say I agree.

There have been several written that I have not liked for various reasons (over the top, not quite correct, scaremongering etc etc).

As for the example given by Salopian .......Happened in 2010.

 

[** Pending Removal **]

P.s. Gerry Adams.....about bloody time....!

 

[sarachambers]

I've got to say I disagree. The problem is with mental health issues is the stigma, and this is a super stigma with depression for shotgun licence holders. Not talking about it will not make the issue go away, but it makes those worried about it more alone and lacking info or support and information.

What the Honorary solicitor has done is flag that there may be alternative solutions to having a shotgun licence taken from someone because of mental health issues. The very point that it's not automatic for someone to lose their licence at all or forever is information that may make people more comfortable to get treatment when they need it, to talk to their friends about looking after guns (if that's needed) and to talk to the police to get a solution sorted.

I don't really think it's washing dirty linen in public when this is a closed forum - whilst non shooters may join, the general nonsense that's talked isn't going to be much interest to non shooters. Same goes for Pull magazine.

Personally I think our society has a habit of non talking about awkward subjects, and it often just comes back to bite.