New licence and doctor (GP) opinion ?

Big Davey

I have held shotgun liciences in the past but not had a gun for about 7 years. I have decided to go back shooting again and got a licience application.
I am curious as to why they want my doctors name and phone number ?
Firstly my understanding is that he can not give out any information on me without my written concent due to data protection laws.
Also he is not qualified to give an accurate assessment of mental health as he is just a general practitioner.
So why is it even on the application and do they phone the doctor and ask him "what's urman like" "is he a sound type of lad like" "he won't go killing himself or others will he like"
It makes no sence to me. If AGS were going to do it correctly there should be some type of waver to sign to give them express permission to contact doctors etc

Grizzly 45

Your signiture on your application a consent clause for AGS to make enquiries if they feel it is warranted,off your doc.However its not just to see are you on some meds for keeping your fuses cool.It could be also for things like epilipsy,colour blindness,whether you are a chronic alco or druggie or have something else wrong with you that might make you medically unfit to use a gun.Somehow I think they would have to know first that you have a condition that might warrent calling the Doc.

Tawny Owl

Don't get upset as its just part of the application form, its best these questions are asked, and I dont think you would mind, if your after your Gun Licence, anyway best of luck.

BattleCorp

I think it's a good idea that the Gardai can do this sort of background check.

It might prevent someone unsuitable from getting access to a firearm.

Big Davey

Thanks lads.
Slightly off topic now but my last guns were Miroku and beretta both very nice and upmarket guns back in the boom 💰
This time around I am more in the bargain basement range €300-€400 and I am looking at a few yildiz guns or would I be better off with an older aya or bsa or any general old English type gun.
I will only be doing game or some sporting clays ie: maximum of 50 clays etc

jelem

eay cash for doctors - many thefts by "government" obligatory conditions (not just gun licences) basically set to cover their butts.
government should pay the fee when request certs etc.

Big Davey

jelem wrote: »

eay cash for doctors - many thefts by "government" obligatory conditions (not just gun licences) basically set to cover their butts.
government should pay the fee when request certs etc.

The doctor doesn't get paid he just takes a phone call.

Tawny Owl

jelem wrote: »

eay cash for doctors - many thefts by "government" obligatory conditions (not just gun licences) basically set to cover their butts.
government should pay the fee when request certs etc.

He just fills in the form, the Doctor does not get paid, as he never visit's, it's just to nominate your Doctor's name.

Traumadoc

There is a standard fee for a medical report.
The guards also need your signed permission before they can ask a doctor for any information.

Big Davey

Tawny Owl wrote: »

He just fills in the form, the Doctor does not get paid, as he never visit's, it's just to nominate your Doctor's name.

I don't think he even fills in the form ? I write down his details and phone number and then AGS contact him ?

Traumadoc

Put the doctors name down, doctors are never contacted if it were so the state would have to pay 30 million in fees.

Tawny Owl

Traumadoc wrote: »

There is a standard fee for a medical report.
The guards also need your signed permission before they can ask a doctor for any information.

When you fill out you application for a Gun, you do not need to visit your doctor, now I know all Doctors charge and charge very well, send in your application in to the local Station, no visit to a Doctor needed.

Traumadoc

No just put your doctors name down , no need to visit or even tell your doctor.

cookimonster

Big Davey wrote: »

Thanks lads.
Slightly off topic now but my last guns were Miroku and beretta both very nice and upmarket guns back in the boom 💰
This time around I am more in the bargain basement range €300-€400 and I am looking at a few yildiz guns or would I be better off with an older aya or bsa or any general old English type gun.
I will only be doing game or some sporting clays ie: maximum of 50 clays etc

I've being looking for a cheap SxS in and around your price range for a bit of rough shooting, but so far every thing I've seen in the dealers are junkers. I am really tempted just to wait a bit longer and squirrel some more cash and buy a new Baikel
O/U multi choke sporter for around €550 mark. I already shoot a Baikel semi so am happy with the brand. Others will argue same money will get you a secound hand marquee brand, but each to there own.

hexosan

I'm actually surprised they don't look for you to provide a medical report with the application similar to the medical report with a driving licence. (At your cost of course)

oldtart

Might be best not to mention your psychiatrist lol.

meathstevie

hexosan wrote: »

I'm actually surprised they don't look for you to provide a medical report with the application similar to the medical report with a driving licence. (At your cost of course)

The risks in shooting sports are minimal compared to driving mechanically propelled vehicles on public roads. This is not just an expression of opinion but fact; fatalities and serious injuries in shooting sports in Ireland are virtually nonexistent in comparison to road traffic.

I put that down to a number of reasons.

First of all target shooting happens on ranges in a controlled environment eliminating irregular behaviour and hunting as a rule tends to happen away from the general public.

Second; firearms owners tend to behave in fairly responsible ways when it comes to their shooting. I've never seen muppetry similar to what I see on the roads at clay shoots, ranges or out hunting, it would just not be tolerated by your peers.

Big Davey

oldtart wrote: »

Might be best not to mention your psychiatrist lol.

I won't lol

hexosan

meathstevie wrote: »

The risks in shooting sports are minimal compared to driving mechanically propelled vehicles on public roads. This is not just an expression of opinion but fact; fatalities and serious injuries in shooting sports in Ireland are virtually nonexistent in comparison to road traffic.

I put that down to a number of reasons.

First of all target shooting happens on ranges in a controlled environment eliminating irregular behaviour and hunting as a rule tends to happen away from the general public.

Second; firearms owners tend to behave in fairly responsible ways when it comes to their shooting. I've never seen muppetry similar to what I see on the roads at clay shoots, ranges or out hunting, it would just not be tolerated by your peers.

That wasn't to point I was making, the guards have no way to knowing if a fella is mental or an alcoholic, suffers from depression and its a wonder they don't cover their arse and look for a doctor to sign off on that part of vetting an applicant. Considering everything else in the public service is pass the buck

meathstevie

hexosan wrote: »

That wasn't to point I was making, the guards have no way to knowing if a fella is mental or an alcoholic, suffers from depression and its a wonder they don't cover their arse and look for a doctor to sign off on that part of vetting an applicant. Considering everything else in the public service is pass the buck

Cost, time and disproportionate interference in one's private life. Legislation is already in place to enable a granting Garda to refuse when in doubt and it's up to the applicant to provide convincing argument to a judge to change that situation.

And also, on what conditions do you refuse or grant on medical grounds considering that hardly any granting senior Garda has the medical expertise to interpret medical evidence ?

Conditions that could render you unsafe for driving might prove harmless for shooting and vice versa. Whole can of worms nobody needs.

Where do you ultimately draw the line ? A lot of people use potentially dangerous equipment in their day to day activity without regular physical or mental health certification.

Traumadoc

hexosan wrote: »

That wasn't to point I was making, the guards have no way to knowing if a fella is mental or an alcoholic, suffers from depression and its a wonder they don't cover their arse and look for a doctor to sign off on that part of vetting an applicant. Considering everything else in the public service is pass the buck

This is part of the problem , if I was depressed and I knew it could mean I would lose my firearms , there is no way I would seek medical help.

meathstevie

Traumadoc wrote: »

This is part of the problem , if I was depressed and I knew it could mean I would lose my firearms , there is no way I would seek medical help.

Another aspect I suppose is that well managed mental health problems could neutralise risks to practically zero but one could still run into a wall of refusal while for example an alcoholic in denial and handy enough at hiding his/her addiction troubles could breeze through the licencing system.

Grizzly 45

I suppose if you were a regular face in the Garda station on a Sunday morning for being drunk and disorderly,or a frequent visitor in the local drying out centre.Or known to say you are Julius Ceaser while going about town in a bed sheet and a laurel crown,on a daily basis.The Super might have plausible grounds to refuse a liscense for unsound mind and intemperate habits.:pac:
Suppose it goes back to when we were in a lot smaller communities and everyone not only knew everyone else ,but their busisness and health and habits as well,so the super hadnt that much of a problem knowing who liked the sauce or was abit touched in the head.

Sparks

Traumadoc wrote: »

There is a standard fee for a medical report.
The guards also need your signed permission before they can ask a doctor for any information.

Legally, that's what your signature on the FCA1 is supposed to be.
That's not been tested in court yet so far as I know though, so how solid it actually is is another matter. I know when you and I first heard of it, you weren't terribly sure it was legally sufficient (and personally I agree, stuff like that ought to be more explicitly covered).

hexosan wrote: »

I'm actually surprised they don't look for you to provide a medical report with the application similar to the medical report with a driving licence. (At your cost of course)

I don't remember having to get a medical report to get my drivers licence. And the RSA say you only have to get one if you:

• Are applying for a driving licence in respect of a truck or bus, licence categories C, C1, CE, C1E, D, D1, DE or D1E (unless you have previously provided a medical report which is still valid)
• Will be 70 years of age or more on the first day of the period for which the licence for any licence category is being granted
• Suffer from any of the disabilities or diseases specified in the diseases and disabilities list.
• Have ever suffered from alcoholism or epilepsy
• Are a regular user of drugs or medication that would be likely to make your driving unsafe

And the driving comparison is rather missing the point of the guns-cars comparison. As I've said before elsewhere:

Sparks wrote: »

I have three firearms. The most powerful of which is a .22lr rifle. A bullet fired from that has about 190 joules of kinetic energy (which is a reasonably good way to measure its potential for doing damage). There are literally dozens of ways for the Gardai to take those firearms off me if they thought there was a reason to (and it wouldn't have to be a particularly good reason either, a paperwork glitch would be enough). I have to give up my medical confidentiality to get the licences, along with allowing home inspections by the crime prevention officer to check the secure storage for the rifles (back when I stored them at home), providing character references, proving club membership at a shooting range, the club maintaining records of how often I shoot and notifying the Gardai if I suddenly give up shooting and vanish off into the aether, and a dozen other annoying things, and if I don't comply with those, no licence is granted (or an existing one is pulled and probably no licence is granted ever again). I have to reapply for those licences every three years, meaning doing all the above every three years, forever. Since target shooting started in Ireland back around 1850, we have had one (quite minor) injury and no deaths.

I have one car. When driving on the M50 it has about 675,500 joules of kinetic energy. There are maybe two or three ways the Gardai can take my car but it's fairly unlikely to ever really happen, and if I fought it in court, really unlikely to happen. I sat my test once, it wasn't even close to being representative of how you drive in reality and my licence is renewed every ten years with a letter in the post. Nobody checks my health or my mental state before renewing the licence and nobody testifies that I'm not some complete loon who's one bad day away from driving into a crowded bus stop or down Grafton street at sixty mph. Every year in Ireland hundreds of people are killed by cars, whether while driving or while someone else was driving.

190 J and highly invasive checks out the wazoo for something that hasn't had a casualty since, well, ever;
675,500 J and basicly no checks for something that kills hundreds of people every year and injures thousands.
I know everyone's unfamiliar with guns and familiar with cars, but I never have quite gotten my head round this anyway...

The problem is that familiarity breeds contempt...

hexosan

I'm not saying I think we should have to provide medical reports (because I dont agree with that) I simple suggested its a surprise they don't look for them to further distance themselves should something (ever) go wrong.

hexosan

I agree fully with Sparks above comment

meathstevie

hexosan wrote: »

I'm not saying I think we should have to provide medical reports (because I dont agree with that) I simple suggested its a surprise they don't look for them to further distance themselves should something (ever) go wrong.

Ultimately all any medical report states is an observation of a persons state of health at the time the Doctor signs off on it. A lot can happen in three years to a persons physical and mental health. Even the most prolific arse coverer will realise that when they try to pass the buck to a Doctor who will simply tell them that clairvoyance is not in his/her remit.

It's like an NCT, wheel slip zero at the test center and a pothole a mile out the road will have you in the ditch next time you slam the brakes...the NCT tester and equipment were quite likely spot on at the time of the test.

Gormley85

I fully support the idea of having a brief medical report to be given the garda to get a licence.

Sparks

Gormley85 wrote: »

I fully support the idea of having a brief medical report to be given the garda to get a licence.

Seriously, what specifically do you think should be covered in that report?

Gormley85

Sparks wrote: »

Seriously, what specifically do you think should be covered in that report?

Just a general report on what the doctor thinks- nothing too specific. There was a lad out doing some clays with us and took a seizure with a loaded shotgun in hand. Lucky it didnt go off or could have killed someone even himself. But obviously enough he had his licences taking off him.... but I was thinking later that could have ended badly and if there had been a mandatory letter from a GP with the application saying he takes the odd seizure the super might not have risked it.

Sparks

Gormley85 wrote: »

Just a general report on what the doctor thinks- nothing too specific.

Lad, a non-specific medical report is worth less than the paper it's printed on.

There was a lad out doing some clays with us and took a seizure with a loaded shotgun in hand. Lucky it didnt go off or could have killed someone even himself. But obviously enough he had his licences taking off him.... but I was thinking later that could have ended badly and if there had been a mandatory letter from a GP with the application saying he takes the odd seizure the super might not have risked it.

So epilepsy should go on the report then?
Well, here's the rub - I could get a medical report today saying I'm free from epilepsy because I've never had a seizure and have no family history on any side of the family tree of epilepsy. But late onset epilepsy could still hit me two years from now without warning and that medical report's going to do nobody any good. (Late onset epilepsy: for people who think life hasn't mucked them over enough so far this week. Ask your doctor if late onset epilepsy is right for you, and if they say yes, please get another doctor).

Point being, yes, you can test for some things and a medical report's okay for those; but go to a new GP, lie about your background and you'll fly past the medical for most of those. So you might as well just ask "do you have X, Y or Z", because it's as effective.

In terms of cost-benefit analysis, it's just not worth the effort.