License vetting and medical information

Anyone else here experienced the new vetting requirements for household members needing to provide medical certificates in support of someone else's licensing application?

Son and I are each prescribed medication - his is a long term thing, mine is short term. I'm an endorsed license holder and it is my partner who is applying for her license for the first time.

The vetting officer supplied forms to go to respective doctors to determine if my partner can get her license. This is under the premise that we are each "reasonably likely" (S24 of the Arms Act) to gain access to her firearms. So assuming for a second I am not a license holder myself, with ongoing access to my own firearms...

Anyone here a privacy / medical / legal whizz who can give some advice on the legality of this?

1. There is a fundamentally flawed assumption that a non-licensed person in the home is reasonably likely to gain access and this is the premise of the request for medical information to determine if others in the home are fit and proper. Vetted physical security (ie gun safe and ammo storage) should mean it is reasonably UNLIKELY that a non-license holder is going to gain access to firearms.
2. The legislation and the form are framed towards the license applicant but are now being used to compel medically confidential information from other members of the home. I don't believe this is provided for in law.
3. If this vetting process is all legit in order to test household members as being fit and proper given their likely access to firearms in that home, then it can be argued they are actually fit and proper to hold a license!

Arms Legislation Act 2020 No 23, Public Act 42 New sections 24A to 24D inserted – New Zealand Legislation

Let me hear your thoughts!

Apply together, everyone in your household over 16 so they can screen you all even as you provide references for each other...

As a GP I'm pessimistic about the usefulness of all this mental health screening, it risks driving mental illness underground. Screening for a history of violence is time better spent. But there is no escaping it, the AOs are getting sucked into the maelstrom of the GANFYD bureaucratic mentality. GANFYD is a town in Wales known to the English as GetANoteFromYourDoctor. It has given unto the world famous idiot sons like the Seatbelt Exemption Certificate, etc.

The only hope of escaping this nonsense is to realise that availability of ready means of suicide or violence does NOT drive up suicide or violence rates, but it will influence peoples' choice of method. Sensational yes, but suicide/violence itself is the problem, not the method.

As a detached mental exercise, think of a normal day in your life, and how many non-firearm chances you actually are presented with to readily and instantly kill or harm yourself or others. List EVERY chance or the bears will get you.

If you do this exercise honestly with just a smidge of imagination you will be forced into seeing that it is YOU stopping you, NOT any lack of means. Which does bring us back to mental health I suppose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cordite

As a GP I'm pessimistic about the usefulness of all this mental health screening, it risks driving mental illness underground. Screening for a history of violence is time better spent.

The only hope of escaping this nonsense is to realise that availability of ready means of suicide or violence does NOT drive up suicide or violence rates, but it will influence peoples' choice of method. Sensational yes, but suicide/violence itself is the problem, not the method.

---

Yeah I think you hit a nail on the head there Cordite. Firstly, driving genuine health issues underground out of fear of a unjust consequence, and secondly the issue of not assessing the tendency towards violence but guarding against "a" method of applying that violence.

It really is a bureaucratic scramble for everyone in the chain of accountability to cover their ass.

Sent from my SM-G980F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mimms2

Nick Taylor is the oft-touted gun lawyer.

It may not be right. It might not even be legal. But are you going to pay some scumfuck lawyer to argue the point? With some other scumfuck lawyer?

Maybe run it past COLFO, get their legal-brains to give it the once over.

---

I'll be waiting till she gets her license first, followed by my own renewal in a few months. And during this process we will go round the buoy again, but so be it; this is the process Police wanted.

Sent from my SM-G980F using Tapatalk

Hang on, so household members have to get a form filled in by their doctor ?

Can you post a photo of the form ? Is it a simple question to the doctor like "do you have any concerns about this person" or is it asking the doctor to list medical conditions and/or medication ? The latter would be a massive invasion of privacy...

You kinda think they would do vetting and security checks for all people in a household at the same time, but it seems to fall in the "too hard" basket...

Here you go EBF, just covering some handwritten notes with the application file number and address of the Arms office.

This is the info being sought from others in the home.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...413ac56dd4.jpg

Sent from my SM-G980F using Tapatalk

Fuck me dead! What next?

Another problem is i have less trust in and bugger all respect for my GP than the NZ Police, as he /they are only interested in my cash not my health. Now it seems i am going to have to grovel for His approval to continue my hobby legally.

Basically it appears there are going to be so many hoops to jump thru to get your licence that you will get trired and give up.

Some doctors might not want to fill that shit in. If some somebody goes off the rails for some or other reason and the doctor has “ given permission” so to say, how is that going to make them look?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redaxler

Some doctors might not want to fill that shit in. If some somebody goes off the rails for some or other reason and the doctor has “ given permission” so to say, how is that going to make them look?

---

Exactly. What happens if the doc refuses...

Also, a doctor might be fundamentally opposed to firearms due to family tragedy etc.

This is a fucking can of worms.

When I spoke to my Doc when the new laws were being debated, he just laughed and said - well, I already have the ability to talk to the cops if I feel you are a danger, so nothing changes from his side. But this is clearly the cops covering their arses, and adding just another hurdle to firearms ownership.

heck my GP wants me to take him out for a bunny shoot!!!

Why would doctors want to sign this form , the cops are effectively putting the onus on doctors to judge if a person is fit & proper , I don’t even have a doctor any time I need to go it’s with who ever is available at the time so there’s no patient / doc relationship at all .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boaraxa

Why would doctors want to sign this form , the cops are effectively putting the onus on doctors to judge if a person is fit & proper , I don’t even have a doctor any time I need to go it’s with who ever is available at the time so there’s no patient / doc relationship at all .

---

Exactly

Great, another hurdle! I assume they're doing this for all medication e.g. gout and blood pressure? What side effects are they looking for - may send user into a murderous rage?

So the form is only for house hold members? so if you live alone then do they need that same form for doing the referee character checks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paddy79

So the form is only for house hold members? so if you live alone then do they need that same form for doing the referee character checks?

---

The form is actually for the license applicant but they're using it for other members of the household.

Can you imagine being a younger person in a flatting situation at Uni or just left home etc? This is a goat rodeo.



Sent from my SM-G980F using Tapatalk

All of this might just be the intention from the start. Make people jump through more hoops. Possibly not being able to get all the paperwork sorted out even before submitting it is one of their desired results. Who knows....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Someone needs to prescribe a healthy dose of reality to these idiots.

I am seriously considering surrendering my licences and starting a motorcycle 'club'
It is the only legal avenue I can see to continue enjoying my shooting sports.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 40mm

Someone needs to prescribe a healthy dose of reality to these idiots.

I am seriously considering surrendering my licences and starting a motorcycle 'club'
It is the only legal avenue I can see to continue enjoying my shooting sports.

---

Hahahahaha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The lunatics are running the asylum...

Massive over-reach by Mr Plod. Violates privacy laws and doc-patient confidentiality as far as I am concerned.

Will be interesting talking to some mates who are on FCAF. I doubt this was even discussed there, more likely just "let's push the boat out a bit further and see if they notice"...

Also adds another hurdle to the licensing process, and magically increases the cost without them even increasing the license fee. Last time I saw my GP was $ 35 ?

$35????? Try $65 in Wellington! It's extortion. It's cheaper to buy crutches than go to the doc for a sprained ankle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bol Tackshin

$35????? Try $65 in Wellington! It's extortion. It's cheaper to buy crutches than go to the doc for a sprained ankle.

---

Jaysus ! You need to move to Upper Huttistan :P

I can’t help but wonder how many front line police officers are currently on some meds that could make them react differently let alone our politicians!! 2 recent ones spring to mind 3 if you include Bloomfield & theses guys are running the show , do they need to get vetted & supply medical records to run the country .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boaraxa

I can’t help but wonder how many front line police officers are currently on some meds that could make them react differently let alone our politicians!! 2 recent ones spring to mind 3 if you include Bloomfield & theses guys are running the show , do they need to get vetted & supply medical records to run the country .

---

The front line guys are mostly pretty decent, it is the inspector and up ranks you should be testing, plus everyone working at HQ in Welly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mimms2

We need a "double-like" button.
I've always thought politicians (aka, the biggest taxpayer-funded-beneficiaries) shaold be drug, alcohol, and means -tested for their positions. Goose and gander, and such.

Only... "fit and proper" isn't a requirement to be a crown policy enforcement agent (aka, police)?

---

oh hell yes!! mostly drug tested!
if its good enough for me to get tested on a building site etc its good enough for those buggers!
i have nothing to hide but i sure bet they have, especially one minister who looks constantly one step away from roid rage . i wont say his name nut it rhymes with cash

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rushy

Fuck me dead! What next?

---

I think tell em nout, I don’t want this info in the hands of their insecurity? What a bunch of wankers, I wouldn’t give that info to anyone!

And as many Licence Holders are good fit outdoorsy real men - I suspect many will not even have a doctor, or know what one is. Heck I got my last medical 10+ years ago for the Bus in a medical centre in Auckland - that I cant even remember.

@Feral.
Judging by their behaviour, the Police need be thoroughly vetted before they are allowed to have access to firearms and 'less than lethal' equipment.

Attachment 150976

After just going through the renewal process something I found interesting is I was told by the AO here the extra people they want to interview, in additional to the those required on the application form and in the Arms Regulations, are NOT character references for the applicant. They are vettored as to be FIT AND PROPER as if they were also renewing or applying for a FAL.
There are NO forms for these people to fill out to give their permission for this to happen, like those asked on the application form. These extra people along with applicant, have been led to believe they are just character references that the declaration on the bottom of the application form covers police permissions. The vettors handbook being signed is only a declaration of what is disscussed at the interview NOT a permission to go through with the interview.
When I questioned their legality of these new procedures, I was told "to do as I was told or we'll come and take everything".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ebf

The front line guys are mostly pretty decent, it is the inspector and up ranks you should be testing, plus everyone working at HQ in Welly.

---

I would think the likes of detectives & AOS squad members dealing with the things they do would be ripe candidates , must be pretty hard to un see some of the jobs they attend , no disrespect intended but they like us are only human too , but why should there be two sets of rules .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boaraxa

I would think the likes of detectives & AOS squad members dealing with the things they do would be ripe candidates , must be pretty hard to un see some of the jobs they attend , no disrespect intended but they like us are only human too , but why should there be two sets of rules .

---

So they / we do. The government security vetting process is something separate. It is generally around loyalty and trustworthiness. And no that is not linked to firearms licensing for and proper testing... Although wouldn't that be neat...

Sent from my SM-G980F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boaraxa

Why would doctors want to sign this form , the cops are effectively putting the onus on doctors to judge if a person is fit & proper , I don’t even have a doctor any time I need to go it’s with who ever is available at the time so there’s no patient / doc relationship at all .

---

The nail on the head. That medical form, no doubt authored by NZP not by any medical organisation, is putting the onus on the GP to judge someone fit and proper. There is no way in heaven, earth or hell that a GP can say someone is "no risk", you can only say someone is background risk but it's the GANFYD culture and cops like everyone believe a doctor's note absolves them from accountability, at least it gives them something to tell the media if things go tits up.

In the UK there are a lot of anti-gun GPs and you can have some difficulties if the practice you are with is full of such cardigan wearers.

Interesting link about the state of affairs in the UK:
https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/un...nce-approvals/

One has to smile at the number of lines for medication on the form...5...I would need a shit load more than that if I had to state all my medications...I would ask my doctor to only list the mild 5