GingerCat Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 From th op's comments it seems that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 what does he think you are going to be at his beckoning to take him shooting whenever he wants he will more likely keep his cert and lets hope the **** has learnt a lesson from this . Given what we've been told I would think it rather unlikely that he would keep his cert. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 Given what we've been told I would think it rather unlikely that he would keep his cert. He may find a couple of years without a car a bit more of a inconvenience.plenty of time to reflect J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 I fully support the OP's stance and would suggest even a good friend needs to take a stand for the best interests of his friend in the long run, preferably before not just his life is ruined. Anyone who is caught drink (or more often these days) drug driving should be imprisoned automatically until they are sober/normal. All such penalties should involve prison for a period. Ask any relative of those killed by someone who just simply for selfish reasons decided to get bladdered and drive home. The legal limit for drink and drug driving should also be ZERO, no guesswork then involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun4860 Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 I fully support the OP's stance and would suggest even a good friend needs to take a stand for the best interests of his friend in the long run, preferably before not just his life is ruined. Anyone who is caught drink (or more often these days) drug driving should be imprisoned automatically until they are sober/normal. All such penalties should involve prison for a period. Ask any relative of those killed by someone who just simply for selfish reasons decided to get bladdered and drive home. The legal limit for drink and drug driving should also be ZERO, no guesswork then involved. I can see where you're coming from with a zero limit, however, it's unenforceable, Proper sherry trifle Mouthwash To name but 2, both contain alcohol. Certain painkillers contain morphine, perfectly legal to take and drive, but again would fail on a zero tolerance, From what I gather if you're caught drink/drug driving you are put In a cell until you blow the legal limit, only then are you allowed home. I stand to be corrected however Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3vert Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 Lets get this right guys, there are some of you who are making out that I am not a good friend to this person. Get real, I didn't name him did I ?I have been loyal friend for many years now, the same can't be said for my mate. He has stitched me up many times, ripped me off many times, offended me many times.....he is one of the most arrogant & selfish blokes that I know. He actually treats me like **** most of the time, so I use the term "mate" lightly.And yet, I help him when he needs it most, I buy nice presents for his kids on their birthdays and xmas. I am a good friend.He is a short tempered, irresponsible, drink driving pillock who deserves to loose his SGC. Anyone who thinks I should throw him a life line by putting his guns on my cert is also a pillock. You are all very brave when it comes to slagging people off on-line. I question your logic when you say things like "who needs friends like you ....blah blah blah" You would be lucky to have a mate like me.Would you jump to his defence if he had killed an innocent person? or a child? some poor soul meeting an early grave cuz some **** decided that it would be O.K to drive a huge van, through dark country lanes, during one of the worst storms in recent years......having drank 4 pints of Guinness !!!..........yes folks, by his own admission 4 pints (knowing him it was probably 6). He smashed up 2 cars and it was pure luck that nobody got injured. (I wonder if they found it hard getting to work the following day?)I haven't turned my back on him. And I have said to his face far worse than I have typed here.........and he has been stuffing the humble pie quite well. Don't get me wrong, I won't enjoy seeing him struggle with his work etc as loosing his driving licence is going to cripple him. But when you have a business, a family, a mortgage to pay, and 2 shotguns in the van.....don't drink and drive. Just don't do it ever.My mate was killed by a drink driver in Spain, he was missing for days and when the police found his body it was down in a gully, and he had obviously been trying to clamber out of the wreckage before he died, he had a broken back, he was 26 years old. His name was Nathan and we all miss him a great deal. Drink drivers........no friends of mine!For everybody with a brain: Thanks for your comments.For all the pillocks: F.R.OI'm now going to enjoy a quadruple Talisker in the safety of my own home........will be driving something into my wife in a bit, but it won't be a van !!!!! goodnight all. Well said that man :-) your mate deserves sod all help and deserves all he gets! Sadly he won't get what he deserves and will no doubt only get a twelve month ban. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 I can see where you're coming from with a zero limit, however, it's unenforceable, Proper sherry trifle Mouthwash To name but 2, both contain alcohol. Certain painkillers contain morphine, perfectly legal to take and drive, but again would fail on a zero tolerance, From what I gather if you're caught drink/drug driving you are put In a cell until you blow the legal limit, only then are you allowed home. I stand to be corrected however That's an interesting point, there has to be a limit, but more importantly, like one of our learned police officers has said, some people are able to function and drive after three pints, a non drinker could have a sniff of wine, be under the limit but totally incapable of driving. I guess that's why the US use sobriety testing. The drug thing, the prescribing dr or pharmacist should make it clear that you shouldn't drive if the medication is likely to make you unsafe, but we are all responsible for our actions, the info sheet inside tells you that too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danoi99 Posted November 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 SITUATION UPDATE:He was given an 18 month driving ban,(which will be reduced to 12 if he does some driver education course)The Police came round his house the following morning and took his SGC and all his guns. The Officer said he technically had the right to appeal but not to waste his time because they would fight "Tooth & Nail" to keep him away from guns.Here's the slightly unfair bit: He had his sons Semi Auto in his cabinet. The gun is on both their certs but kept at his dad's house. It's looking like his son will loose his gun because his dad broke the law.Police say that because the gun was on the dad's cert, it's owned by him albeit jointly, and therefore they have the right to seize it. It's a shame that the son will loose his gun this way, after all he didn't do the drink drive thing................but then I suppose you could argue the fact that he watched his dad down 4 pints and then jumped happily into the passenger seat........I imagine that's how the Police are viewing it.So here comes my next question, the Dad has said to me that we will still be able to go pigeon shooting on the farm near me because he can go as an accompanied shooter (supervised by his son) But the only person with written permission to shoot there is the Dad (he declined to introduce me to the farmer)So how can you have permission to shoot on land when you yourself don't have an SGC any more? And are you allowed to have non SGC holders shooting on private land?To be honest, this is where the law fails.........it's silly really isn't it? Yes they have taken his SGC and guns, but it will likely be the case that Dad will still have "Legal" access to shotguns, through the son! It should be an outright ban. You would think twice about jeopardising you Cert then, unless you were a pillock!I'm not really up for supervising out in the field if it means I am going to risk my SGC in any way. After all, this guy would start off O.K then it would be "I'm just gonna wander up to the top field to have a scout about".....I would have to say " Leave the gun here then mate"........he would say "Dont be silly".........we would have an argument, fall out blah blah blah.I am a decent bloke and I wouldn't stitch a mate up, but I think he has made his bed..............and I don't share my bed with geezers. (although if that's what floats yer boat, carry on enjoying your life and ATB matey).Have enjoyed reading all your thoughts on this subject.As always, thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) I don't think he would be a "prohibited person". Permission to shoot on land is not a pre-requisite for a SGC. It is an agreement between the owner of the sporting rights on that land and the shooter. All IMHO - happy to be corrected. Personally I would not get involved. Edited November 21, 2013 by aris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) On the above he is NOT a prohibited person under the Firearms Act and there appears nothing to stop him still using a Shotgun. Just the same #83 has opened up a whole Hornets nest and this tread will have a good few pages more in it now! Edited November 21, 2013 by Dekers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonathanL Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 On the subject of the guns; they are his (or his son's) property and he has not reliquinshed ownership rights to them. He is not allowed possession but he is entitled to sell then, give them away or exercise any other rights of an owner. Siezure by the police, or anyone else does not cancel your ownwership. Only a court can do that and only under specific circumstances. He will probably find that the police will write to him asking what he wants done with them. The issue of being a prohibited person raises some questions. At present you can only become prohibited if you are sentenced to certain terms of imprisonment; I do wonder whether there should be a facility for a court to issue an order in cases like this that a person should become a prohibited person for a certain period. It would seem not too unreasonable that in certain drink drive cases, or other offences which show a level of recklessness or grossly bad judgement or impulsiveness, that a court could impose a period during which you could not possess firearms. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elby Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 I'm really puzzled by this thread. You say this guy is a "mate" but start this thread. You say he treats you like **** but you are still his "mate" You obviously have no respect for him and rightly so by the sounds of it. So is he just a "mate" cos he has a bit of permission and you have none? Be honest, are you chomping at the bit to go see the farmer and tell him your "mate" has lost his license but you could take over the permission? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hedd-wyn Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 I'm really puzzled by this thread. You say this guy is a "mate" but start this thread. You say he treats you like **** but you are still his "mate" You obviously have no respect for him and rightly so by the sounds of it. So is he just a "mate" cos he has a bit of permission and you have none? Be honest, are you chomping at the bit to go see the farmer and tell him your "mate" has lost his license but you could take over the permission? That is one HELL of an assumption Elby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blunderbust Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) I'm really puzzled by this thread. You say this guy is a "mate" but start this thread. You say he treats you like **** but you are still his "mate" You obviously have no respect for him and rightly so by the sounds of it. So is he just a "mate" cos he has a bit of permission and you have none? Be honest, are you chomping at the bit to go see the farmer and tell him your "mate" has lost his license but you could take over the permission? I think you have a point there I have the same opinion. I agree with the OP and the fact that his acquaintance is his own worst enemy and basically deserved the punishment dished out. I am sure however that the son will eventually get things sorted by storing his gun else where, he will then be able to take his dad out shooting, as has been stated he is not a prohibited person. I can also see the OP's frustration, but if the only reason he has remained an acquaintance of this guy is because the guy allowed him to shoot on his ground that then in my eyes puts a different slant to the storey. If this is the case, it would explain why he chooses to stay in the guys company because reading between the lines it is fairly obvious that the OP has no time for the guy. If I was in this situation I would find my own shooting and stay well away from him. Going to the Farmer could possibly be the worst thing you could do, if you get it you will be dissed for the underhand way you did it. If the farmer is friends with the guy and his son he will pass on your kind message and you could have the invite revoked any way. The choice is yours. Edited November 21, 2013 by Blunderbust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12boreblue Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 'Let he that has not sinned cast the first stone' The one thing I hate about our so called society is how we turn on our friends and judge as though we are perfect. If he was my mate, I would be asking why he got drunk, and why he decided to drive home instead of getting a cab? I've yet to meet the man or woman who hasn't made a mistake in life. He will pay by losing his licence, probably lose his SGC being classed as irresponsible, and he might lose his job as well. Having his mate turn on him, and his back to him, disgusts me. I don't know who or what you think you are, but a friend you are not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 Luckily, I chose my friends carefully so have never been in the position of the OP. My shooting buddies only have a drink after the shoot and the gins are safely stored then have a nominated driver and don't get behind the wheel for a long while after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 On the information supplied I am struggling to see why arrangements cannot be made to transfer/sell all the guns to the son! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 I find this to be totally amazing that after someone shows absolutely no regard for the safety of others is now being given sympathy by some on this forum.the local newspapers would have a field day with this type of incident drunk two cars hit and guns in the van wake up people has shooting in the UK not got enough negatives to deal with without gun owners adding to it.as firearms holders of any description we should above all show the general public that we are worthy of the trust put in us.i agree with the op and I to would not allow him or anyone to piggy back on my certificate because they were arrogant enough to think they could act however they please.why did his son not take complete ownership of the guns or does he not trust his father or was it that this man is so arrogant that he believed he would be left in peace with his guns.the vast majority of the public are anti gun and a lot of police forces would also like to see the back of us so do we really need to help them with actions of this kind.if you feel that you can defend someone with this attitude then you should be the next to have your certificates revoked and guns removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elby Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 That is one HELL of an assumption Elby Wasn't an assumption. It was a question. The OP states that this fella treats him like ****, so who would want a mate like that unless they get something from the "friendship". In which case they aren't mates they are aquaintences. A mate would take this guys guns without question and sort the rest out later, gun cabinet space wouldn't be an issue cos the mate will surely have a spare cabinet or two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartynGT4 Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 The son doesn't live with his father and his mother wasn't keen on him keeping a shotgun in the house, therefore it's been on his fathers ticket and in his cabinet, or at least it was until a few days ago. As the son has no legitimate place to store the gun and also because it was on his fathers ticket, the police understandably took both guns on the day. I'm sure the son will have an opportunity to get his gun back as long as he can demonstrate that he can store it safely. Personally, I think the whole affair is extremely regrettable and I hope the person involved takes something positive away from it even if that is nothing more than a valuable life lesson. Also, please don't jump to conclusions re the OP being friends with the guy just to get his hands on his permission, there's a lot of history to all this and its not that simple but I can see how someone reading a thread with so little context might believe otherwise. I know them both, the person involved does have a bit of a cavalier attitude and now he's paying a price for it and quite rightly so. You have to understand that despite all the frustrations and some history, the person involved is a likeable and entertaining person to be around (sober or not). Guess people need to try to understand that the OPs loyalties have been stretched on this whole issue. As for the cabinet, well it is pretty crammed in there and I can confirm he doesn't have room for another OU and a semi. Q. If the OP were to take his guns and help him to continue shooting would that actually help him learn the lesson he needs to learn and do you think that would be good for the reputation of the wider shooting community? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dekers Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 Lots of life in this yet but money on it that it gets closed inside 2 pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 On the information supplied I am struggling to see why arrangements cannot be made to transfer/sell all the guns to the son! My thoughts exactly, assuming the son has a fixed address and a gun cabinet (or gets both).. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartynGT4 Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 (edited) My thoughts exactly, assuming the son has a fixed address and a gun cabinet (or gets both).. Read my last post mate. The son doesn't have anywhere to store them because his father and mother split years ago and the son lives with his mother. His mother will not let him keep guns in her house! If he moves into his own place then he can buy his own cabinet and store them himself. Simples! Edited November 22, 2013 by MartynGT4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 Read my last post mate. The son doesn't have anywhere to store them because his father and mother split years ago and the son lives with his mother. His mother will not let him keep guns in her house! If he moves into his own place then he can buy his own cabinet and store them himself. Simples! I had read your post. I was assuming he would try to convince his mother to let him have a gun cabinet to keep his gun(s) in. Under the circumstances that have occurred she may well agree to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartynGT4 Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 (edited) I had read your post. I was assuming he would try to convince his mother to let him have a gun cabinet to keep his gun(s) in. Under the circumstances that have occurred she may well agree to that. Yeah suppose there would be no harm in him trying I suppose. Does seem unfair that he's essentially being punished for his fathers actions doesn't it. Makes his fathers actions even more stupid and selfish! Edited November 22, 2013 by MartynGT4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts