Convicted drink drivers /SGC/FAC holders

[Davyo]

Probably gona cause a stink,but should somebody that has been done for drink driving be allowed to hold SGC/FAC.My personal opinion is NO,they should also be banned for life from driving.

[poontang]

Yes, of course they should.

[aris]

Every case should be looked at for their specific merits and circumstances. The only blanket ban in law as far as I am aware is if you have been sentenced to a prison term of 3 or more years.

[kdubya]

repeat offence then ok they deserve to lose their ticket,1 time and 1 time only mistake no.

 

KW

[kent]

Every case should be looked at for their specific merits and circumstances. The only blanket ban in law as far as I am aware is if you have been sentenced to a prison term of 3 or more years.

 

agreed there is a lot of difference between just over in the morning and way over in the afternoon or evening, likewise repeated transgression of this law.

[poontang]

I think the term the police use when refusing/revoking a certificate is 'intemperate habits'.

 

The use of the word 'habits' is the key.

 

As KW has said, for persistent offenders I would agree, but for a one off, or an offence committed way back in the past then no, I don't think someone should be refused.

[aris]

 

agreed there is a lot of difference between just over in the morning and way over in the afternoon or evening, likewise repeated transgression of this law.

 

Mate of mine was done for pushing his motor-scooter home. Engine wasn't on, wasn't riding it. I don't even think he was on the road. Is that irresponsible? In my eyes, he did the responsible thing by not driving it.

[Davyo]

I think on the motorcycle side of it, even pushing a motorcycle on a highway even if not running you are still in charge of it.So if intoxicated you can get done.

[Browning 425 clay hunter]

I was done for DR10 11 years ago when I'd just turned 18. I blew 37mg and the limit is 35mg. Apparently now unless over 40 you get a slap on the wrist. Anybody can make a stupid mistake in their youth.

 

I agree second offences should be punished much more severely. I leant my lesson first time.

 

In general the punishments for most driving offences are to soft IMO. ATB 425

[Thunderbird]

This is one of those topics that's always going to divide opinion.

 

I've never personally suffered a loss as a result of a drink driver however I can only imagine the terrible anguish and pain that comes from it. I'm sure had I done so, I would want the offender to be be locked up and the key thrown away.

 

I used to work with someone who was done pushing a motorbike home, and if he wanted a shotgun license at some point in the future I think it would be a bit unfair were he not be allowed one. Presumably however the offence code is the same, so someone who got actually muntered and drove home scattering pedestrians as they did so is (presumably) going to have the same offence code as someone who was pushing the bike home.

 

Therefore an arbitrary rule is probably going to be unworkable.

[Rexcernui]

Can see this one getting locked.

[aris]

I think on the motorcycle side of it, even pushing a motorcycle on a highway even if not running you are still in charge of it.So if intoxicated you can get done.

Technically, yes - but would you look at them in the same light as someone who was driving erratically at 3 times the limit?

[Davyo]

Technically, yes - but would you look at them in the same light as someone who was driving erratically at 3 times the limit?

Thats for the law to decide, but why did he take it to the pub in the 1st place?What if it had been a car,which he would be unable to push,would he of driven?

[Mark L]

Each case should be looked at individually in my opinion .

 

When I had my interview for my sgc only a few months ago,the firearms officer told me if he had any apllications with a DD conviction they would not get it. I thought this was a bit harsh to be honest

[Luckyshot]

I was done for DR10 11 years ago when I'd just turned 18. I blew 37mg and the limit is 35mg. Apparently now unless over 40 you get a slap on the wrist. Anybody can make a stupid mistake in their youth.

 

I agree second offences should be punished much more severely. I leant my lesson first time.

 

In general the punishments for most driving offences are to soft IMO. ATB 425

 

Same here in my younger days I blew 36 and was banned, should I have lost fac/sgc I think not a lot of people on here will of drove slightly over the limit at some time and not have even been aware of it.

[Imperfection]

Of course they should.Why ever not???

[mossy835]

dont see why not.

[sonicdmb]

I think it should be decided on the merits of the case not a blanket no.

A friend of mine parked his car on a garage forecourt on his way home he moved the car round the back as there was now room, he was stopped after walking 100 yards or more away. At no time was he on the road in the car it was private property. So breathalysed failed, it was only the fact that the owner of the garage told police he was ok with people parking that they charged him (if he'd said no he was trespassing he would not of committed an offence) .

On the other hand I have followed a know drink driver out of the pub and phoned the police as soon as she got in her car. You cannot tell without the details whether the person was reckless or unlucky to be seen trying not to inconvenience the land owner.

If someone gets caught repeatedly then they obviously have no regard for the law and should not have firearms.

[walt1980]

We all know the law and pretty much know the consequences, it's irresponsible to do, and dangerous! As such any force is gonna take a dim view of it! There are very rare exceptions but generally no, shouldn't get FAC.

[bazzab]

Mmmmmm good question.

 

IMO drink driving is disgusting. The limit should be zero. You blow over lifetime driving ban end of. There is no excuse.

 

But with regards to SGC FAC as other have said each case should be judged individually. Saying that though doesn't really show the offender to be a "responsible" person imo.

[robbietherimmer]

if you lost your wife and kids due to a drink driver how do you think you would feel???

 

they should be banned for life and not allowed to hold any licenses. The lowest, most selfish, irresponsible scum to walk the earth-would you trust them with a gun?

[Kes]

My tuppence worth.

If you drink and drive you could - through sheer irresponsibility, kill someone.

There is always an alternative - get a lift, walk, etc.

So a positive decision to DRIVE a vehicle whilst under the influence is a very serious decision, take it badly and, like other things in life it affects your future, adversely (and very probably of innocents).

Being "in charge of a scooter" and making a decision to push rather than ride, should merit praise not sanction but leave the keys (if you can) with someone else so its obvious you have decided to push only. Similarly waiting or sleeping it off in the car.

There are no degrees of serious offence, "might have murdered" but due to circumstances beyond the drivers control, didnt, doesn't alter the fact that it could have happened.

I firmly believe that one drinking and driving incident should be enough - the possibility of killing or, worse maiming someone for life seems remote from a car key but its akin to assault and (IMVHO) once caught DRIVING a car with excess alcohol in the blood is a lifetime stain.

More importantly, its a sign of a flawed decision-making process and as such the person making that poor decision shouldnt be allowed to make the same one with a deadly weapon.

 

I would prefer a zero limit then everyone knows whats what.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Kes

[955i]

OK, lets up the ante a bit.

 

Following the logic of the OP's question, should you have a lifetime ban from SGC/FAC for committing ANY criminal offense?

 

Not that I condone drink driving, but there are people who have previous for burglary/assault, drug offenses etc holding certificates, why not extend it to them?

 

The answer is obviously no according to the police as they have had certs granted, so why single out drink drivers?

Edited March 30, 2014 by 955i

[Kes]

Valid point but a period of no offences should indicate a reappraisal, especially once 21 years of age is reached so, again, just my opinion, a review should be possible after 5 years free from any SIMILAR conviction. I would include anyone who, it can be CONFIRMED has stepped outside the laws of society. Accept the rules and get the benefits - flout the rules and lose them. 2 serious offences of any sort and you have lost the chance permanently.

I have spent a lifetime, as have very many on here, doing the 'right' things, I have 2 speeding tickets to my lifetimes record - nothing else, one when 17 and one when 59 - 45 in a 40 area.

 

Some offences and a spell at HMP should rightly exclude others once on the record and, naturally everything in your past should inform a decsion to deny SGC/FAC and I do actually think, operated responsibly, there should be no appeal against refusal.

[parapilot]

Should be based on merits on each case as said. I hate drink drivers, no sympathy for them. However saying that looking back a my younger days, I used to think as I'd been to bed for a nights sleep I was ok. There must have been a few times I was slightly over, but I wasn't caught. If I was then I'd also be a drink driver. People are more aware these days about morning after etc

 

I'm a responsible guy, since held a queens commission, pilots licences with instructor ratings, guns etc etc. if I had been caught then does not mean I would be unfit person?

 

Having said that the people that go the pub, have 5 or 6 pints then drive home knowing quite well they are over should have the book thrown at them including min jail time in my view.

 

Australia etc have 3 stages of drink driving if I recall. so slightly over morning after may be stage 1 DD, and the ones that are plastered stage 3 and are felt with accordingly. Should adapt something like that, someone that's 120 should be delt with on a different level than someone's that 36 the morning after!