Kes Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 Have to disagree - all drinking and drug taking impairs response and reactions. If prescription drugs, fine - doctor has final say - anything else is driving whilst under the influence - doesn't matter how much alcohol is in your system when you kill someone, you still kill them. A legal limit of zero with potential officer discretion on the 'morning after' would be easiest to enforce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
parapilot Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 Yer but the more you have in your system the more impaired you are , and more likely you are to have an accident. So the more you have in your system the harsher you are delt with, which I think the courts generally do bit it is inconsistent. I'm not disagreeing all drink will impair you to some level, but there is a difference to the guy who is just over the morning after, to the guy at midnight that falls out the car when the door is opened. Different levels with min sentences like the 12 month ban level 1, 24 level 2, 5 year level 3 etc. with a second offense jumping to the highest level automatically would make more sense to me. Zero limit would not give the officer any discretion, if your over your over he would have to deal with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browning 425 clay hunter Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 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? Really ? Drink drivers are a lower class of scum than rapist's, murders and child molesters. Let's not get carried away here and over exaggerate the degree of the crime. What about people using mobiles who crash and kill people, are they higher or lower on your criminal chart of severity ? Let's keep things in perspective. ATB 425 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lister22 Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 I would not like some of you guys to be a jury if I was in court Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Essex Hunter Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 I am of out shooting....so I will leave the debate to the KT&MA...... Key Tappers & Missing Association.... TEH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobba Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 In a way, nothing to do with the OP but in France drivers are required to carry two breatherlisers in their cars. You can buy them in supermarkets. Their logic appears to be that if you've had a drink then test yourself. If over the top then don't drive. If caught drinking and driving the penalties are twofold. Not only the drink and drive rap but also the not testing yourself when you knew you had been drinking rap. Perhaps we should adopt a similar system here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 its best left to the law as they will have all the details on each case.where would it end refuse anyone with any kind of conviction nomatter how old it is and how the person has behaved since.i would say if you excluded everyone who has made a mis judgement in their lives you would wipe out most sgc/fac holders overnight.this would make the sport even more of a minority sport making it a much easier job for the anti's to ban all together.so take heed.for some crimes and for persistent offenders yes a total ban.but no to blanket bans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cuffy Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 So what's worse A driver who's judgment is impaired causing an accident Or A driver who's fully aware of what he/she is doing causing an accident Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonicdmb Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 So what's worse A driver who's judgment is impaired causing an accident Or A driver who's fully aware of what he/she is doing causing an accident personally it makes no odds the end result may still be the same. My mate riding home on his push bike driver drifted over the line on the edge of the road and killed him, she claimed blinded by the sun police thought otherwise but couldn't prove it. About the same time another friend home on leave got into a car with a drunk driver 3 of the 4 including the driver were killed. Both killed young lads and ruined many more lives besides. was one any more tragic than the other. The young lady has to live with what happened the young lad paid the ultimate price for his choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subsonicnat Posted March 30, 2014 Report Share Posted March 30, 2014 In the eyes of the law, Drink Driving is agaist the Law. FULL STOP. Have a minor bump of any description, You will be breathalised, if found with ANY Alcohol, You Guilty in the Eyes of the law. you will be blaimed for the knock. No excuses GUILTY. You can complain as much as you like. Same result. Even if UNDER The limit. Be Warned, it is a criminal offence, And you will be dealt with accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 Some very interesting points raised though. Drink driving - worse or better than mobile phones ? In my book they are both impairment of sorts. both by personal choice. Perhaps the only difference is the weight of advertising which informs the driving public. You cant hang people for relatively minor offences but is we return to the OP's question and the link to FAC/SGC, where a personal choice results in breaking the law, a view should be taken and guidance provided to those who make the decision. Speeding is breaking the law but, as in my case, was not deemed to be of sufficient gravity to question my suitability to own and use etc. If I had been breathalysed and failed, the suitability of me getting an SGC should be questioned and, in my view doubt should override. With mobile phones maybe 2 offences would convince anyone that there is a problem of judgement. 'Serious' crimes are dealt with but burglary/rape/ extortion/blackmail are no's for me for ever. Its just a matter of getting the guidance right and although we arent aware of it - there will be written guidance somewhere. I would say tighten it up, others will say its too tight. Overwhelmingly, we need to be seen to be squeaky clesn, - a man convicted of choosing to drink over a recommended limit and drive, doesnt care much for thre welfare of his fellows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazzab Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 There are def levels of crime and criminal. People with pretty much any level of criminal record should be very closely scrutinised when applying. When I say criminal record I dont mean pinching sweets at 12 or a speeding fine!! Adults that knowingly break the law are not trustworthy / responsible people. Therefore prob shouldnt have fac etc. I was very surprised how easy FAC SGC application is. Background checks and 20min chat and job done. My wife has just applied for uni bursary which way more involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amazed Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 This will throw a spanner in the works, the rehabilitation offenders act has been changed slightly, now under it's guild lines some offences can become protected over time even from an enhanced crb check. So how will you know what I did 15 years ago if it no longer exists ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad93 Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 This is going to cause a stir, I think everyone here slating people who are just over the limit and "I despise drink drivers, they're scum" need to take a step back and look at their own habits. I think people who drive on the phone and smoke are idiots. On many an occasion I have been required to go out with clients and I've had a beer or two at lunch and I would not be surprised if I have been slightly over the limit. Does that mean suddenly I'm going to cause a massive fatality on the road? There is a difference between drinking to excess and slightly over! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 This is going to cause a stir, I think everyone here slating people who are just over the limit and "I despise drink drivers, they're scum" need to take a step back and look at their own habits. I think people who drive on the phone and smoke are idiots. On many an occasion I have been required to go out with clients and I've had a beer or two at lunch and I would not be surprised if I have been slightly over the limit. Does that mean suddenly I'm going to cause a massive fatality on the road? There is a difference between drinking to excess and slightly over! It means you dont get the point. No you aren't suddenly going to cause a massive fatality it means however, that you are prepared to endanger yourself and others by being to some degree impaired. Slightly over is over, its also illegal, as an SGC /FAC holder what do you consider irresponsible and why would you give a weapon to anyone you considered irresponsible or "of intemperate habits". Try thinking of it, if you were faced with a driver who could not be 100% safe ? People used to say "I drive better when I've had a few", sadly for many hundreds of people that was not the case but they no longer care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 This will throw a spanner in the works, the rehabilitation offenders act has been changed slightly, now under it's guild lines some offences can become protected over time even from an enhanced crb check. That's not quite true, it does depend on what the job is for. In any event this wouldn't apply to firearms, they have access to everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amazed Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 That's not quite true, it does depend on what the job is for. In any event this wouldn't apply to firearms, they have access to everything. It's the same system the exemption order of the rehabilitation of offenders act it's just been changed this month . In time ciertain offences will be protected. Full disclosure still means what it says but weather they can find the offence on the system is a different kettle of fish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Legally the position remains the same as before. It is unlawful to reject someone for a job because he has a spent conviction. However, if the role requires a criminal record check and this reveals the applicant is unsuitable for the job due to a spent conviction the employer may remove the job offer. Roles falling within this category include medics, lawyers, person working with children and jobs involving the protection of national security. But I bet firearms depts will see everything. The act is about disclosure, not the police doing checks on you. EDIT: Also, I'm not sure if the rehabilitation of offenders act even relates to firearms. I don't think it does, more about employment. Edited March 31, 2014 by Thunderbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexl Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 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. Being drunk in charge of a vehicle is also an offence with a minumum penalty of 10 points, the 'in charge' part is more than vague. Id imagine most people could have been done for it if they were unlucky enough to get caught by the wrong policeman at the wrong time. Go out to your car to pick up you cigarettes with the car keys and technically you could be deemed in charge of the vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srspower Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 I think it would be a huge overreaction and not currently warranted under the law and rightly so. Everyone makes a mistake ie: moving their car whilst at home having had a drink. And no I have never been done for drink driving, but we all make mistakes right? Doesn't mean you can't be trusted with a firearm or shotgun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewluke Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 I think it would be a huge overreaction and not currently warranted under the law and rightly so. Everyone makes a mistake ie: moving their car whilst at home having had a drink. And no I have never been done for drink driving, but we all make mistakes right? Doesn't mean you can't be trusted with a firearm or shotgun. to me drink driving is not a mistake it's a deliberate act! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redgum Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 Back in the mid 80's I served a years ban for being just over and have never touched a drop if driving since. There should be zero tolerance and then there would be no confusion, it amazes me the mount of people who think its ok just to have one for the road, many of those being pheasant shooters having a good day. If you have a teenager with a X box with Forsa , have a few laps in quick motor yourself, then have a single can of John Smiths 3% and watch your reactions plummet. Its not illegal to drink drive in the UK so how can drink driving be a mistake, with the fluctuation in alcohol strengths and how different people handle it nobody can guarantee that they are under the legal limit and more importantly, how their driving is effected. Having a legal limit is to much temptation for the young and foolish and should be zero but as it stands one mistake should not mean a lifetime ban from shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazzab Posted March 31, 2014 Report Share Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) This is going to cause a stir, I think everyone here slating people who are just over the limit and "I despise drink drivers, they're scum" need to take a step back and look at their own habits. I think people who drive on the phone and smoke are idiots. On many an occasion I have been required to go out with clients and I've had a beer or two at lunch and I would not be surprised if I have been slightly over the limit. Does that mean suddenly I'm going to cause a massive fatality on the road? There is a difference between drinking to excess and slightly over! Please tell me this is a wind up????????? Agree driving and on phone is no better though. As for the final "I drive over the limit" statement.... words fail me!!!! Edited March 31, 2014 by bazzab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 Being drunk in charge of a vehicle is also an offence with a minumum penalty of 10 points, the 'in charge' part is more than vague. Id imagine most people could have been done for it if they were unlucky enough to get caught by the wrong policeman at the wrong time. Go out to your car to pick up you cigarettes with the car keys and technically you could be deemed in charge of the vehicle. And the same could be said for drinking indoors or walking home from pub/party over the limit.you have keys to gun cabinet so drunk in charge of a firearm.perhaps people should be licensed to drink and holding one bars you from the other.atb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srspower Posted April 1, 2014 Report Share Posted April 1, 2014 I think there is some huge over reactions here, yes don't touch a drop is you're driving but being just over hardly makes you a menace on the road. To put it in context a 25 year olds reactions after 2 pints are faster than a sober person over sixty. Get some perspective people! It doesn't warrant a lifetime gun ban. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.