Keeping gun in car while at work?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Now I like Scully and I like Timps but who is right.

 

In the words of Harry Enfield "There is only one way to find out FIGHT"

 

 

I presume you meant HARRY HILL!

 

 

Edited September 18, 2015 by TIGHTCHOKE

[timps]

Scully Can I ask where you studied law? Of course you can ask, but I'm afraid sarcasm doesn't impress me; save it for Mick; he likes that sort of thing. See post 41. Then as you put it for the last time you are in no position to state it is perfectly legal. This really is the last time. It is NOT illegal to have your firearms in your car while in transit.

I have never disputed this, I have, however disputed your legal definition of transit in this particular case, it's parked at work not in transit.

 

 

The OP has stated his shooting ground is 10 miles from his house making a round trip of 20 if he wants to return either for his guns before use or to take them back home after use while at work. Whether this is in breach of HO guidelines covering firearms in transit or not is open for interpretation and is basically the point neither you nor me can prove one way or the other.

Exactly, which is my whole point, if it is open to interpretation it cannot be deemed as 100% legal.

 

I have never stated that it is bang to rights illegal in any of my posts,​Incorrect; read back through your posts and you will find you have stated 'that doesn't make it legal', which, unless I'm mistaken must mean you regard it as illegal. Unless of course you are now going to suggest there are differing degrees of legality. A little bit of sarcasm for you there; thought you might like it.

You are mistaken, I have looked through my posts and I cannot find anywhere I state 'that doesn't make it legal'. I did state 'Just because countless people do it doesn't mean they legally can' which is in context to legal defence. It's irrelevant how many people do something it does not give it any form of legality. Plenty of people exceed the speed limit and that doesn't suddenly become a defence in law because loads do it. Whether you have committed an offence or not is up to the court so they could find you innocent or guilty which is what I have said all along.

 

I have stated people have lost their certificates never to get them back by following your legal advice though. I've never denied this.

But if it's your view it's all perfectly legal then the legal advice would be to fight it and guaranteed win in court would it not ?

 

Each case is individual and Home Office guidance does not cover every eventuality, nor does following it to your interpretation guarantee you will not face prosecution as you claim, even the guidance itself states that.There you go again!....I have never claimed my interpretation of HO guidelines is a guarantee against prosecution! The guidance is open to interpretation as you say, and which I have been saying from the beginning!

If it is open to interpretation then it cannot be construed as perfectly legal, if it is perfectly legal then there is no chance of prosecution.

If you also read the home office Guide on Firearms Licensing Law it clearly states:-

 

19.2. The Firearms Rules 1998 (SI 1941) (as amended) prescribe safe keeping conditions on firearm and shotgun certificates. They create two levels of security:

(a) Paragraph (a) provides for the firearms and ammunition to which the certificate relates to be stored securely at all times except as provided in paragraph (b), so as to prevent, as far as is reasonably practicable, access by an unauthorised person; and

So If the OP has his gun stored securely in his car and an integral part of its mechanism on his person (as advised in HO guidelines) hasn't he then taken precautions as is 'reasonably practicable' to prevent it's theft while at work? If it hasn't been stolen you could argue that point, the fact it has now gone means it wasn't that securely and an unauthorised person now has it, also would the court think it was quite reasonable and practicable to travel the 10 miles home to secure it in an approved cabinet ? This is the stumbling block,It could have reasonably been secured in a cabinet.

 

All we're arguing about basically is if the authorities would regard that as in transit. You don't regard it as such, I do. Yep so to say what he is doing is perfectly legal is misleading as I said in the first place.

 

(b) Paragraph (b) lists the circumstances in which the security requirements of paragraph (a) do not apply:

 

i. when the firearms or ammunition are in use;

ii. when certificate holders have the firearm with them for cleaning, repairing or testing it or in connection with its use, transfer or sale; or

iii. for some other purpose connected with its use, transfer or sale; or Going to work is not in connection with its use unless you work in the shooting industry.

iv. the firearm or ammunition is in transit in connection with any of these purposes.

 

So if we are only sticking to the guidelines you like so much you are only covered in transit in connection with its use, transfer or sale. Going to work is not in connection with its use transfer or sale, This is only your opinion and your interpretation of HO guidelines. There are many shooters who take their shotguns with them when working away so they can do a spot of shooting at local grounds in their free time, myself included. staying at a hotel to break up your journey to the shoot is, you wouldn't be at the hotel unless you were shooting ​Not necessarily so, as I've just pointed out. so it is in connection with its use, but you go to work most days regardless of shooting. As I have said before it's irrelevant how many people do something it doesn't give it any form of legal precedence each case is decided on a case by case basis.

 

So at work it is no longer in transit in connection with any of these purposes ​Again, only in your opinion. and it has to be stored securely at all times. Like I said securely as yet has no definition in law, you might not feel the need to bother yourself with what has or hasn't been defined in law So, again, it all depends on interpretation. but that is what you will get prosecuted with and that's what is illegal.​ You are probably going to argue that it doesn't say you cannot do a shift at work on route or going to work all day is still in transit in connection with its use as at some point you intend to shoot.Again, it doesn't mention anything about shifts, work, hotels, et al, as I've already mentioned. Yes it is my opinion, as it is yours that I am wrong, it doesn't mention a whole host of things because it is impractical and impossible to try and cover every eventually, the law is simply worded to cover all eventualities, court precedence makes then takes over when the question is answered in court.

 

But here is the thing, you can still be prosecuted and convicted. The requirements to keep firearms securely are statutory, there are no statutory provisions on how this duty should be discharged so your personal interpretation of the guidelines will not protect you.​ I have never claimed they would, all I have stated is that if you adhere to HO guidelines you should be ok; how those guidelines are interpreted depends on the circumstances.

No you have stated that what the OP intends to do is not illegal, not illegal is not open to any interpretation, 29 mph in 30 speed limit is not illegal, guidelines give you 10%+2 mph however you can be done for anything over 30 mph regardless.

 

http://www.driving.co.uk/news/just-1mph-too-fast-and-youre-nicked-new-zero-tolerance-approach-to-speeding/

 

 

If your gun is stolen while you are at work they will look at the case individually, they may decide to revoke, prosecute or do nothing, but they can prosecute you for not keeping your gun stored securely if they see fit. Whether the judge agrees with them is a different matter but remember you are close to your police approved secure storage and didn't use it when you could have and left your gun all day in an unattended car. Do you really think that is going to end well for the OP. Again, it depends entirely on interpretation. By your last comment you seem to be making the assumption the gun (missing an integral part of its mechanism remember, as per HO guidelines) will be stolen. I'm assuming it wont be; I'm also assuming no one but him will be aware of its presence. The OP has a choice; either do it or don't. I'm assuming he is an adult and can take responsibility for his own actions.

But that is not what you are saying; you are saying it is perfectly legal, if the worst comes to the worst and it is stolen he will not face prosecution or the threat of prosecution to relinquish his certificate. If the farmer's gun you mentioned earlier wasn't stolen then he wouldn't have faced any prosecution either but that doesn't make what he did legal just because it wasn't stolen.

 

 

 

You cannot say for definite that what he is doing is illegal, and until someone is prosecuted for doing so, we'll never know, and the entire matter is open to opinion, interpretation and conjecture. Based on this you cannot say what he is doing is legal either, my whole point.

 

 

I'm of the opinion we shooters need to stop living in fear of those who regulate us. Surely as adults we can apply common sense to our own actions rather than constantly have to ask 'is it ok to walk through town with my gun?' or 'can I clean my guns in my own back garden?' or 'can I take my gun on public transport?' or 'can I take my gun on my bicycle?' etc etc.

​There are many people doing as the OP has asked on a regular basis, if he had just done it and not asked no one would be any the wiser. Get on and live your lives and stop bloody worrying.

 

The OP asked a question, if the gun is not stolen then I think we all can agree that the chance of him getting done for anything is slim to none, but if it is stolen he needs to be aware of the pitfalls of having it left unattended in a parked car so close to nominated secure location, which is my whole point.

[Scully]

 

 

I presume you meant HARRY HILL!

 

 

<script pagespeed_no_defer="">//=d.offsetWidth&&0>=d.offsetHeight)a=!1;else{c=d.getBoundingClientRect();var f=document.body;a=c.top+("pageYOffset"in window?window.pageYOffset:(document.documentElement||f.parentNode||f).scrollTop);c=c.left+("pageXOffset"in window?window.pageXOffset:(document.documentElement||f.parentNode||f).scrollLeft);f=a.toString()+","+c;b.b.hasOwnProperty(f)?a=!1:(b.b[f]=!0,a=a<=b.e.height&&c<=b.e.width)}a&&(b.a.push(e),b.d[e]=!0)};p.prototype.checkImageForCriticality=function(b){b.getBoundingClientRect&&q(this,b)};h("pagespeed.CriticalImages.checkImageForCriticality",function(b){n.checkImageForCriticality(b)});h("pagespeed.CriticalImages.checkCriticalImages",function(){r(n)});var r=function(b){b.b={};for(var d=["IMG","INPUT"],a=[],c=0;c=a.length+e.length&&(a+=e)}b.g&&(e="&rd="+encodeURIComponent(JSON.stringify(s())),131072>=a.length+e.length&&(a+=e),d=!0);t=a;if(d){c=b.f;b=b.h;var f;if(window.XMLHttpRequest)f=new XMLHttpRequest;else if(window.ActiveXObject)try{f=new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP")}catch(k){try{f=new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP")}catch(u){}}f&&(f.open("POST",c+(-1==c.indexOf("?")?"?":"&")+"url="+encodeURIComponent(b)),f.setRequestHeader("Content-Type","application/x-www-form-urlencoded"),f.send(a))}}},s=function(){var b={},d=document.getElementsByTagName("IMG");if(0==d.length)return{};var a=d[0];if(!("naturalWidth"in a&&"naturalHeight"in a))return{};for(var c=0;a=d[c];++c){var e=a.getAttribute("pagespeed_url_hash");e&&(!(e in b)&&0=b[e].k&&a.height>=b[e].j)&&(b[e]={rw:a.width,rh:a.height,ow:a.naturalWidth,oh:a.naturalHeight})}return b},t="";h("pagespeed.CriticalImages.getBeaconData",function(){return t});h("pagespeed.CriticalImages.Run",function(b,d,a,c,e,f){var k=new p(b,d,a,e,f);n=k;c&&m(function(){window.setTimeout(function(){r(k)},0)})});})();pagespeed.CriticalImages.Run('/mod_pagespeed_beacon','http://forums.pigeonwatch.co.uk/forums/index.php?s=6b2012c5c0168b08580e4957900131c6&app=forums&module=ajax§ion=topics&do=quote&t=320835&p=2906403&md5check=b30911e2c2f0635d3c949685ca6c6b6a&isRte=1,l8PuqRhht8,true,false,JEo-H5HgXxw');//]]></script> &&0

Do you know, I miss that also! The book is by Harry Hill, not Harry Enfield; sorry rimfire 4969!

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Oh Scully

Edited September 18, 2015 by TIGHTCHOKE

[bostonmick]

One post on here said ask you fao and then another answered no don't do that as they will say no.So if that is the case and anything went wrong you already know the most likely outcome.of course you can argue the point of ho guidance in fact you could argue it all along the garden path to the police car they load your guns into.I for one do not want the aggravation that goes with a car being stolen(had that twice) I also do not want a gun to be stolen or the aggravation that would go with it.The only contact I want with firearms licensing is at renewal or on the odd occasion I bump into one at a clay ground.

[Scully]

Scully Can I ask where you studied law? Of course you can ask, but I'm afraid sarcasm doesn't impress me; save it for Mick; he likes that sort of thing. See post 41. Then as you put it for the last time you are in no position to state it is perfectly legal. This really is the last time. It is NOT illegal to have your firearms in your car while in transit.

I have never disputed this, I have, however disputed your legal definition of transit in this particular case, it's parked at work not in transit.

 

 

The OP has stated his shooting ground is 10 miles from his house making a round trip of 20 if he wants to return either for his guns before use or to take them back home after use while at work. Whether this is in breach of HO guidelines covering firearms in transit or not is open for interpretation and is basically the point neither you nor me can prove one way or the other.

Exactly, which is my whole point, if it is open to interpretation it cannot be deemed as 100% legal.

 

I have never stated that it is bang to rights illegal in any of my posts,​Incorrect; read back through your posts and you will find you have stated 'that doesn't make it legal', which, unless I'm mistaken must mean you regard it as illegal. Unless of course you are now going to suggest there are differing degrees of legality. A little bit of sarcasm for you there; thought you might like it.

You are mistaken, I have looked through my posts and I cannot find anywhere I state 'that doesn't make it legal'. I did state 'Just because countless people do it doesn't mean they legally can' which is in context to legal defence. It's irrelevant how many people do something it does not give it any form of legality. Plenty of people exceed the speed limit and that doesn't suddenly become a defence in law because loads do it. Whether you have committed an offence or not is up to the court so they could find you innocent or guilty which is what I have said all along.

 

 

I have stated people have lost their certificates never to get them back by following your legal advice though. I've never denied this.

But if it's your view it's all perfectly legal then the legal advice would be to fight it and guaranteed win in court would it not ?

 

Each case is individual and Home Office guidance does not cover every eventuality, nor does following it to your interpretation guarantee you will not face prosecution as you claim, even the guidance itself states that.There you go again!....I have never claimed my interpretation of HO guidelines is a guarantee against prosecution! The guidance is open to interpretation as you say, and which I have been saying from the beginning!

If it is open to interpretation then it cannot be construed as perfectly legal, if it is perfectly legal then there is no chance of prosecution.

If you also read the home office Guide on Firearms Licensing Law it clearly states:-

 

19.2. The Firearms Rules 1998 (SI 1941) (as amended) prescribe safe keeping conditions on firearm and shotgun certificates. They create two levels of security:

(a) Paragraph (a) provides for the firearms and ammunition to which the certificate relates to be stored securely at all times except as provided in paragraph (b), so as to prevent, as far as is reasonably practicable, access by an unauthorised person; and

So If the OP has his gun stored securely in his car and an integral part of its mechanism on his person (as advised in HO guidelines) hasn't he then taken precautions as is 'reasonably practicable' to prevent it's theft while at work? If it hasn't been stolen you could argue that point, the fact it has now gone means it wasn't that securely and an unauthorised person now has it, also would the court think it was quite reasonable and practicable to travel the 10 miles home to secure it in an approved cabinet ? This is the stumbling block,It could have reasonably been secured in a cabinet.

 

All we're arguing about basically is if the authorities would regard that as in transit. You don't regard it as such, I do. Yep so to say what he is doing is perfectly legal is misleading as I said in the first place.

 

(b) Paragraph (b) lists the circumstances in which the security requirements of paragraph (a) do not apply:

 

i. when the firearms or ammunition are in use;

ii. when certificate holders have the firearm with them for cleaning, repairing or testing it or in connection with its use, transfer or sale; or

iii. for some other purpose connected with its use, transfer or sale; or Going to work is not in connection with its use unless you work in the shooting industry.

iv. the firearm or ammunition is in transit in connection with any of these purposes.

 

So if we are only sticking to the guidelines you like so much you are only covered in transit in connection with its use, transfer or sale. Going to work is not in connection with its use transfer or sale, This is only your opinion and your interpretation of HO guidelines. There are many shooters who take their shotguns with them when working away so they can do a spot of shooting at local grounds in their free time, myself included. staying at a hotel to break up your journey to the shoot is, you wouldn't be at the hotel unless you were shooting ​Not necessarily so, as I've just pointed out. so it is in connection with its use, but you go to work most days regardless of shooting. As I have said before it's irrelevant how many people do something it doesn't give it any form of legal precedence each case is decided on a case by case basis.

 

So at work it is no longer in transit in connection with any of these purposes ​Again, only in your opinion. and it has to be stored securely at all times. Like I said securely as yet has no definition in law, you might not feel the need to bother yourself with what has or hasn't been defined in law So, again, it all depends on interpretation. but that is what you will get prosecuted with and that's what is illegal.​ You are probably going to argue that it doesn't say you cannot do a shift at work on route or going to work all day is still in transit in connection with its use as at some point you intend to shoot.Again, it doesn't mention anything about shifts, work, hotels, et al, as I've already mentioned. Yes it is my opinion, as it is yours that I am wrong, it doesn't mention a whole host of things because it is impractical and impossible to try and cover every eventually, the law is simply worded to cover all eventualities, court precedence makes then takes over when the question is answered in court.

 

But here is the thing, you can still be prosecuted and convicted. The requirements to keep firearms securely are statutory, there are no statutory provisions on how this duty should be discharged so your personal interpretation of the guidelines will not protect you.​ I have never claimed they would, all I have stated is that if you adhere to HO guidelines you should be ok; how those guidelines are interpreted depends on the circumstances.

No you have stated that what the OP intends to do is not illegal, not illegal is not open to any interpretation, 29 mph in 30 speed limit is not illegal, guidelines give you 10%+2 mph however you can be done for anything over 30 mph regardless.

 

http://www.driving.co.uk/news/just-1mph-too-fast-and-youre-nicked-new-zero-tolerance-approach-to-speeding/

 

 

If your gun is stolen while you are at work they will look at the case individually, they may decide to revoke, prosecute or do nothing, but they can prosecute you for not keeping your gun stored securely if they see fit. Whether the judge agrees with them is a different matter but remember you are close to your police approved secure storage and didn't use it when you could have and left your gun all day in an unattended car. Do you really think that is going to end well for the OP. Again, it depends entirely on interpretation. By your last comment you seem to be making the assumption the gun (missing an integral part of its mechanism remember, as per HO guidelines) will be stolen. I'm assuming it wont be; I'm also assuming no one but him will be aware of its presence. The OP has a choice; either do it or don't. I'm assuming he is an adult and can take responsibility for his own actions.

But that is not what you are saying; you are saying it is perfectly legal, if the worst comes to the worst and it is stolen he will not face prosecution or the threat of prosecution to relinquish his certificate. If the farmer's gun you mentioned earlier wasn't stolen then he wouldn't have faced any prosecution either but that doesn't make what he did legal just because it wasn't stolen.

 

 

 

You cannot say for definite that what he is doing is illegal, and until someone is prosecuted for doing so, we'll never know, and the entire matter is open to opinion, interpretation and conjecture. Based on this you cannot say what he is doing is legal either, my whole point.

 

 

I'm of the opinion we shooters need to stop living in fear of those who regulate us. Surely as adults we can apply common sense to our own actions rather than constantly have to ask 'is it ok to walk through town with my gun?' or 'can I clean my guns in my own back garden?' or 'can I take my gun on public transport?' or 'can I take my gun on my bicycle?' etc etc.

​There are many people doing as the OP has asked on a regular basis, if he had just done it and not asked no one would be any the wiser. Get on and live your lives and stop bloody worrying.

 

The OP asked a question, if the gun is not stolen then I think we all can agree that the chance of him getting done for anything is slim to none, but if it is stolen he needs to be aware of the pitfalls of having it left unattended in a parked car so close to nominated secure location, which is my whole point.

We could go on all day arguing technicalities based on what is and isn't legal really regarding this matter but as neither of us are qualified (and even if one of us was it wouldn't make any difference to me) it's pointless. We're both agreed whatever the outcome that it is all based on interpretation by others in positions of authority.

You have your opinion and I have mine, and mine is that so long as the individual is satisfied with the precautions they have taken then they should just get on with it. If you're not happy with this then crack on. I am.

[Marki]

Oh wow it's gone all red!

 

Must be right.

[Scully]

One post on here said ask you fao and then another answered no don't do that as they will say no. If you reread the relevant post Mick I think you'll find this isn't correct, but there again, and in perfect relevance to this thread, you've interpreted what I said to suit your own opinion.

There you go.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Scully

[bostonmick]

 

One post on here said ask you fao and then another answered no don't do that as they will say no. If you reread the relevant post Mick I think you'll find this isn't correct, but there again, and in perfect relevance to this thread, you've interpreted what I said to suit your own argument.

Just reread it and your words they will probably say no.Don't quite understand how that is interpreting it to suit my argument. I unlike you have an opinion on this topic not an argument.

Edited September 18, 2015 by bostonmick

[Scully]

Just reread it and you words they will probably say no.Don't quite understand how that is interpreting it to suit my argument. I unlike you have an opinion on this topic not an argument.

Fair enough, will change my post accordingly. Point I made is still valid.

[Dougy]

Just before this gets locked, can I suggest that some of you check out a cable lock that I modified, its a Kensington micro saver security lock, long enough to wrap around your gun bag a few times, making it difficult to grab and run off with.

 

I replaced the lock with a crimp making 2 loops, add a decent padlock sorted.

 

Uou can carry on falling out now boys. Lol

[timps]

Oh wow it's gone all red!

 

Must be right.

nothing to do with being right I couldn't think of any other way of differentiating between my original normal text, scully's reply to it in bold then my reply to that had to be in a different colour.

[timps]

We could go on all day arguing technicalities based on what is and isn't legal really regarding this matter but as neither of us are qualified (and even if one of us was it wouldn't make any difference to me) it's pointless. We're both agreed whatever the outcome that it is all based on interpretation by others in positions of authority.

You have your opinion and I have mine, and mine is that so long as the individual is satisfied with the precautions they have taken then they should just get on with it. If you're not happy with this then crack on. I am.

 

That's fair enough, I was just pointing out what happened to my friend and why he lost his certificate so the OP was fully aware.

[Rewulf]

 

That's fair enough, I was just pointing out what happened to my friend and why he lost his certificate so the OP was fully aware.

 

Jeez! Hope we dont end up having a debate about something complicated then ,be a 10 pager !

[Duckandswing]

Have a chat with your employer also, my employer stated that under no circumstances am i bring any gun related items onto the premises.I wanted to lock the gun in the car & lock the fore end in my desk (was going roosting after work)

Had the same thing. They didn't want anything to do with shooting on work premises, gun or otherwise.

[Davyo]

Had the same thing. They didn't want anything to do with shooting on work premises, gun or otherwise.

HMRC premises also so that's just one of the reasons

[keg]

One aspect that no one has noted yet is your employer. While it may or may not be legal and may or may not be advisable, it also may or may not be against your employer's policy for dismissal. Some employers take a dim view on firearms in the workplace (misguided or not). I have considered it a few times for the same reason as the OP (clay ground nearer work, go straight after for more time, etc), but at the end of the day if HR or any higher management found out that there was a firearm in the parking lot, I would probably be dismissed on the spot. It would be worth checking your contract of employment and employee manual to see if it is prohibited.

 

thanks,

rick

I am ok in the car park but our insurance does not allow firearms or ammunition on the premises

[keg]

Going slightly off topic although someone has mentioned this, it's amazing how many people after a shoot, clay or game, put their gun away then go for a drink and then drive.

 

Personally, just to be sure, i would not touch a drop if i still had the gun and the car.

[rimfire4969]

Do you know, I miss that also! The book is by Harry Hill, not Harry Enfield; sorry rimfire 4969!

At least we all know what I was talking about.

 

unlike some of the other stuff.

[Gavin_d]

Thanks for the pages and pages of info guys. As the round trip for me to get the gun is not to far then I will keep it at home like I have been doing. I've learnt a lot reading through the replies so thanks everyone. Really helped me!

[Bobba]

Thanks for the pages and pages of info guys. As the round trip for me to get the gun is not to far then I will keep it at home like I have been doing. I've learnt a lot reading through the replies so thanks everyone. Really helped me!

A double edged sword???. So have I............!! Ho Ho Ho!!

[rimfire4969]

Going slightly off topic although someone has mentioned this, it's amazing how many people after a shoot, clay or game, put their gun away then go for a drink and then drive.

 

Personally, just to be sure, i would not touch a drop if i still had the gun and the car.

I quiet often have a pint in the pub after the shoot. I would never drink and drive and if I am sober enough to drive surely I am sober enough to have a shotgun in the car.

[brett1985]

the sticking point in any defence would be the interpretation of 'reasonable precautions'

 

any unbiased judge should define that along the lines of 'what would any normal/unbiased person perceive as reasonable'.

 

leaving a shotgun in plain sight in a vehicle, i.e. on the back seat in a slip for all and sundry to see, would probably not be seen as a reasonable precaution.

leaving it in a locked boot, entirely out of view with the forend removed so it is unusable is a better defence of taking reasonable precautions.

 

I often will take my gun with me when I travel to Milton Keynes for training courses. advice I was given, and follow, was to separate the stock and action, forend and barrels.

leave the barrels in the car and take the other bits with me in to the hotel.

if there is a safe in the room, I then put the stock and forend in there.

the only time that the gun is complete is when I'm actually using it.

[Scully]

I quiet often have a pint in the pub after the shoot. I would never drink and drive and if I am sober enough to drive surely I am sober enough to have a shotgun in the car.

We often meet up and have a drink after a round of clays.

[keg]

I know in theory two pints is the limit but there are so many variables i just don't think it's worth the risk.