The most depressing thread ever.

[Dunwaters]

Theres a locked thread in this section, a young man asked if he could expect to be granted a FAC despite 2 old convictions, one for DUI and one for driving with cannabis. The offences are 4 to 6 years old and the offender appears to have been between 21 and 23 at the time. To be clear I’m taking the initial query at face value.
The consensus from some of the more informed members is “No, not now, not ever, never”. A few responses were fairly censorious too, along the lines of “ we don’t want your sort around here”.
Fine, so a couple of “youthful indiscretions” committed at an age where most young men do stupid things ( check out any military graveyard and the ages of those in receipt of posthumous awards for valour if you don't believe me) can mean that you are banned for life from holding a firearm?
Thats far too strict and far too unforgiving.
We all go through the same phases, I know I kept my guardian angel on double shifts most days between the age of 16 and 24, but I was lucky, I had no run in with the law and I survived numerous dangerous stupidities.
The majority if FAC holders are male, males are overwhelmingly the ones whose behaviour pushes the boundaries, if you’re going to issue a lifetime ban to everyone with a dodgy incident or 2 in their past you’re going to limit FAC holders to a very small and exclusive pool indeed.
My opinion, yours may vary, but its a very very strict and unforgiving policy, there should be some level of forgiveness for the occasional lapse from perfection.

 

[takbok]

I agree.

Amazing how fast all the holier-than-thou's crawl out of the woodwork to do their bit of virtue signalling and get a kick in when anyone admits to anything less than perfection.

 

[mark2853118]

Try explaining granting a firearms certificate to a grieving family whose relative(s) have been wiped out by a drunk driver or someone with a drug driving conviction, let alone someone with both offences on their record.

Two convictions show a very serious disregard for the law.

 

[bobthedug]

Theres a locked thread in this section, a young man asked if he could expect to be granted a FAC despite 2 old convictions, one for DUI and one for driving with cannabis. The offences are 4 to 6 years old and the offender appears to have been between 21 and 23 at the time. To be clear I’m taking the initial query at face value.
The consensus from some of the more informed members is “No, not now, not ever, never”. A few responses were fairly censorious too, along the lines of “ we don’t want your sort around here”.
Fine, so a couple of “youthful indiscretions” committed at an age where most young men do stupid things ( check out any military graveyard and the ages of those in receipt of posthumous awards for valour if you don't believe me) can mean that you are banned for life from holding a firearm?
Thats far too strict and far too unforgiving.
We all go through the same phases, I know I kept my guardian angel on double shifts most days between the age of 16 and 24, but I was lucky, I had no run in with the law and I survived numerous dangerous stupidities.
The majority if FAC holders are male, males are overwhelmingly the ones whose behaviour pushes the boundaries, if you’re going to issue a lifetime ban to everyone with a dodgy incident or 2 in their past you’re going to limit FAC holders to a very small and exclusive pool indeed.
My opinion, yours may vary, but its a very very strict and unforgiving policy, there should be some level of forgiveness for the occasional lapse from perfection.

I’m afraid your definition of “youthful indiscretions” varies wildly from mine.
And to compare drink driving and driving under the influence of drugs to lads who lost their lives in military service is shameful.

 

[Woodsmoke]

Where firearms are concerned there is, and should never be, any leeway with offences such as those. Sure, youthful indiscretions are one thing, and can be forgiven with the passage of time and lack of reoffending/demonstration of responsibility, etc. However, given that the OP in that particular thread was of an age where adherence to the law, and basic adult responsibility should be an actual given, I'm afraid I consider that the responses were appropriate. In fact, I still think the OP got off lightly. If he was now in his late thirties and was asking the same question I think perhaps the responses would be slightly different, but given the relatively recent offending I think he's a long way off proving any acceptable level of responsibility. I'm sure he's a decent enough lad, and I'm also sure he regrets his choices. Those choices have consequences however, and if those consequences include the preclusion of certain rights then that's just how it goes. If his offending had caused the death of an innocent bystander then it would almost certainly have ended up with a significant custodial sentence that would almost certainly have resulted in a lifetime ban

 

[gixer1]

I must say, I made a light hearted comment however I did type out a response basically saying “c’mon guys, are these previous indiscretions that far removed from what many of us did and could have been collared for when we were younger?”

I know I did some pretty naughty things in my younger days…I think the difference in some is if you learn from it and stop repeating them.

I think many will have tried some form of drug or done something stupid involving Alcohol.

I hope the lad has learned a lesson and it’s maybe worth sticking in an application to see what they say.

I would say, they seem like pretty serious offences from a responsibility point of view however, I was on the receiving end of a reckless endangerment charge when I was 18, not proud of it but I definitely learned a lesson and paid for it for at least 10 years.

 

[deerstalker.308]

Try explaining granting a firearms certificate to a grieving family whose relative(s) have been wiped out by a drunk driver or someone with a drug driving conviction, let alone someone with both offences on their record.

Two convictions show a very serious disregard for the law.

I can see both sides here.. totally get the OP’s point, we have all probably done things with hindsight we probably wouldn’t do now, but to have been caught and convicted twice would suggest more surely? Getting caught once is bad enough but one can only assume to have two convictions would suggest not just two isolated incidents but a well formed pattern of behaviour and disregard for law.

 

[User00036]

Could have been worse, he might have been driving a spaceship down the M25, after taking Magic Mushrooms!

 

[timbrayford]

According to my FEO the angle that police are coming from is by doing a risk assessment of whether the applicant is fit to be entrusted with a firearm. Notably the Firearms Act does not specifically require that the applicant must have no criminal record.

 

[Stalker62]

Fine, so a couple of “youthful indiscretions” committed at an age where most young men do stupid things ( check out any military graveyard and the ages of those in receipt of posthumous awards for valour if you don't believe me)

Not an analogy that I would have drawn.

 

[Woodsmoke]

I was on the receiving end of a reckless endangerment charge when I was 18, not proud of it but I definitely learned a lesson and paid for it for at least 10 years.

That's the crux though, isn't it? You made a mistake, and paid for it. The OP in that thread appeared to be hoping for his recent offending to be glossed over in a very short time indeed. With rights come responsibilities, and he's along way off demonstrating any at the moment. It may well come, but in the meantime he's almost certainly forfeited the right to an FAC, and probably several other rights the law-abiding and responsible are granted as a result of not committing criminal offences . . . .

 

[Morkai]

I would hate to lose my driving license or to injure someone but to lose it once and go through all that hassle and increased policy costs etc, then not to learn your lesson and get banned again doesnt show any sort of responsibility.

Like others of said, maybe in a few years time it would be possible.

 

[Firefly]

I personally know one drunk driver and knew another. Both convictions in their early twenties. One is now well into a career in the fire service, never having done anything stupid again. He’s one of the finest people I know. I have trusted him with my life on numerous occasions. The other paid the intimate price and lost his own life having rescued two people from an inferno, he went in for a third. An exceptionally brave individual. There can be no one on this forum who’s never made a stupid mistake. There should be some room for forgiveness IMHO.

 

[Franchi Matt]

There should be some room for forgiveness IMHO.

Over time - yes forgiveness is earnt, your friends, DUI in their twentys, at what age where they accepted by the FB?
Only the post in question had fairly recent drink and drug offences, for those that have lost loved ones through either of those- 3 years I think it was - clearly wasnt long enough.

 

[Woodsmoke]

There should be some room for forgiveness IMHO.

To have been convicted of drunk driving, and then to have been further convicted of driving under the influence of drugs a relatively short time later not only demonstrates a lack of responsibility, it also demonstrates a contempt for the law, and an even greater contempt for the safety and well being of society as a whole. And this is the kind of person you think deserves leniency when it comes to firearm ownership??

 

[Foxyboy43]

Hmmm. I have some sympathy for the aspiring gunowner, it must be a rotten position to be in. In no way wishing to be sanctimonious, let him who have no sin etc.., I would say that society has set out, rightly, well known laws and penalties for breaking them and in this case two offences were knowingly committed at a legally responsible age so unfortunately the die is cast and the punishment must fit the crime.
Still a rotten position to be in though.
If you really want a “most depressing thread ever” watch that young girl throw her newborn infant into a skip and drive off. That for me is by far the worst, utterly dreadful.

 

[gixer1]

That's the crux though, isn't it? You made a mistake, and paid for it. The OP in that thread appeared to be hoping for his recent offending to be glossed over in a very short time indeed. With rights come responsibilities, and he's along way off demonstrating any at the moment. It may well come, but in the meantime he's almost certainly forfeited the right to an FAC, and probably several other rights the law-abiding and responsible are granted as a result of not committing criminal offences . . . .

I agree, it’s pretty soon after the offences, but without all the details it’s difficult to say. There may be extenuating circumstances such as bereavement etc at the time of the offences that an FAO may take into consideration.

Some of the responses on the original post were a bit whiter than white…

 

[mark2853118]

I personally know one drunk driver and knew another. Both convictions in their early twenties. One is now well into a career in the fire service, never having done anything stupid again. He’s one of the finest people I know. I have trusted him with my life on numerous occasions. The other paid the intimate price and lost his own life having rescued two people from an inferno, he went in for a third. An exceptionally brave individual. There can be no one on this forum who’s never made a stupid mistake. There should be some room for forgiveness IMHO.

The original post mentioned two separate convictions one for drunk driving and the other for drug driving. One might be explained away and could be mitigated by the passage of time, but two convictions for very serious offences start to form a pattern of behaviour.

Using firearms requires full concentration unaffected by alcohol or drugs as otherwise they are much more likely to cause harm to the user or someone else.

How many of us would feel entirely comfortable being operated on by a surgeon with two relatively recent similar convictions or be flown by a pilot with the same criminal record?

 

[Bavarianbrit]

In some ways I agree but then pedos are placed on a lifetime long register, risk aversion is hard wired into the bureaucrats brain. Which firearm/shotgun would you suggest as allowable? Accepting all are available down the pub without paperwork or so I am told.

 

[Firefly]

To have been convicted of drunk driving, and then to have been further convicted of driving under the influence of drugs a relatively short time later not only demonstrates a lack of responsibility, it also demonstrates a contempt for the law, and an even greater contempt for the safety and well being of society as a whole. And this is the kind of person you think deserves leniency when it comes to firearm ownership??

I certainly don’t expect him or want him to be granted a FAC now. But in five years time if he’s grown up and kicked his addictions and proved he can be a moral citizen then yes.