Travelling as a passenger with guns after a few drinks

[Apthorpe]

"Civilian" is "a person who is not a member of the police or the armed forces" Definition taken from The Cambridge Dictionary. Agree with it or not. Many armed forces personnel past and present believe it's only them who can be not deemed civilians. Not true. And anyway, the police or armed services when off duty are treated in any operational incident as civilians, although the course the law takes after that might differ from non-police or non-service personnel. But that's another matter.

I do love a thread where people chuck in their opinions without checking facts. Jolly good fun.

A dictionary definition isn't a fact, it's a description. It is a fact that the lexicography of that not very good online dictionary described a civilian in those terms.

The problems with that description is that it is inadequate and incorrect. A terrorist is not a civilian, despite meeting the definition you offered. And a policeman is a civilian despite their colloquial and harmful habit of pretending they are some sort of paramilitary force. A fact which I'd have hoped (possibly in vain) all police staff would have been made aware during their basic training.

 

[Pedro]

A dictionary definition isn't a fact, it's a description. It is a fact that the lexicography of that not very good online dictionary described a civilian in those terms.

The problems with that description is that it is inadequate and incorrect. A terrorist is not a civilian, despite meeting the definition you offered. And a policeman is a civilian despite their colloquial and harmful habit of pretending they are some sort of paramilitary force. A fact which I'd have hoped (possibly in vain) all police staff would have been made aware during their basic training.

Whisper it, but what you say might not be fact either old chap. It’s your opinion which, in the above post you don’t quantify with any research, good or allegedly bad. Police officers call non police officers civvies. And that, sir is all that is required to make it so after all, isn’t it? It’s all about usage of a word. Many ex-armed service personnel join the police and would disagree with you. You are, of course entirely entitled to your opinion, which I respect. Anyway, a bit of a silly difference of opinion really which I won’t fall out over. Cheers.

 

[Pedro]

Whisper it, but what you say might not be fact either old chap. It’s your opinion which, in the above post you don’t quantify with any research, good or allegedly bad. Police officers call non police officers civvies. And that, sir is all that is required to make it so after all, isn’t it? It’s all about usage of a word. Many ex-armed service personnel join the police and would disagree with you. You are, of course entirely entitled to your opinion, which I respect. Anyway, a bit of a silly difference of opinion really which I won’t fall out over. Cheers.

Oh, and don’t be fooled by the phrase “civilian police force”. Something generally used by armed service personnel exclusively to differentiate them from those organisations that police service personnel.

 

[tim@tcs]

A couple of years ago, I was beating on a shoot where the guns (paying team of gents old enough to know better) had got so ****ed by lunchtime that they couldn’t get back out in the afternoon. It’s utterly beyond me that if you’re paying close to £2k each for a day’s sport, why would you ruin it by not having basic self control?

Choice, theirs to make and if a social event is more important then that is their choice!
Anything else is bordering upon communism!

 

[Apthorpe]

Whisper it, but what you say might not be fact either old chap. It’s your opinion which, in the above post you don’t quantify with any research, good or allegedly bad.

There are 48 civilian police forces in the UK: 43 territorial police forces in England and Wales, a national police force in both Scotland and Northern Ireland and three specialist police forces (the British Transport Police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the Ministry of Defence Police). From... https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8582/

Police officers call non police officers civvies. And that, sir is all that is required to make it so after all, isn’t it?

No. Very obviously, that is a defective line of reasoning. Do gang members or terrorists referring to themselves as soldiers make that description true?

It’s all about usage of a word. Many ex-armed service personnel join the police and would disagree with you.

Many serving armed forces members would disagree with your position.

You are, of course entirely entitled to your opinion, which I respect. Anyway, a bit of a silly difference of opinion really which I won’t fall out over. Cheers.

 

[25 Sharps]

A couple of years ago, I was beating on a shoot where the guns (paying team of gents old enough to know better) had got so ****ed by lunchtime that they couldn’t get back out in the afternoon. It’s utterly beyond me that if you’re paying close to £2k each for a day’s sport, why would you ruin it by not having basic self control?

Because to some people £2k is not a lot of money.

 

[Dunwaters]

Lots of people being extremely censorious and disapproving on this thread.



Down with that sort of thing!
How very dare you have a wee tipple and look happy in my presence.

 

[Crowstalker]

Police can offer evidence on whether a person is drunk or under the influence alcohol. For driving they has to be blood/urine or breath evidence for a conviction or yoi can just refuse to do that and you will be convicted.

It makes sense in the law if you are under the influence and your friend is driving you home without a certificate, you are in charge of the firearms whilst drunk. It's like having the keys on your person bit you aren't driving, you can still be convicted of in charge whilst under the influence.

Bottom line is don't be a idiot and have any alcohol until your guns are safely away. I can never understand the stupidity of shoots serving alcohol on the drives, that the height of madness from both a legal point of view, safety point of view and common sense!

 

[Dave_45]

Police can offer evidence on whether a person is drunk or under the influence alcohol. For driving they has to be blood/urine or breath evidence for a conviction or yoi can just refuse to do that and you will be convicted.

It makes sense in the law if you are under the influence and your friend is driving you home without a certificate, you are in charge of the firearms whilst drunk. It's like having the keys on your person bit you aren't driving, you can still be convicted of in charge whilst under the influence.

Bottom line is don't be an idiot and have any alcohol until your guns are safely away. I can never understand the stupidity of shoots serving alcohol on the drives, that the height of madness from both a legal point of view, safety point of view and common sense!

For instance , you wouldn’t purchase a rifle /SG in a rfd and have a glass of bubbles to cheers and celebrate, and that’s with no ammo to likely be chambered in the firearm.

But to then serve alcohol to folk with cartridges in guns is absolutely a head scratcher.

 

[Dalua]

It makes sense in the law if you are under the influence and your friend is driving you home without a certificate, you are in charge of the firearms whilst drunk.

It only makes sense if it is actually unlawful to be 'in charge of a firearm while drunk'. It seems to me that in some ways it might be (if you're very drunk indeed, perhaps), but in others clearly not.

It's like having the keys on your person bit you aren't driving, you can still be convicted of in charge whilst under the influence.

I think that's more to do with your exceeding an arbitrary blood-alcohol level specified in law and the car being a motor-vehicle on a public highway, rather than being 'under the influence' - so no, I'd say it's nothing like that.
If it were, and you were ever drunk or otherwise incapacitated and you knew where your own cabinet keys were, then you'd breaking some law or other, wouldn't you?

 

[Dalua]

For instance , you wouldn’t purchase a rifle /SG in a rfd and have a glass of bubbles to cheers and celebrate, and that’s with no ammo to likely be chambered in the firearm.

But to then serve alcohol to folk with cartridges in guns is absolutely a head scratcher.

I guess that depends on whether you think it possible for someone to drink alcohol without its significantly impairing their judgement. I would say yes, of course it is - though I'd add that in my case, I keep the amount very small indeed.

 

[Dave_45]

I guess that depends on whether you think it possible for someone to drink alcohol without its significantly impairing their judgement. I would say yes, of course it is - though I'd add that in my case, I keep the amount very small indeed.

It’s better to remove any doubt than to allow it to be instilled.

In my opinion.

 

[Dalua]

It’s better to remove any doubt than to allow it to be instilled.

In my opinion.

Do you mean that there should a law, like in Germany, such that it is forbidden to be 'in charge of a firearm' with a blood-alcohol level over zero?

 

[homer]

In charge of firearms? If you’ve an FAC you are in charge of them 24X7.

Can of worms.

K

Yes, that was my thoughts. Even if you get plastered at home, your still in charge of all your weapons! Where do they draw the line?

 

[Hunter1973]

This is an extract from a comment to the Daily Telegraph article:

"As a warning to all of you who own shotguns legally, be careful after shooting (game/clays) and you have had a few drinks and are driven home by a friend, wife or partner and are stopped by the police. If your driver does not have gun license, and you are are slightly over the the limit the police will deem you drunk in charge of firearms and will confiscate your shotguns which will be extremely difficult to get back. Make sure whoever is driving has a shotgun license."

Daily Telegraph article

Has anyone heard of this happening? How many random taxi drivers have an SGC?

Have seen a lot after game shoots on commercial estates. Guns may have a driver to take them home in their 4x4, get stopped just up the road and deemed to be in charge. The whole thing is a farce as there is not statute as to what is a legal limit.

 

[Eddie P]

I can be over the drink drive limit, and have my reflexes impared so not safe to drive, but still have the ability to make rational decisons about not being a dick with a gun.

 

[Dave_45]

Do you mean that there should a law, like in Germany, such that it is forbidden to be 'in charge of a firearm' with a blood-alcohol level over zero?

I just can’t think of a good reason to remove a firearm from a cabinet , set out to use it in whatever capacity , and think that adding alcohol to the equation is a good idea.

That’s all.

 

[VIGILAIRE]

Back in the day when I did a fair bit of driven shooting I had a retired chap who enjoyed the day out. He got a SGC just in case I was over refreshed after the shoot dinner at the end of the day. Most of the WAGs also have tickets to ferry dogs and guns home locally before the meal.

 

[Klenchblaize]

I seem to recall that back in the day (70’s) the default/lack of imagination Christmas present for the shooting man was a hip flask!

K

 

[tim@tcs]

I seem to recall that back in the day (70’s) the default/lack of imagination Christmas present for the shooting man was a hip flask!

K

I still get given those by the wife who doesn’t like me drinking!
This last two Christmas past were wallets with stags on one and pheasants on the other!
A nice notepad with unlined paper in a leather binder with a big drag on it, that I like a lot!