The most depressing thread ever.

[Morkai]

And this is the kind of person you think deserves leniency when it comes to firearm ownership??

Yes, but not for a fair long while and with a shown improvement of responsibility.

Not now though with the convictions being so recent.

 

[gixer1]

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.

I have a work colleague who went to board a flight, he had two pints while waiting, the flight was delayed, they cancelled after a number of hours. He (stupidly) did not think about the two pints he had a few hours before, got in his car and went to drive home. On the way home someone hit him. He was breathalyser and failed, by a very small margin (the officer apparently commented that had he done a few laps round the car and a couple of press-ups he would have passed.

The same person later found out he was snagged by a camera at 5 mph over the limit on the same day!

Two charges….not a bad person at all and a very professional person.

Just an example of how it sometimes pours rather than rains!

 

[gixer1]

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.

A very good point - is there a fixed term where keeping your nose clean would be considered rehabilitated?? Or is it just on the opinion of the FEO?

 

[finnbear270]

I did not comment either way on the question, ............. As I came from a very very large glass house.

 

[RescueMe0007]

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.

To be fair to Dunwater, he was not making the comparison you are taking, rather that males in their youth are prone to reckless, ill considered behaviours because we're typically full of beans and testosterone and have little sense. I know of a number of chaps who were somewhat "harum scarum" in their youth, yet they developed into outstanding members of society as their characters developed. The uniformed services have been particularly adept at tapping into the pool of talent with an adventurous spirit as youths. I was certainly no saint (I wasn't a villain either), I do believe that people ought to be given an opportunity once they have endured their chastisement and are able to show a record of sensible behaviour for a reasonable period of time. If they're really bad eggs, they'll not be able to stay out of trouble. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!

 

[Franchi Matt]

is there a fixed term where keeping your nose clean would be considered rehabilitated?? Or is it just on the opinion of the FEO?

That probably would be offence related if it exists, DUI is - for obvious reasons - a police officer's pet hate I should imagine, too common an offence with fatal outcomes. Compared to say - shop lifting.

 

[muddy42]

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.

My understanding is that in the UK bearing arms is not a right but a privilege, ultimately granted on the discretion of the police. An applicant can query a decision, but its not really an appeal against a set policy of what constitutes someone of good character. I appreciate this is tough and vague, but conversely potentially makes certificate holders (or potential certificate holders) behavior even whiter-than-white. It also saves the police time and costs in defending any decision in the courts.

All the applicant can do is keep on the straight/narrow and keep reapplying.

 

[User00036]

A man can be teetotal & yet be the most racist homophobic misogenistic violent wifebeating bastard out there, he may exhibit anti social personality traits & kept it well hidden (Psychopathy). Firearms Officers have a very difficult job to do, hopefully they are well trained, well versed, & have accesss to the information they need, to make their decisions. It is up to them, & I hope & pray they make the right decisions. Nut jobs & Psychos & how to spot them? you think you can? they morph & blend into any situation. Fortunately most firearms holders seem to get through the day without causing anyone any harm.

 

[timbrayford]

My understanding is that in the UK bearing arms is not a right but a privilege, ultimately granted on the discretion of the police. An applicant can query a decision, but its not really an appeal against a set policy of what constitutes someone of good character. I appreciate this is tough and vague, but conversely potentially makes certificate holders (or potential certificate holders) behavior even whiter-than-white. It also saves the police time and costs in defending any decision in the courts.

All the applicant can do is keep on the straight/narrow and keep reapplying.

This "privilege not a right" stuff was the relatively recent creation of a HO minister (Damian someone or other, the one that was downloading porn onto the taxpayer's computer). Although miss attributed to Josef Goebbels there is a saying that if you repeat a lie often enough people will come to believe that is is true.

 

[zambezi]

far too strict and far too unforgiving

Not all DUIs result in accidents. What percentage of journeys made "under the influence" are ever detected, let alone result in convictions.

If someone has two convictions, as opposed to "I did this just those two times" , does than not suggest a pattern of use over a wider period?

I can certainly see how that thought must factor in an FEO's deliberations.

 

[deerstalker.308]

I have a work colleague who went to board a flight, he had two pints while waiting, the flight was delayed, they cancelled after a number of hours. He (stupidly) did not think about the two pints he had a few hours before, got in his car and went to drive home. On the way home someone hit him. He was breathalyser and failed, by a very small margin (the officer apparently commented that had he done a few laps round the car and a couple of press-ups he would have passed.

The same person later found out he was snagged by a camera at 5 mph over the limit on the same day!

Two charges….not a bad person at all and a very professional person.

Just an example of how it sometimes pours rather than rains!

Yes but not two criminal convictions (5mph over would not normally affect an application), and clearly that’s not the same as those portrayed in the other thread.

 

[FrenchieBoy]

I'm not going to judge either way as I know nothing about the circumstances or the person involved. What I would say is that a leopard can change his spots, but it is up to that leopard to demonstrate that he has changed!
If anyone on here can say that they have never done something silly, irresponsible or downright stupid let's hear from them. I'll admit that I was no saint when I was young and did some pretty stupid things (which I got caught for and paid the price) however I learned from those things and like to think that I am a fairly responsible and law abiding person now!

 

[JTO]

The offences are 4 to 6 years old and the offender appears to have been between 21 and 23 at the time.

Where did he mention his age? Was it mentioned by someone who knew him?
At 23, I had not tasted alcohol, but had had a gun license for over 8 years.

 

[Dunwaters]

Not an analogy that I would have drawn.

Fair enough, my bad, the point that I’m trying to make is that young men between the ages of 16 to 23-25 are prone to reckless and stupid behaviour, that trend is global, so its not likely to be down to nurture and its not likely to change until we get rid of young men.
I dont think that relatively minor criminal offences committed at in young adulthood should be indelibly engraved on your record for all time once you can demonstrate that you have now straightened out and are flying right.
Like it or not this is the cohort we overwhelmingly rely on for new recruits and its this same cohort that’s responsible for most antisocial behaviour and most commonly comes into conflict with the police.
Personally I’d give someone the benefit of the doubt once, once could happen to a bishop, maybe twice, assuming a relatively minor level of infringement, after that, no, not unless you can demonstrate changed behaviour and associations over a long long time.

 

[I. Farticus]

I stand by my comment.

I lost my licence aged 20 after 2 pints on an empty stomach. I blew 42 then 41, having been told that as I clearly wasn't drunk, if I blew 40 or under, they'd take me back to my car. The bloods came back at 84 (limit is 80) and the judge took my licence for 12 months, with a £100 fine. I crossed the line, and rightly got punished.

I have never had any alcohol when driving since (35 years), and am acutely aware of what I am doing the following morning if out on the smash.

The original post was by someone who clearly didn't learn. To lose it for drink driving, then get back into the car (we assume with his licence returned) and then get caught with drugs in his system shows a massive lack of judgement, common sense and thought for the rest of the general public.

 

[kes]

I am surprised that no-one recognises the risk - averse nature of the Police today and, in truth, would you risk a problem with this chap ? I also do not know the full facts and readily admit this but in a time, long ago when police were actually part of the community, the local beat officer would have been asked for his opinion and probably, in time, have given his go-ahead.
Now all police forces are centralised, most people seek a career path in the Police wouldn't you ? Would you risk a decision on someone who has a record and recent apparently?
The police are fully entitled to take into account any prior conviction as ANY criminal prosecution and conviction is never to be forgotten or necessarily forgiven - there is no automatic right to call yourself 'rehabilitated' and that's the law. is anyone therefore surprised that the decision is no?
I'm not but we have all had a choice when younger - our past trails us throughout life and decisions made when young and stupid (I've made a few mistakes too) are meant to be controlled by the moral compass our parents give us.

 

[WH308]

Is the issue here partly a little like the story of the stork and the crane…

A drink driving offence means that you used a legal item obtained from a legal seller in an unlawful way. There is little to cause drama except the manner in which you behaved.

The Drug driving offence carries bigger questions. It’s an illegal substance obtains from a criminal dealer. Ergo you know and have associates who are criminals, more so they know you and potentially where you live. You may have money problems with them that may cause them to “exert pressure” on you. The list of possible issues from this is a list that runs longer than the first.

 

[Stalker62]

Where did he mention his age?

It is on his Avatar.

 

[Pellet Pinger]

I refrained from posting on the original thread.
In my opinion the OP shouldn’t have been allowed a driving licence, let alone a gun licence.
No excuse for drink driving, drugged driving a couple of years later? That puts you in the pond life bracket as far as I’m concerned.
Zero sympathy here.

 

[Pedro]

Well, as usual, we only have this person's account of his misdeeds. Which might be accurate. Or not. It's quite natural to play down anything that is detrimental to yourself. Indeed, for all we know, these two incidents could be the tip of the iceberg and he has committed other indiscretions of a more minor nature he thought not worth mentioning. But taking them at face value, they show a disregard for safety of both himself and others. Not that long ago either. And also it's perhaps worth mentioning, these two incidences only reflect the times he actually got caught. I bet it wasn't his first time taking drugs for example....

Obviously I'm not, but if I were the one making a decision on his application, it'd be a "no". However, I don't think necessarily that it would be a "no" for the rest of his life. I'm not sure at which point I'd consider an application more favourably, but it'd be a fair few more years down the line and a clean sheet in that period and evidence of a changed lifestyle.

Putting it another way, could you, for example, be happy with him standing on a peg next to you one fine morning wondering if his breakfast consisted of a couple of lines of charlie?