bladeracer wrote:The law doesn't allow you to handle firearms if you have any intoxicant on-board, any.
No. the law says "under the influence" which is subjective to the officer at the time.
bladeracer wrote:The law doesn't allow you to handle firearms if you have any intoxicant on-board, any.
JS2600 wrote:Does anybody know if they are allowed to just lob without notice for an inspection?
And if not, can you refer me to a document saying so,
Thanks
dpskipper wrote:bladeracer wrote:The law doesn't allow you to handle firearms if you have any intoxicant on-board, any.
No. the law says "under the influence" which is subjective to the officer at the time.
bladeracer wrote:dpskipper wrote:bladeracer wrote:The law doesn't allow you to handle firearms if you have any intoxicant on-board, any.
No. the law says "under the influence" which is subjective to the officer at the time.
Under the influence means any amount of intoxicant. How much it affects your abilities is subjective.
No1_49er wrote:I think we need to be a bit cautious here.
The question was from JS2600, whose profile indicates that they are in NSW.
dpskipper (profile Victoria) has responded to the fairly specific question with info' from the WA Firearms ACT.
WTF?
I think that the best place to start would be the NSW Act and/or Regulations !!
dpskipper wrote:bladeracer wrote:dpskipper wrote:bladeracer wrote:The law doesn't allow you to handle firearms if you have any intoxicant on-board, any.
No. the law says "under the influence" which is subjective to the officer at the time.
Under the influence means any amount of intoxicant. How much it affects your abilities is subjective.
If you've drunk only a bit and it's not on your breath, and undetectable from the cop how are you under the influence?
dpskipper wrote:I disagree it would come down to case law and the interpretation of a judge to consider what the true meaning of "under the influence" meaned with respect to firearms.
There's plenty of case law out there already.
dpskipper wrote:I disagree it would come down to case law and the interpretation of a judge to consider what the true meaning of "under the influence" meaned with respect to firearms.
There's plenty of case law out there already.
dpskipper wrote:No my point is that it would take a judge to consider if someone was under the influence. The firearms act provided no definition for what that term means.
Communism_Is_Cancer wrote:There is no definition listed on what influence means but to me has always meant don't shoot and drink.
dpskipper wrote:The English definition clearly states that you must be affected by it
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dicti ... fluence-of
dpskipper wrote:Communism_Is_Cancer wrote:There is no definition listed on what influence means but to me has always meant don't shoot and drink.
This is my exact point. The road rules act provides a clear criteria for "under influence" which is >0.5BAC. Firearms act has no such mechanism. So it is upto the opinion of a police officer to even arrest/charge you over this offense. and it is then upto the opinion of the judge based on evidence supplied to the court.
RoginaJack wrote:I thought the reading had to be under BAC levels of 0.05, not 0.50 BAC.
RoginaJack wrote:I thought the reading had to be under BAC levels of 0.05, not 0.50 BAC.
bladeracer wrote:If it's in your system you are being affected by it.
Fionn wrote:bladeracer wrote:If it's in your system you are being affected by it.
Your understanding of the law here is simplistic and flawed.
In law, you are not under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug by it simply being present in your system.
Under the Influence means it's influencing the control (ability) you have to carry or use the firearm.
bladeracer wrote:Are you suggesting that Police can insist you handle firearms despite you making the decision not to, simply because they can't discern any symptoms of intoxication?
Fionn wrote:bladeracer wrote:Are you suggesting that Police can insist you handle firearms despite you making the decision not to, simply because they can't discern any symptoms of intoxication?
Police can not insist you handle firearms period.
bladeracer wrote:Exactly, it's a decision left to us, including whether we are intoxicated.
Fionn wrote:bladeracer wrote:Exactly, it's a decision left to us, including whether we are intoxicated.
Yes but it's got nothing to do with whether police can do a storage inspection.
There is no law that prevents you having access to firearms or firearm storage or providing access to police if your under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
The police are more then capable of handling the firearms themselves if need be or if your under the influence.
If you feel so strongly about not having access to them while under the influence, maybe start lobbying for alcohol interlocks to be mandatory on firearms storage.
Gun Control Australia would support your stance.
bladeracer wrote:I don't think I said anything about my own view on this, only the legal definition.
You appear to be suggesting that I should be supporting having access to firearms while knowingly ingesting intoxicants?
bladeracer wrote:You are also saying, that regardless of how intoxicated you are, Police can insist that you give them access to your firearms? I can't imagine too many officers want to be on the record with that situation rather than simply come back at a later time.
"Yes, he said he was intoxicated so we had him give us the keys. We inspected his storage, returned his keys, and left..."
Fionn wrote:bladeracer wrote:I don't think I said anything about my own view on this, only the legal definition.
You appear to be suggesting that I should be supporting having access to firearms while knowingly ingesting intoxicants?
Unless a licence firearm owner has an alcohol interlock fitted to their storage they currently have access to firearms while intoxicated.
There is no law that prohibits access to firearms while under the influence.
Their are laws about handling, carrying and using, under the influence but not access.bladeracer wrote:You are also saying, that regardless of how intoxicated you are, Police can insist that you give them access to your firearms? I can't imagine too many officers want to be on the record with that situation rather than simply come back at a later time.
"Yes, he said he was intoxicated so we had him give us the keys. We inspected his storage, returned his keys, and left..."
I am saying being under the influence is not a legal excuse to not allow them access to your firearms.
bladeracer wrote:There is no law that prevents anything, that's impossible. Laws only allow a means of prosecution after the event.
Everybody has access to firearms if they have no regard for laws, hardly relevant to a discussion about lawfully accessing them.