Convicted for turning in a shotgun that was found

[natty bumppo 297]

If you have something on your property are you in possession of that item?

Not necessarily, but you'll have to demonstrate that it doesn't actually belong to you...so moving it or even touching it is the last thing you'd want to do. If you find something that doesn't belong to you, that you know is illegal, you better call the police right away. And just to further protect yourself, take a bunch of pictures of the object.

pictures will prove that you knew of the existence of the item ...

[HAL 9000 96]

Woa... maybe he should have said that he found a gun when calling in...

Somehow I think the conviction will likely get thrown out on appeal.

You missed this part:

Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

That was the presiding judge. An Appeals Court is not going to find any differently. His best hope is for his sentence judge to be lenient, i.e. a suspended sentence.

Did read it, and Appeals Courts have been known to find in favor of defendants where ambiguity in the law was a clear factor. Particularly when the defendant's admission of innocence provides for an argument contrary to the verbiage in the law itself.

But here there is no ambiguity in the law. Neither side disputed that fact.

A no-time sentence is the best result he can hope for.

What is and what isn't the best he can hope for is up to him to hope for. The law wasn't in dispute due to the admission of innocence. I sense, like I said from the get-go... that the appeal will likely include such a legal analysis... if he gets a timed sentence. True... the sentencing judge may just slap him with a 0 time sentence. Or not.

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

When the government possess them it isn't wrong, but, when you have them it's wrong. Something isn't right about this picture.

welcome to why we defend the 2nd amendment.

[natty bumppo 297]

When the government possess them it isn't wrong, but, when you have them it's wrong. Something isn't right about this picture.

welcome to why we defend the 2nd amendment.

so NB can virtually shoot people in his virtual world?

[Pooky 3,781]

When the government possess them it isn't wrong, but, when you have them it's wrong. Something isn't right about this picture.

In your mindset , maybe.

After the massacre in Hungerford, and especially the school massacre at Dunblane, the British government went with the opinion of the majority and outlawed possession of most types of firearms. The United Kingdom isn't as fixated on guns as the USA and the government acted with popular support.

So change your contacts out for a less fuzzy pair and see that most other nations in the world look on the US gun laws as being wrong.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you have something on your property are you in possession of that item?

Not necessarily, but you'll have to demonstrate that it doesn't actually belong to you...so moving it or even touching it is the last thing you'd want to do. If you find something that doesn't belong to you, that you know is illegal, you better call the police right away. And just to further protect yourself, take a bunch of pictures of the object.

pictures will prove that you knew of the existence of the item ...

Calling the police would already establish that fact.

[HAL 9000 96]

When the government possess them it isn't wrong, but, when you have them it's wrong. Something isn't right about this picture.

welcome to why we defend the 2nd amendment.

And is another reason he may end up winning an appeal as well.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When the government possess them it isn't wrong, but, when you have them it's wrong. Something isn't right about this picture.

welcome to why we defend the 2nd amendment.

It was a sawed off shotgun...still an illegal weapon most everywhere in the states that I'm aware.

[natty bumppo 297]

If you have something on your property are you in possession of that item?

Not necessarily, but you'll have to demonstrate that it doesn't actually belong to you...so moving it or even touching it is the last thing you'd want to do. If you find something that doesn't belong to you, that you know is illegal, you better call the police right away. And just to further protect yourself, take a bunch of pictures of the object.

pictures will prove that you knew of the existence of the item ...

Calling the police would already establish that fact.

arrested for possession ... defend how long you did/did not know of the existence ... with a good prosecutor you're doing time.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If you have something on your property are you in possession of that item?

Not necessarily, but you'll have to demonstrate that it doesn't actually belong to you...so moving it or even touching it is the last thing you'd want to do. If you find something that doesn't belong to you, that you know is illegal, you better call the police right away. And just to further protect yourself, take a bunch of pictures of the object.

pictures will prove that you knew of the existence of the item ...

Calling the police would already establish that fact.

arrested for possession ... defend how long you did/did not know of the existence ... with a good prosecutor you're doing time.

LOL...ok, you do that. If I find something illegal on my property, I'm calling the police and then I'm taking photos. I'd rather have some evidence that shows where I found the object as well as date and time stamp on it. But to each his own.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

If you have something on your property are you in possession of that item?

Not necessarily, but you'll have to demonstrate that it doesn't actually belong to you...so moving it or even touching it is the last thing you'd want to do. If you find something that doesn't belong to you, that you know is illegal, you better call the police right away. And just to further protect yourself, take a bunch of pictures of the object.

pictures will prove that you knew of the existence of the item ...

Calling the police would already establish that fact.

arrested for possession ... defend how long you did/did not know of the existence ... with a good prosecutor you're doing time.

I agree, the way they reacted I would expect the prosecution to assume HE threw it away.

[Pooky 3,781]

Woa... maybe he should have said that he found a gun when calling in...

Somehow I think the conviction will likely get thrown out on appeal.

You missed this part:

Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.

That was the presiding judge. An Appeals Court is not going to find any differently. His best hope is for his sentence judge to be lenient, i.e. a suspended sentence.

Did read it, and Appeals Courts have been known to find in favor of defendants where ambiguity in the law was a clear factor. Particularly when the defendant's admission of innocence provides for an argument contrary to the verbiage in the law itself.

But here there is no ambiguity in the law. Neither side disputed that fact.

A no-time sentence is the best result he can hope for.

What is and what isn't the best he can hope for is up to him to hope for. The law wasn't in dispute due to the admission of innocence. I sense, like I said from the get-go... that the appeal will likely include such a legal analysis... if he gets a timed sentence. True... the sentencing judge may just slap him with a 0 time sentence. Or not.

Wrong again.

Prosecuting, Brian Stalk, explained to the jury that possession of a firearm was a "strict liability" charge – therefore Mr Clarke's allegedly honest intent was irrelevant.

Just by having the gun in his possession he was guilty of the charge, and has no defence in law against it, he added.

His admission has no bearing on the charge he faced. An Appeals Court in the UK will not find any different.

[natty bumppo 297]

When the government possess them it isn't wrong, but, when you have them it's wrong. Something isn't right about this picture.

welcome to why we defend the 2nd amendment.

It was a sawed off shotgun...still an illegal weapon most everywhere in the states that I'm aware.

"Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday –"

Guilford Crown Court is in which State? Does this mean Her Magesty's Court is now part of the US?

If you have something on your property are you in possession of that item?

Not necessarily, but you'll have to demonstrate that it doesn't actually belong to you...so moving it or even touching it is the last thing you'd want to do. If you find something that doesn't belong to you, that you know is illegal, you better call the police right away. And just to further protect yourself, take a bunch of pictures of the object.

pictures will prove that you knew of the existence of the item ...

Calling the police would already establish that fact.

arrested for possession ... defend how long you did/did not know of the existence ... with a good prosecutor you're doing time.

LOL...ok, you do that. If I find something illegal on my property, I'm calling the police and then I'm taking photos. I'd rather have some evidence that shows where I found the object as well as date and time stamp on it. But to each his own.

how easy is it to set the time/date stamp on a camera?

[Pooky 3,781]

When the government possess them it isn't wrong, but, when you have them it's wrong. Something isn't right about this picture.

welcome to why we defend the 2nd amendment.

And is another reason he may end up winning an appeal as well.

Not in England it won't. There is no Second Amendment there.

[Danno 1,228]

NOw lets say it was someone right here in the USA, finds a bag of child porn in a dumpster and brings it down to the station.... what would happen to him?