Convicted for turning in a shotgun that was found

[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.

"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?

See Charles' post which I was directly responding to and then get back to me.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

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?

lol yes I must admit I'd be afraid to report it to anyone, I guess in some ways we aren't so far behind.

[Ban Hammer 13,620]

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?

that's what i was wondering.

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?

See Charles' post which I was directly responding to and then get back to me.

we were talking about guns in general. see consolemaster's post and then mine? your post is a tangent off of that.

[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?

See Charles' post which I was directly responding to and then get back to me.

you're confused ... a sawed off shotgun (30" bbl down to 24" bbl) is perfectly legal ... guess I gotta re-read the article ... to determine if the bbl lenth was less than 18 in. .... and the OAL was less than 26 inches for it to be illegal (or requiring a NFA Stamp) in the US

edt: I'n not gonna spel chek ... caus this pc ain't got one

Edited November 21, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[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.

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.

*May* not.

There is no defensee because he had the weapon in his physical possession. This is a case of oh hey... I have a laptop in my possession at the moment. It could be mine... and it could not. But if being in physical possession of a laptop were strictly illegal... then I'd be liable, exactly as the prosecution claimed. Maybe this is exactly what is intended for in the law, as it appears to be worded. If so... then the convicted is even more dumb than dumber.

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

touché and mea culpa

[Pooky 3,840]

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.

*May* not.

There is no defense because he had the weapon in his physical possession. This is a case of oh hey... I have a laptop in my possession at the moment. It could be mine... and it could not. But if being in physical possession of a laptop were strictly illegal... then I'd be liable, exactly as the prosecution claimed. Maybe this is exactly what is intended for in the law, as it appears to be worded. If so... then the convicted is even more dumb than dumber.

As Ron White is wont to say, "You can't fix stupid."

[HAL 9000 96]

Indeed.

[natty bumppo 297]

Indeed.

be nice when talking about Her Majesty's Court .....

[HAL 9000 96]

Indeed.

be nice when talking about Her Majesty's Court .....

*Scurries off to find my whig.*

[Pooky 3,840]

Indeed.

be nice when talking about Her Majesty's Court .....

Why? All the judges are crotchety old duffers anyway.

[natty bumppo 297]

Indeed.

be nice when talking about Her Majesty's Court .....

Why? All the judges are crotchety old duffers anyway.

maybe they need golf lessons ...

[Niels Bohr 72]

Oh. This is in England.

[natty bumppo 297]

Oh. This is in England.

typical engineer ...

btw if you are curious why you're outside and wet ... it's raining

[Niels Bohr 72]

Oh. This is in England.

typical engineer ...

btw if you are curious why you're outside and wet ... it's raining

Typical? Who said this was an Engineering application? Typical idiocy I'd say.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[Niels Bohr 72]

Here is an example of what engineers do. If you still do not understand, then, you probably belong into a particular group I mentioned earlier.

Link