Uh...Ian.......Whats up with This ???

Huh ?

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

Tuesday, November 17, 2009, 12:15
A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for "doing his duty".
Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.
The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year's imprisonment for handing in the weapon.
In a statement read out in court, Mr Clarke said: "I didn't think for one moment I would be arrested.
"I thought it was my duty to hand it in and get it off the streets."

The court heard how Mr Clarke was on the balcony of his home in Nailsworth Crescent, Merstham, when he spotted a black bin liner at the bottom of his garden.
In his statement, he said: "I took it indoors and inside found a shorn-off shotgun and two cartridges.
"I didn't know what to do, so the next morning I rang the Chief Superintendent, Adrian Harper, and asked if I could pop in and see him.
"At the police station, I took the gun out of the bag and placed it on the table so it was pointing towards the wall."
Mr Clarke was then arrested immediately for possession of a firearm at Reigate police station, and taken to the cells.

Click to expand...

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/...nding-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html

He also showed jurors a leaflet printed by Surrey Police explaining to citizens what they can do at a police station, which included "reporting found firearms".

Quizzing officer Garnett, who arrested Mr Clarke, he asked: "Are you aware of any notice issued by Surrey Police, or any publicity given to, telling citizens that if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?"

To which, Mr Garnett replied: "No, I don't believe so."

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.

Click to expand...

I guess it's the old adage "Ignorance of the law is no excuse".

This sums it up very well.....

The life of the law has not been logic, but experience. This was the great jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes's famous description of how the law operates in our lives. It is perhaps the single most telling observation in all of legal history. To learn how the law works, look not to the law's presumed foundations in logic but rather to our real-world experience of the law. What Holmes might have added, however, is that experience can be brutal.
How often is it that a person finds unsatisfactory the application of a particular law to his/her situation or individual predicament? This experience is quite common and usually involves a law that one would have expected to help rather than hinder or even hurt one's ultimate cause. In these instances, people are likely to become cynical, even despairing of the law in general, inclined to disbelieve claims of the law's intrinsic merit.
This skepticism of the law is nothing new. In the sixteenth century, the essayist Michel de Montaigne complained bitterly that "laws maintain their credit, not because they are just, but because they are laws. This is the mystical basis of their authority; they have no other. They are often made by fools, and more often by men who, out of hatred for equality, are lacking in equity, but always by men: vain and unstable creators. There is nothing so grossly and widely, nor so ordinarily faulty as the laws." Montaigne backed up his argument by going even farther back in time to quote Epicurus, a philosopher of the fourth century, B.C.: "As we once suffered from crimes, so now we are suffering from laws."

Sounds almost like the old pot laws. It wasn't illegal to have pot if you had a gov't issued stamp for it. To get the stamp you had to take the pot to the office to get the stamp....therefor you had it in your possession prior to having the stamp and were subsequently arrested for it.

We're very strict with guns.

Only sissies have them.

Real men use their fists, a stick or a short knife.

That's why when our police respond, they do not wear riot helmets or have shields.

Here, the Police shoot first and ask questions later.

It's cultural and has a lot to do with what your dad taught you.

"It's not a fair fight if you shoot the burglar son, use your fists."

In England a policeman will not hit you, unless you hit him. Then he will kick your arse and probably only use his fists.

We just love a fight. Guns take away that pleasure.

That's probably why we lost America. We came looking for a friendly punch up and your daddies decided to use the guns in the shed. Oh, and the French.

Does that include these?

No, not allowed.

Too impersonal.

My Dad used to be in the Merchant Marines and the Officers used to sew razor blades in the rim of thier hats (in case they got in a fight on shore leave).
One on top and one on bottom and what that would do is if you were cut, because the cuts were so close together you wouldn't be able to get them stitched up properly and would always have a nasty scar.

Seems pretty nuts to me. See, the U.S. isn't the only country with daft jurors, overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement.

So in England, if you want to ruin some enemy's life, just obtain a gun, toss it in their car/luggage/whatever and make sure they are found with it in their possession. According to the judge, jurors, and law enforcement the person is screwed, even if a weapon fell out of the sky apparently.

No what the police say is

if they find a firearm the only thing they should do is not touch it, report it by telephone, and not take it into a police station?"

Click to expand...

so as long as you don't touch it and that means pick it up and bring it to a police station it's ok.

Ian Gills said:

We're very strict with guns.

Only sissies have them.

Real men use their fists, a stick or a short knife.

Click to expand...

There is only one rule in a fight...that is to win...

I would rarher be a live sissy with a gun than a dead man....

One of two things will happen with the case because we are smarter than Americans and more pragmatic.

Either:

a) they will discover it was really his gun

b) they will concede that this was a responsible act but remind the public of the proper procedure.

Notice how they arrested him without shooting him. Good eh? You might want to take a leaf out of that book, just in case the guy your Police did shoot didn't actually do it.

May I also remind you that a ploy that a young boy was flying away on a weather balloon would just not work in England. Simple maths. Balloon too small, therefore no need to call the Police.

Not so in America.

It's the same with the Healthcare Bill. Public health provision will save you money and improve health outcomes.

But there's just no helping some of you. I blame the mainstream conservative media, which obviously cannot count or perhaps even read.

There is only one rule in a fight...that is to win...

I would rather be a live sissy with a gun than a dead man....

Click to expand...

Where's the honor in that? Let me speak to your dad about your upbringing.

I like the Canadian approach myself. That being guns are to hunt and fists are to fight with.

I have a hot purse.

Cass said:

There is only one rule in a fight...that is to win...

I would rarher be a live sissy with a gun than a dead man....

Click to expand...

Got that right. I would rather you be a sissy too. LOL I'll loan you my purse.

Ian Gills said:

It's the same with the Healthcare Bill. Public health provision will save you money and improve health outcomes.

.

Click to expand...

It will never happen...ever...you really don't understand politics, power and control...

If I am the only game in town I control it in every way...

One thing man never learns from history....is that man never learns from history...

I believe this government is more treasonous than the one we originally Revolted against...

Cass said:

I believe this government is more treasonous than the one we originally Revolted against...

Click to expand...

You must have slept through the previous 8 years.

I believe this government is more treasonous than the one we originally Revolted against...

Click to expand...

I told you it was a bad idea to kick us out.

But you wouldn't listen.

We would happily come back if some arrangement could be made regarding the back taxes...

Ian Gills said:

We would happily come back if some arrangement could be made regarding the back taxes...

Click to expand...

Yeah...um....about $$ being owed

Government still owes America more than $4.368 billion from the First World War

Click to expand...

No, no, no.

That was all repaid a year or two ago. I remember the news about it.

The dollars we borrowed were not quite worth the same as the ones we paid back.

They were worth a lot less.



In 1945, it was $4 to one pound.

Very happy days. We almost owned the place (again)!