Gun dad gets 5 years.

Discussion in 'The NAAFI Bar' started by old_fat_and_hairy, Mar 15, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. old_fat_and_hairy

    old_fat_and_hairy LE Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    In a story in today's newspapers, a 55 year old farmer, and father of one, was jailed for 5 years after admitting that he kept a loaded .45 Colt copy next to his bed. He also admitted keeping a loaded rifle in the room. The weapons were kept because the family live in a rural area near a prison.

    5 years! And he hadn't shot or threatened anyone. He would have been better off going out, getting pissed and causing deat by dangerous. Would have been unlucky indeed to serve any time for that!
  2. That's entry level.

    The bit that confuses me is the loaded .45 copy?

    Justice eh..
  3. Did he have a fiream certificate for the rifle? If not, he's committed an offence under Section 1 of the 1968 act. - Possession without a certificate. I don't see what they're getting at with the copy (replica?). It's only an offence to have it in a public place without Lawful Authority or reasonable excuse. Unless they mean it's a copy in the way that a Taurus is a copy of a Smith and Wesson.
  4. old_fat_and_hairy

    old_fat_and_hairy LE Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    It seems it was a copy of some .45 Colt. Actually said 'a loaded replica', but that sounds like journo crapspeak. Didn't specify whether it was a copy of the venerable 1911 semi-auto Colt ( best copies made by Star or Astra) or a copy of the 1878 Peacemaker.

    Whoops! Sorry. I slipped into nerd mode. Apologies for that.
  5. If it's a replica it's not a firearm. Could be a blank firing replica.
  6. old_fat_and_hairy

    old_fat_and_hairy LE Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    and no F.A.C. But then, can't get one for a section 1 pistol anyway. Legal ownership of pistols prohibited (except for black powder/muzzle loading). Illegal ownership much cheaper than buying cert, buying weapon, etc.
    Agree that it is illegal, just not sure sentence propotionate, especially since bedroom hardly qualifies as public place.
    I do condemn keeping a loaded weapon in an open place when a child is about.
  7. Wonder if there's more to the story? What led the police to search his bedroom and find them? Have you got a link to the story?
  8. You can get an FAC for a section one pistol - it's section five pistols that are hard to get hold of.
    Section one pistol is a long barrel or front stuffer.
  9. blue-sophist

    blue-sophist LE Good Egg (charities)

    The guy broke the Law, and the Law won ... I have little sympathy, I'm afraid.

    His certificate would undoubtedly have required secure and separate storage of arm and ammunition. If he broke the rules, he's done.

    And, as OFH said, bludgy stupid with kids around ...
  10. old_fat_and_hairy

    old_fat_and_hairy LE Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Story was in today's edition of 'The Sun' and was underneath an article on page 28 regarding a police Inspector facing charges of kiddy fiddling.
    Not a very comprehensive article (about the firearms), and no details of how it came to attention of police.

  11. Interestingly, although police usually insist on separate storage facilities being in place when they come to examine security arrangements I've never seen this requirement on a certificate.

    The standard is:
    The exceptions in para B relate to it being in use or cleaned, repaired etc.

    Five years for just breaching a condition of your certificate would seem excessive. A friend of mine had a rifle stolen and never heard a squeak from the police about even losing his cert.. Five years for having a section 1 firearm without a certificate is more understandable.
  12. blue-sophist

    blue-sophist LE Good Egg (charities)

    May be more to this than the intellectual staff at The Sun can comprehend ... like what's a pistol?

    If he did have a loaded Colt/Astra/whatever by his bed ... 5 years sounds about right.
  13. Even if he had an unlawfully-held pistol and rifle (and ammo for both), this seems a very stiff sentence if he was not posing an immediate threat to the public safety. Apart from the potential risks to children in the house etc., there may have been other factors in his background.

    There's no doubt this man broke the law, however. But if people like [Col] Patrick Mercer MP - of recent "bl*ck ba*ta*ds" celebrity - had had their way with their Private Members Bills, we would all be able to keep weapons for home defence, in the aftermath of the Tony Martin case.

    The politicians - and the police - will have to confront the reality of a country in which increasing numbers of lawabiding people, especially in country areas, feel that the police cannot or will not protect them adequately. But we don't want a proliferation of uncontrolled guns, as per the USA. Not an easy call . . .
  14. old_fat_and_hairy

    old_fat_and_hairy LE Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Perhaps you are right in that he broke the law and deserved his sentence. It has certainly made me consider my own position, and the old LMG that I have under the bed may have to go. I suppose the 84 may just pass muster as a large flower vase, unless closely inspected, but doubt that the Browning 9 and the SLR could do the same.
  15. Anybody got a link to the story?