Jump to content

Criminals will poop themselves, meanwhile......


Scully
 Share

Recommended Posts

The proposed offence will carry a one year jail sentence and/or a fine if heard before magistrates, or up to 5 years in prison and/or a fine if heard before a Crown court.

 

So, plead guilty at magistrates and get a year, go to crown court and get five. They're trying to make this the same as the cautions, frighten folk into just accepting the lesser punishment.

 

I've got rifles and shotguns, and lathe, miller, welder, reamers etc, so am I guilty ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, plead guilty at magistrates and get a year, go to crown court and get five. They're trying to make this the same as the cautions, frighten folk into just accepting the lesser punishment.

 

I've got rifles and shotguns, and lathe, miller, welder, reamers etc, so am I guilty ?

looks like ill be in the next cell to you !!!!!

 

as I have the tools and trained to use them.

Edited by fruitloop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the way I read it says you have the tools "and

(b) the person intends to use the article (whether by itself or with other articles) to convert an imitation firearm into a firearm."

That's how I read it too but PW's never been the place to not leap on the soap box at a tangent to the quoted evidence!! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's how I read it too but PW's never been the place to not leap on the soap box at a tangent to the quoted evidence!! :)

Define "Intends to use", do you mean the facts or what will be in the report when they've busted someone's door down on some anti's word ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That part or the bill is a non starter because unless you were in the act of converting a deac or have parts already converted how can some one prove you intended to.

After all how many PW members have been convicted of attempted murder? We all have the tools to

Plus someone with a bit of common may point that out before it becomes law.


Scrub the last line. its politicians that will be discussing the bill!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That part or the bill is a non starter because unless you were in the act of converting a deac or have parts already converted how can some one prove you intended to.

 

I may be wrong but as I understood it, no one has to prove the intention, rather that the accused has to prove they had no intent. Like you suggest, hopefully it will be sorted before it becomes law, because if it is left to common sense then the accused is stuffed! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this reads as owning a few tools can get you imprisoned for having the potential to convert firearms even if you don't have any firearms to convert? Sounds like the thought police in action, where are all the usuall subservient Wallys on here that say "if your doing nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" ? That is Unless a member of the local constabulary thinks you have been slipping his Mrs a length behind his back....... Glad I have access the money needed to sell up and move abroad because the way this countries going that may be the way forward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That part or the bill is a non starter because unless you were in the act of converting a deac or have parts already converted how can some one prove you intended to.

After all how many PW members have been convicted of attempted murder? We all have the tools to

Plus someone with a bit of common may point that out before it becomes law.

Scrub the last line. its politicians that will be discussing the bill!

That already exists in law because its an offence to have something CAPABLE of being converted into a firearm. So what does CAPABLE mean? Whatever they want it to mean I guess but it doesn't say "with intent". That makes it an absolute law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely that would be against the very basis of English law, ie that you are innocent until proven guilty.

Seems to be the way the law of yesteryear is being skewed by the politicos of today?

 

As an afterthought is it not the case that wording was changed to infer that to remain silent would prejudice the position of the accused?

Edited by old man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...