robbiep Posted April 16, 2016 Report Share Posted April 16, 2016 Fair enough, but I'm not too sure if the handgun ban has made former pistol shooters extremely biased towards this sort of thing. I can't have it so why should he etc. I'm not defending the guy as he really should have known better. I don't think there's anything biased or bitter about it at all. Pistols are banned unless you happen to have a VERY good reason to possess under S.5 and the appropriate certificate He did not possess such good reason or certificate. I personally think he's got off very lightly. From reading the coverage of the case (which I accept will not be complete), I can see no reason why the judge actually deviated from the usual minimum sentence of 5 years. 1 semi-auto pistol, 177 rounds for the same, and 4 revolvers. "war hero" or not, he knew the law, and chose to break it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted April 16, 2016 Report Share Posted April 16, 2016 This isn't the case I first thought it was, not having read the link first; more fool me. I can't say I have a lot of sympathy really. Handguns were legal to own when he took it, but still only on certificate, and he has had plenty of opportunities to hand it in since via the several 'amnesties' etc there have been since the Falklands. The only aspect I find annoying is the difference between the sentencing of him, who it is doubtful owned it with intent, and a career criminal who was in possession of one with clear intent. I think he got what he deserved, but I don't think the career criminal did. It just frustrates me at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossberg-operator Posted April 16, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2016 Thx for the input guys! He should have deactivated it, hand in the ammo, if he wanted to keep it as a war memorial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElvisThePelvis Posted April 16, 2016 Report Share Posted April 16, 2016 Fundamentally the intent or lack thereof on his part is irrelevant, the item was held illegally and could well have fallen into the wrong hands in this or a future burglary. Even if he didn't hold it for a sinister reason, which a judge should find difficult to believe as it was deactivated and there was no need to hold ammo for the keepsake, he is clearly a criminal and should be sentenced as such. The fact others have had more lenient or as lenient sentences with clear malicious intent should not come into it (that is the failing if another beak). The fact that he was once upon a time in the armed forces should carry no weight either, Paedos don't get off for once being Vicars.... This should have been 5 years minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisAsh Posted April 16, 2016 Report Share Posted April 16, 2016 (edited) Not for or against but as he is a ex SAS soldier, who knows what he has been through and who may well want to harm him, even years later. for all we know he may well have worked under cover in NI or any other place, and have had a price on his head, who knows the full story, but I can understand some area's where he might just might feel the need for some form of protection and not qualifying for a section 5 firearm, as others consider the risk to be so light Edited April 16, 2016 by ChrisAsh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontastic Posted April 16, 2016 Report Share Posted April 16, 2016 Not for or against but as he is a ex SAS soldier, who knows what he has been through and who may well want to harm him, even years later. for all we know he may well have worked under cover in NI or any other place, and have had a price on his head, who knows the full story, but I can understand some area's where he might just might feel the need for some form of protection and not qualifying for a section 5 firearm, as others consider the risk to be so light Utter rubbish, you could apply that argument to anyone. Police, prison officers, any member of the forces, lawyers, judges even witnesses. The list is endless Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossy835 Posted April 16, 2016 Report Share Posted April 16, 2016 Utter rubbish, you could apply that argument to anyone. Police, prison officers, any member of the forces, lawyers, judges even witnesses. The list is endless +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent Posted April 16, 2016 Report Share Posted April 16, 2016 Read this today it seems that mostly it's other ex forces personal who recognise it as a lame excuse He didn't need ammo to remember anything he needed it to use it at some time 5 yrs minimum it's not a ptsd thing it's lame enforcement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted April 16, 2016 Report Share Posted April 16, 2016 Utter rubbish, you could apply that argument to anyone. Police, prison officers, any member of the forces, lawyers, judges even witnesses. The list is endlessI wouldn't say rubbish, many of the police prison officers etc are issued personal protection weapons over in northern island. Don't agree with what he did mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuddster Posted April 16, 2016 Report Share Posted April 16, 2016 a criminal.with previous army service. flower it up how you want. f. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontastic Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 I wouldn't say rubbish, many of the police prison officers etc are issued personal protection weapons over in northern island. Don't agree with what he did mind. I stand by what I said, having a issued weapon is completely different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullet1747 Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 This isn't the case I first thought it was, not having read the link first; more fool me. I can't say I have a lot of sympathy really. Handguns were legal to own when he took it, but still only on certificate, and he has had plenty of opportunities to hand it in since via the several 'amnesties' etc there have been since the Falklands. The only aspect I find annoying is the difference between the sentencing of him, who it is doubtful owned it with intent, and a career criminal who was in possession of one with clear intent. I think he got what he deserved, but I don't think the career criminal did. It just frustrates me at times. Got to agree , I my self have handed in ex army ammo 7.62 to be exact , he had no excuse just cause he had served doesn't make him above the law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) I wouldn't say rubbish, many of the police prison officers etc are issued personal protection weapons over in northern island. Don't agree with what he did mind. They live in Northern Ireland, when was the last time a x soldier was targeted by republican terrorists in England. ? He was guilty and got caught and is paying the price, i do think the law and and sentencing should be more evenly applied. Edited April 17, 2016 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontastic Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 They live in Northern Ireland, when was the last time a x soldier was targeted by republican terrorists in England. ? He was guilty and got caught and is paying the price, i do think the law and and sentencing should be more evenly applied. Wondered how long before you came along with comments regarding NI, you and I probably know a few ex udr men and to be honest I don't know any who have illegally held guns for protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 Wondered how long before you came along with comments regarding NI, you and I probably know a few ex udr men and to be honest I don't know any who have illegally held guns for protection. I didn't come along with a comment regarding NI, i replied to the bellow comment. I know some that have legally held firearms for protection not illegally held. I wouldn't say rubbish, many of the police prison officers etc are issued personal protection weapons over in northern island. Don't agree with what he did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontastic Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 I didn't come along with a comment regarding NI, i replied to the bellow comment. I know some that have legally held firearms for protection not illegally held. Exactly, legally held Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cannon Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 Therefore no reason to bring the North of Ireland into the debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 (edited) Therefore no reason to bring the North of Ireland into the debate. Its not like bringing in Norway, we are talking about something that happened in the UK and as Northern Ireland is part of the UK what happens could be revenant. If a X soldier was caught here with a illegal handgun they would be going to jail. Edited April 17, 2016 by ordnance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psycho Posted April 17, 2016 Report Share Posted April 17, 2016 Why was it hidden If it was a trophy it should have been made non fire able and displayed and with the ammo ...guilty as charged Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.