deadeye ive Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 It was only a matter of time http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/burtonmail-new...e.asp?ID=378581 Be legal ,Be safe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dom_joyce265 Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) I think that is rediculous. if he was intending you hurt a human being he would have brought a 'real' rifle! oh well i gues it should be a lesson to the rest of us... get your rifle chroned to make sure! Edited January 6, 2009 by dom_joyce265 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsportshooter Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 As is usual with these posts - There has to be more to this than just having an FAC air rifle. It is highly unlikely that anyone would get a prison sentence for mere possesion and I seriously doubt that should they be given a custodial they would get as much as nine months..... I think the key, within the article, is the line 'during the execution of a warrant at Fisher's home in Tamworth in connection with a domestic incident'. It begs the question as to why the old bill were exceuting a warrant in the first place.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holly Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 must have had a few convictions beforehand , if not his face certainly didnt fit with the judge :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadeye ive Posted January 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 As is usual with these posts - There has to be more to this than just having an FAC air rifle. It is highly unlikely that anyone would get a prison sentence for mere possesion and I seriously doubt that should they be given a custodial they would get as much as nine months..... I think the key, within the article, is the line 'during the execution of a warrant at Fisher's home in Tamworth in connection with a domestic incident'. It begs the question as to why the old bill were exceuting a warrant in the first place.... I agree . The point is it's the firearm incident that sent him down not whatever the warrent was issued for in the first place .This can now be considered a test case irrelevant of what other factors were involved and the law clearly states a maximum sentance of 5 years for this offence . Some of the comments made by the defending solicitor surprised me to say the least Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsportshooter Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 I agree .The point is it's the firearm incident that sent him down not whatever the warrent was issued for in the first place .This can now be considered a test case irrelevant of what other factors were involved and the law clearly states a maximum sentance of 5 years for this offence . Some of the comments made by the defending solicitor surprised me to say the least What I am saying is that no one can say conclusively that that is the only reason the bloke is eating poridge. As stated it is much more likely that he has previous convictions or did something with the weapon to incite the warrant in the first place. Look at it this way what exact warrant were the police executing?? If it was an arrest warrant for the domestic then the old bill wouldn't be snooping around his posessions - I would imagine that there has been some sort of gun threat that has lead to 'information' being laid at court and a firearms search warrant being issued. Again - I find it totally unbelieveable that the bloke got nine months for possession of an FAC Airweapon.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 there will be more to this than meets the eye, in my area there have been a number of cases of "over the limit" air guns and even the use of the same to put bus window,s lamps out etc, all ended in fines and confiscation / crushing of guns, to attract a jail sentence this case must have been more than simply owning unaware? as regardless of the 5 years MANDATORY which by the way in legal terms does NOT mean a minimum? the courts will and do take into account individual circumstance. cheers KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsportshooter Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 Totally agree - Although he did say Maximum not Manditory but even so as a comparrison/clarifier - Theft has the same custodial sentence but you don't see petty shoplifters going down for 9 months do you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 I know someone very very well, who had a .177 Webley pcp tested at about 18ftlb. Other allegations were placed by the jobsworth reporting it which led to it's test. The other allegations were eventually dismissed and he took the absolute offence to crown court with an expert witness who agreed it could have been inadvertently reassembled over the power limit by someone who had dropped it in a muddy pool when he slipped into it. The 'offender' got a fine - and was not allowed to have the over powered rifle back unless he obtained a certificate. Being a steadfast kind of bloke, after the judge had finished the sentencing he asked if a ticket holder would be allowed to reclaim it on his behalf untill he got his own ticket. This was agreed and his local RFD collected it - for a price - and stored it for him. It has since been sold to a ticket holder, and subsequently re-sold to another ticket holder. As the middle aged previously model citizen was now an 'offender' with a recent firearms conviction the application for a firearms certificate was declined, even though he had sufficient land of his own to use it on. The point I'm making is that there are almost certainly other serious aspects or considerations that could not be reported involved here. Pehaps a history of violence or other offences that a paper could not printed by the paper for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon2008 Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 got me worried; ive a hw77 bog standard; should i have a license?? its about 10 yrs old Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bullet boy Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 got me worried; ive a hw77 bog standard; should i have a license?? its about 10 yrs old Get it chronoed at your local gunshop.Better be safe than sorry. :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webber Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 I offer a filling service to local air gunners. I've lost count of the number of times that I've advised air gunners about ensuring that their weapons are below 12ft lbs. Some even brag about what their gun will do. I intend to print the newspaper article off, and laminate it. I'll then keep it handy, ready for the next erstwhile rambo. webber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winchester Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 As is usual with these posts - There has to be more to this than just having an FAC air rifle. It is highly unlikely that anyone would get a prison sentence for mere possesion and I seriously doubt that should they be given a custodial they would get as much as nine months..... I think the key, within the article, is the line 'during the execution of a warrant at Fisher's home in Tamworth in connection with a domestic incident'. It begs the question as to why the old bill were exceuting a warrant in the first place.... Try hear say mate i have told you all befor THEY DONT NEED AN EXCUSE PLEASE LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF FACT and get your heads out of the clouds please Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadeye ive Posted January 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 I offer a filling service to local air gunners. I've lost count of the number of times that I've advised air gunners about ensuring that their weapons are below 12ft lbs. Some even brag about what their gun will do. I intend to print the newspaper article off, and laminate it. I'll then keep it handy, ready for the next erstwhile rambo. webber High light the section where his solicitor built his whole defence on his clients as well as his own naivety :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzy518 Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 There has to be more to this than the article suggests...The police would not have needed a warrant to arrest the individual in relation to the domestic incident, they could just turn up at his home and done the deed there and then. They would also have had the power to search his house for items in connection to the offence for which arrested, again no warrant would be needed, by vitue of s32 PACE act.. I hope that they will look at the seller of the rifle too. If he is a market trader he will also need a RFD licence to sell air guns, and if he has knowingly sold an FAC rated gun to someone without a certificate, its big poo time for him too. As an aside, we are assuming that the rifle was over 12ft/lb and that is what he was prosecuted for. Another angle may be that the individual may have been a prohibited person from posessing any form of firearm, as he has served a period of 3 years or more in custody. This would also disqualify him from posessing even a sub 12ft/lb air rifle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 There has to be more to this than the article suggests...The police would not have needed a warrant to arrest the individual in relation to the domestic incident, they could just turn up at his home and done the deed there and then. They would also have had the power to search his house for items in connection to the offence for which arrested, again no warrant would be needed, by vitue of s32 PACE act.. I hope that they will look at the seller of the rifle too. If he is a market trader he will also need a RFD licence to sell air guns, and if he has knowingly sold an FAC rated gun to someone without a certificate, its big poo time for him too. As an aside, we are assuming that the rifle was over 12ft/lb and that is what he was prosecuted for. Another angle may be that the individual may have been a prohibited person from posessing any form of firearm, as he has served a period of 3 years or more in custody. This would also disqualify him from posessing even a sub 12ft/lb air rifle. if you look back to DEC 2006 I posted on here an incident with a BRAND new logun S16 that a father bought from a dealer for his son, now the lad (for some reason) was stopped by plod? the gun was found to be over the limit, and the case went to court, result unconditional discharge, and gun confiscated / destroyed. now the bloke complained to the gun dealer (trying to get money back) told not my problem its YOUR responsibility? so tough ( big deal in the local press about it etc) then took on the manufacturers / suppliers, again he got nowhere yet even the gun tester ( I know him personally) said gun had not been tampered with and was as supplied IE a supposed legal limit gun. and no charges for the dealer/ supplier. NOTE NO one went to prison, and of 3 other cases I know of (one gun running at 20lb plus so not "just over" all ended in fines and destruction. again NOT a jail term, one lad ( solicitor said poor sole was bored) was putting out street lamps etc and firing from a bus stop did he go away ? did he heck. cheers KW cheers KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winchester Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 There was another bloke had a similer case, as above but the plod do try everything to get them over 12ftb different pelletse etc can take them over, Air guns just aint WORTH HAVEING Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 I definately want to get a chrono to get mine tested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsportshooter Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 (edited) Try hear say mate i have told you all befor THEY DONT NEED AN EXCUSE PLEASE LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF FACT and get your heads out of the clouds please They may not need 'a reason' to revoke a licence (although they do) - but they sure as hell need a reason to send you down for a stretch. Obviously you don't like the old bill (and you are entitled to your opinion - although half the people on here don't know what happened to you) but in the reported instance the bloke has been arrested and tried by a court for what I suspect is more than mere possession of an FAC airweapon. Yes you could argue that if he had an FAC without a slot for the rifle then he would probably have had his licence revoked. However, with regard to jail time, in the present climate courts are not, lets say, actively incarcerating people.. My point is there must be more to this than taht written in the report. You have confused me a little as to the meaning of the 'VOICE OF FACT' As for 'hearsay' I believe the prosecutors in UK courts still have to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt...... 'Hearsay' Really wouldn't cut it... Edited January 7, 2009 by Newsportshooter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deadeye ive Posted January 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 .. I hope that they will look at the seller of the rifle too. If he is a market trader he will also need a RFD licence to sell air guns, and if he has knowingly sold an FAC rated gun to someone without a certificate, its big poo time for him too. . The fact he says he brought it from Donnington market for £500 says it all .I imagine it was obtained via a man in a Pub who he met once lets say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winchester Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 (edited) They may not need 'a reason' to revoke a licence (although they do) - but they sure as hell need a reason to send you down for a stretch. Obviously you don't like the old bill (and you are entitled to your opinion - although half the people on here don't know what happened to you) but in the reported instance the bloke has been arrested and tried by a court for what I suspect is more than mere possession of an FAC airweapon. Yes you could argue that if he had an FAC without a slot for the rifle then he would probably have had his licence revoked. However, with regard to jail time, in the present climate courts are not, lets say, actively incarcerating people.. My point is there must be more to this than taht written in the report. You have confused me a little as to the meaning of the 'VOICE OF FACT' As for 'hearsay' I believe the prosecutors in UK courts still have to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt...... 'Hearsay' Really wouldn't cut it... I am the voice of fact it dont matter what happens the prosercution dont have to PROVE YOU GUILTY all you have to DO IS PROVE YOURSELF INOCCENT IT DONT MEANSQUAT tHE LAW IS A FARCE Before my little do i thought the plod were for truth honesty and justice you dont know how far from the truth this is in my case they even tryed to fabricate evidance but in the end no matter what you do you are still going to be £1000s out as i have tryed to tell you all THE TRUTH DONT EVEN COME INTO IT AND AS YOU HAVE SAID ABOUT HATEING POLICEMEN your dam right i do after what i was put through, Befor i would help anyone not now Edited January 7, 2009 by winchester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newsportshooter Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 I am the voice of fact it dont matter what happens the prosercution dont have to PROVE YOU GUILTY all you have to DO IS PROVE YOURSELF INOCCENT IT DONT MEANSQUAT tHE LAW IS A FARCE Before my little do i thought the plod were for truth honesty and justice you dont know how far from the truth this is in my case they even tryed to fabricate evidance but in the end no matter what you do you are still going to be £1000s out as i have tryed to tell you all THE TRUTH DONT EVEN COME INTO IT AND AS YOU HAVE SAID ABOUT HATEING POLICEMEN your dam right i do after what i was put through, Befor i would help anyone not now Slightly off on a tangent here but as said I do not no the strengths and weaknesses of your individual case. What I would say is that if you honestly believe you have been wrongly found guilty in court then there are avenues of appeal that you could take - set up to ensure you are entitled to a fair trial. I assume you were convicted of some offence and feel that the evidence against you was false - this would be a perfect example of an instance were you should appeal the conviction (providing it is indeed the evidence that is false and not your interpretation of the amount of evidence required to prove the case). As for the revocation of your licence - again there are avenues of appeal should you prove your innocence in the case as above. You are right there are times when you have to prove yourself innocent (for instance if you claim a 'reasonable excuse' for having an offensive weapon in public) but in the majority of cases the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. I am intrigued as to your case and would like to know more (as I’m sure others would - if only to stop it happening to them) - but completely understand if you do not wish to write about it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winchester Posted January 7, 2009 Report Share Posted January 7, 2009 (edited) If you want to know i will pm you my number phone me o by the way there was NO CONVICTION I was not even in the same county the days the witness say these ficticious events happened i was driveing a truck with taco evidance but that dont meen squat Edited January 7, 2009 by winchester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milo2005 Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 I definately want to get a chrono to get mine tested. anyone is more then welcome to use mine ,chrono Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancs Lad Posted January 13, 2009 Report Share Posted January 13, 2009 If you want to know i will pm you my number phone me o by the way there was NO CONVICTION I was not even in the same county the days the witness say these ficticious events happened i was driveing a truck with taco evidance but that dont meen squat You aint been out doing hookers with a hammer again have you winchester................. 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.