• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

Brad M.

NAXJA Forum User
Location
Utah-opia
This is what happens when the citizenry allows the government to disarm it and enforce ridiculous gun laws. This is where the anti-gun crowd would like to take us here in America.

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

Story:

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun

Saturday, November 14, 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."
1x1.GIF


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.

Defending, Lionel Blackman told the jury Mr Clarke's garden backs onto a public green field, and his garden wall is significantly lower than his neighbours.

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.

But despite this, Mr Blackman urged members of the jury to consider how they would respond if they found a gun.

He said: "This is a very small case with a very big principle.
"You could be walking to a railway station on the way to work and find a firearm in a bin in the park.

"Is it unreasonable to take it to the police station?"

Paul Clarke will be sentenced on December 11.

Judge Christopher Critchlow said: "This is an unusual case, but in law there is no dispute that Mr Clarke has no defence to this charge.
"The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant."
 
This is what happens when the citizenry allows the government to disarm it and enforce ridiculous gun laws. This is where the anti-gun crowd would like to take us here in America.
Sadly this is what we have to look forward to. The supressed efforts during Bush's era to comply with UN's rules have very little to no opposition.....
 
Wow, that's just plain ridiculous. Something needs to be done, and quickly... It makes me wish that for once we'd get a bunch of politicians who would lie through their teeth about being anti-rights, get elected, and then support the second amendment for what it really is. Seems it keeps happening the other way around.
 
That is the most retarded thing I've ever read....

No wonder my g/f hated living in England for 3 years.....
 
What amazed me was the assholes in the jury.
 
Don't blame the jury. Given the circumstances they had no choice but t find him guilty. Problem lies on the end of prosecution: its a case that should have not been filed in the first place.

If the jury had come up not guilty what would the court have done other than let him go, juries have the power if they would only use it and REFUSE to convict based on COMMON SENSE.
 
If the jury had come up not guilty what would the court have done other than let him go, juries have the power if they would only use it and REFUSE to convict based on COMMON SENSE.

No... it does not work that way. What you're suggesting would screw up the judicial system big time. Jury looks at the facts and verifies if the "elements of the crime" were met and reports on that.

So the facts are:
1. He picked up the gun.
2. He carried it to the police station.
3. The law says that you are not to touch the gun and carry but rather call the police.

Hence he is guilty of breaking the law. I agree that it is a STUPID law and gives no way "out" to anyone who even by accident picks something up and while trying to figure out what is the contraption they just picked up of the ground is caught with it..... So blame the law and lawmakers not the jury.

Prosecution on the other end is the "entity" that makes the determination whether they will file or not based on whether there was criminal intent or not.
 
No... it does not work that way. What you're suggesting would screw up the judicial system big time. Jury looks at the facts and verifies if the "elements of the crime" were met and reports on that.

So the facts are:
1. He picked up the gun.
2. He carried it to the police station.
3. The law says that you are not to touch the gun and carry but rather call the police.

Hence he is guilty of breaking the law. I agree that it is a STUPID law and gives no way "out" to anyone who even by accident picks something up and while trying to figure out what is the contraption they just picked up of the ground is caught with it..... So blame the law and lawmakers not the jury.

Prosecution on the other end is the "entity" that makes the determination whether they will file or not based on whether there was criminal intent or not.

As I have heard several times in the past 'no jury would convict him.her'.
If juries used common sense just maybe there would be a bit more $#$E less asshole prosecutors around.
 
To flip this around.. this might be a GOOD thing (in the long run). His case can be used to turn around and fix a stupid law when it's shown that good people doing a good thing get penalized.
 
To flip this around.. this might be a GOOD thing (in the long run). His case can be used to turn around and fix a stupid law when it's shown that good people doing a good thing get penalized.

It could also be 'Those idiots convicted him, wonder what other stupid laws I can get away with enforcing'... which would be more likely than your choice.
 
The concept that a jury is bound to enforce the laws is BS.

If that was true, then we don't need juries, as the judges and lawyers understand the laws.

We have juries of our peers so that the King's unjust laws can not be used to punish people--it is called justice in my book, jury nullification by the courts.
 
An unjust law is no law at all.
 
Back
Top