The Great Gun Control Debate

[KevinB]

The wife and I went shooting yesterday, even the MiL came, and she enjoyed shooting my CCW 1911 more than the wife's CCW Glock19.

We went out to Tijiuana Flats for dinner (date night) and then to "The men who stare at Goats" (which as an aside sucked), while the MiL watched our son Troy (son of a footsoldier - whatcha expect  :nod

I've been pretty complacent of recent, rarely bringing my CCW gun (I never really go out anyway other than work) with me any place, but the last few days have really put a point in the whole "you dont need a handgun, until you NEED a handgun".

Canada has some really bad gun laws on the books, and honestly if it got rolled back to 1934 I think sociaety woulkd be a better place...

 

[Loachman]

Nope, because we found lots of other stuff too.

I didn't think that you would have, but some I'm not so sure about.

Like those Chiefs that think that it's so great.

And now he'll have to kill the dumb, cheating hoo-war ex-girlfriend with a knife.

At least that would keep the statistical ratios of means used consistent.

 

[a_majoor]

Real gun control insanity:

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html

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."

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."

- Comments on this story have been disabled for the weekend, they will be reinstated on Monday.

 

[PMedMoe]

That is insane.  It will be interesting to see if he appeals and/or what sentence he does get.

 

[Greymatters]

That is insane.  It will be interesting to see if he appeals and/or what sentence he does get.

It sounds more like he had a bad lawyer - or that there is more to this person than is being said in the story...

 

[Retired AF Guy]

It appears that this was not Mr. Clarke's first run-in with the law.

Man accused of attacking DVLA inspector with broom walks free

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The article is from Surrey, England - not Surrey, BC. It shows how assinine law abiding people are treated by archaic and ill thought out laws and PC driven enforcers. Britian's firearms laws are completely overboard and have actually caused a proven increase in firearms violence. Honest citizens go to jail, while gangbangers walk the streets with impunity. Mind, we can't be smug about it here either. If it were up to the Bloc, NDP and the Liebrals, our laws would be a similar reflection.

The bothersome part about this is that many, here, who read the article automatically think it's Surrey, BC and are not suprised one bit about this poor fellows outcome, but refrain from any other action than an internet show of indignation and a single outburst of 'fucking assholes'.

Get involved people, write your MPs and voice your support for Bill C-391 (dismantling of the long gun registry) https://cfi-icaf.ca/English/. You sit idly by at your peril, watching Canada's gun laws turn into Britian's. If you don't think you could be treated like Paul Clarke, in Canada, do nothing and see if you're right. Personally, I won't take that bet. I don't have enough faith in our politicians to do the right thing, without massive shrill, and loud, guidance from their electorate.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

So the English courts have determined that never again will someone make the mistake of turning in a firearm.  Perhaps England should adopt English jurisprudence like we have and and make lack of a guilty mind (mens rea) a defence.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

It appears that this was not Mr. Clarke's first run-in with the law.

Man accused of attacking DVLA inspector with broom walks free

The man was found Not Guilty, aquitted and cleared. Trying to invoke this past incident to show the defendant in a bad light is the domain of dishonest prosecutors and meddling individuals that think they know what's best for others.

 

[Cloud Cover]

So the English courts have determined that never again will someone make the mistake of turning in a firearm.  Perhaps England should adopt English jurisprudence like we have and and make lack of a guilty mind (mens rea) a defence.

There are plenty of absolute and strict liability offences in Canada where mens rea is not required to obtain a conviction - speeding, dumping garbage etc.

I think the judge in the case below has forgotten the cardinal principle of "possession" in the English jurisprudence law - possession is, inter alia, "a manifest intent to exclude all others." How could that be if Clarke neither claimed possession or ownership and actually surrendered the weapon?   

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The man was found Not Guilty, aquitted and cleared. Trying to invoke this past incident to show the defendant in a bad light is the domain of dishonest prosecutors and meddling individuals that think they know what's best for others.

Sorry, did I say that he was a crook or somehow dishonest?? I did a search on his name the Surrey newspaper to see if there was any other info and Lo and behold his name popped-up. May be the wording of my post implied that he was a criminal, which was not my intent. Nonetheless, the fact is that he had been charged with assault the year before, and, like you say he was found not guilty.

And for the record, I, like you and other posters think he got the dirty end of the stick. Unfortunately, examples like this are all to common these days in the UK.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I guess we both left things out. I wasn't implying you. I meant, generally, all form of press and old biddys, etc.

 

[PMedMoe]

Wendy Cukier (is that pronounced kookier?  ) is jumping in on the black market cigarettes.

Black-market smokes bankroll mobsters

Some of the money earned from the sale of black market smokes is fuelling firearm and drug smuggling efforts by organized criminal groups, an expert says.

About $2 billion in tax revenue goes up in smoke as a result of the sale of illegal smokes, according to a report by the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council. About 13 billion illegal cigarettes are sold in Canada a year.

...

There has been evidence for some time that links illegal cigarettes to the trafficking of drugs and guns, said Wendy Cukier, of the Coalition for Gun Control. 
 
“Strong border control, random searches reduce the illegal activity,” she said.

“We don’t know what extent of money from illegal cigarettes are spent on drugs and guns.”

More on link

So here's a thought.  Drop the price on legal cigarettes and you'll see the smuggling slow down.  After all, it's about supply and demand, right?  Oh, never mind, then the government would lose all that tax money........  :

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

There are plenty of absolute and strict liability offences in Canada where mens rea is not required to obtain a conviction - speeding, dumping garbage etc. 

Although  typically not in criminal cases involving imprisonment.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0002022

Mens rea ("guilty mind") is a difficult concept. It is not defined in the Criminal Code and in Canada, depending upon the particular offence, the prosecution may be required to prove a state of mind that may include either intention (the most common state of mind required to be proven in criminal cases), advertent negligence, knowledge, recklessness, wilful blindness or more specific states of mind contemplated by such words as "maliciously" or "fraudulently."

Nevertheless, there is still an overriding principle in the criminal law that there is no criminal responsibility unless the guilty mind required by the offence can be proven. The idea of "guilty mind required by an offence" has been refined in light of the Charter. For example, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that murder is so serious a crime that it would be fundamentally unjust to convict someone of murder who did not, at the time of the killing, have a murderous state of mind. The Court then struck down, as unconstitutional, those sections of the Criminal Code which permitted murder convictions where the intent to kill had not been proven. Thus, the Charter has given rise to the principle that the mens rea to be proven must "fit" the crime. Most criminal trials are in fact contested on the basis of whether the accused had the requisite state of mind rather than whether he actually performed the prohibited act. This state of mind has to be proven with the same certainty as the other ingredients of a crime, and the prosecution must therefore present a clear picture of what was in the individual's mind at the time the offence was committed.

In order to ease this difficulty, some criminal law statutes create or recognize a presumption or inference regarding the required mental element; however, many of these "reverse onus clauses" have recently been declared unconstitutional as various courts have ruled the provisions conflict with the rights of an accused as set out in the Charter. But the Charter has impacted on the mental element required for so-called "strict liability" offences. The Supreme Court has held that where an offence carries with it the potential for imprisonment, if the accused has diligently, though unsuccessfully, attempted to avoid the prohibited action then he or she cannot be convicted of it. Such a conviction would offend fundamental justice.

In regulatory offences, the law distinguishes 3 different forms of the mental element. If the legislation uses words such as "wilfully" or "intentionally," the legislature is presumed to have intended that the mental element required is an intent to commit the prohibited act. For the second class of regulatory offences, eg, those relating to PUBLIC HEALTH, highway traffic, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, and safety in the workplace, it is only necessary that the accused knows that his acts or omissions may result in the offence being committed. But the Charter has impacted on the mental element required for so-called "strict liability" offences. The Supreme Court has held that where an offence carries with it the potential for imprisonment, if the accused has diligently, though unsuccessfully, attempted to avoid the prohibited action then he or she cannot be convicted of it. Such a conviction would offend fundamental justice.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I guess we both left things out. I wasn't implying you. I meant, generally, all form of press and old biddys, etc.

No Problem, case closed.

 

[CougarKing]

WHAT?

Ex-soldier faces jail for handing in gun
Tuesday, November 17, 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."


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.

To read the rest of the story.(Copy and Paste the articles into your browser)

http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/n...l/article.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575452,00.html

 

[Smirnoff123]

...yet another reason that justifies people that just mind their own business and do not try to do good for anything or anyone.

 

[the 48th regulator]

He should have just called it in.  This day and age, it could have been an explosive device.  Instead he found a "shorn off Shotgun"  that could have held prints of a criminal who had used it.

As noble as this man's intent was,  he, in every sense of the word effed up.  I hope he does not do any time, but this should be a lesson in letting the police do the policing.  Former Soldier or not.

dileas

tess

 

[c_canuk]

Tess, I hope to heck you are being sarcastic

this morning I found a black garbage bag at the bottom of my steps, it just had a couple of spent paint cans and a metal rod, but I didn't know what was in it until I picked it up and put my prints on the bag. It was just a left over trash bag from the city workers who just finished working on the street.

Had the soldier in question called the police and left it where it was, do you think they wouldn't charge him for possession of the weapon that was in his back yard?

 

[zipperhead_cop]

I would very much like to see the actual investigative file for this one.  There is a piece missing that would make the story make sense.  Police don't ramrod totally innocent dudes for no reason. 

And yes, if you find something like a weapon on your property, don't touch it.  Call it in.  Worst that happens is it ends up being nothing.  Surely you can see how every sh*thead found with a weapon "found it last night".  For all we know, the police knew he was in possession of the gun and were going to do a door kick.  Him bringing it in didn't end up changing anything.