Here's a guy with 140 legally held firearms, and he's raided, prosecuted, convicted and now jailed for two years for holding four air rifles without the 'proper certification'?
Bullshit. Here's my guess: the police didn't like the guy holding guns so they raided him looking for something, anything to bust him, so they could grab his property, thereby sending a chilling effect through other gun collectors.
Bullshit. Here's my guess: the police didn't like the guy holding guns so they raided him looking for something, anything to bust him, so they could grab his property, thereby sending a chilling effect through other gun collectors.
6 comments:
That's not exactly the case. Air rifles only qualify for firearms exemption if they are under a certain power rating. Anyone who knows about firearms knows that if you go above that limit you need a firearms certificate. He didn't have one so was in flagrant beach of the law. The fact that a slightly over power air rifle is nowhere near as dangerous as a true firearm is neither here nor there. The rules say you need a licence and thus if you don't have one you expose yourself to prosecution.
Well, that statement stinks of a slavish mentality. As far as I'm concerned he has committed no crime. Where is the victim crying out for justice in this case? Oh, it seems there is no victim. No victim, no crime.
The only reason there are all these rules is so that the state can take away our God-given right to defend ourselves.
How, I wonder, did plod come to know about the four over-powered air rifles? They probably got one of their snitches to sell them to him so they could plunder the rest of his collection. And now the tax-payers, of which I am one, are lumbered with paying for his purposeless incarceration for the next year.
I stand by my original position: this is a bullshit conviction on a bullshit law.
I have to take the Tooper's side here. I read that article thinking 'Licence? For an air rifle?'
Later it stated that one of the guns was over the limit for muzzle velocity and thought 'Ah. Okay, you do need a licence for that'.
But then it talks of 'modifications' such as a telescopic sight and a silencer. These are not modifications, they are add-ons available in any high street gun shop. The sporting shop where I buy fishing gear and arrows also sell guns, live round and airguns, and stock silencers and sights for them all.
They also stock sights and balance rods for bows (I regard these as ridiculous affectations so don't use any) so do these count as modifications too?
It might seem that it only affect gun holders and as these are rapidly approaching the status of smokers anyway, it's easy to sneer.
But now I hear that fitting winter tyres to your car counts as a 'modification' and insurance companies will charge more.
Soon, giving your living room a coat of paint will invalidate your home insurance. Obviously, if your home looks good, it will attract more burglars. Exaggeration? Wait and see.
The article plants the idea that all airguns need licences and that fitting any shop-bought accessory is a modification that makes the gun illegal.
Supermarkets have been planting the idea that the minimum age for buying booze is 21. It's all subtle control and unfortunately, many, many people are dim enough to just accept it.
Meanwhile schools turn out kids 'taught to the test' who have not been trained to think for themselves and who have been discouraged from questioning what they are told.
What's next? Look at the formation of any such regime. Next is the eradication of 'intellectuals' and the herding of drones to pick crops by hand.
You don't have to imagine it. It has happened before.
Nobody listened that time either.
Where is the victim crying out for justice in this case? Oh, it seems there is no victim. No victim, no crime.
TT, you know as well as I that the victim is the state, which is deeply hurt (though not in any material way) whenever one of its drones doesn't do as they're told.
As an aside I'd be very interested to know whether the raid on Mr Blennerhasset's flat was carried out by armed police. I've googled but found no reference to the police being armed. Seems to me that if they didn't show up much as their Met colleagues did for Mark Duggan then they knew perfectly well that he represented no threat at all. The bit that made me laugh was "two counts of possession of a bullet." A bullet. A bullet. Oooooh, teh deadlies!
If the poor guy had claimed to have stolen the supposedly offending articles he would probably have been looking at 120 hours community service instead.
And you have to love the judge
Defendant: I did not know they were upgraded
Judge: I don't believe you and so in the absence of any evidence at all to that effect, two years.
Really, you can take a hit from an air rifle and I doubt the pellet would go through a thick coat.
And whats the betting that plod took the opportunity to plunder all of the legally held guns? He`ll never see them again,and they`ll be auctioned off and the cash will end up in police coffers.
The thieving cunts.
Post a Comment