From: "E.J. Totty", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>That juries will almost always acquit in these circumstances may be
>true. Which raises the question of why the prosecution is brought in the
>first place. How do the prosecuting authorities decide?
>
>Prior to the trial the licensing department will have revoked the
>certificate for any legally held gun.
>
>After the acquittal, which implies that no crime has been committed,
>will they reissue the certificate without any fuss?
Steve, & Mike,
It seems that might be iffy at best, since because:
(a) you were arrested,
(b) because you had your license revoked -- as a result of the
trial -- that upon once again becoming free man, unencumbered with a
criminal disability, you will be denied, because you were arrested, and
were sent to trial.
In other words (as I understand your systems of 'justice') the
police may now play a game with you, because you had the resolute
frame of mind to defend yourself with one of them terrible 'guns.'
They <do> have that particular ability to determine if you are
fit to possess. So, you are in a catch 22.
Seems it makes no difference that you were of a sterling
personality before the happenstance, because now you are of the most
questionable type. Allow me the caveat of 'it depends which force area
you find yourself.
Am I correct Steve?
--
=*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*=
=*= Liberty: Live it . . . or lose it. =*=
=*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*= =*=
ET
--
It depends also on the circumstances of the case, if the police
think you got off on some technicality they may decide that
you are not prohibited from possessing a firearm under Section 21
but that you don't have good character. There was a case in
Birmingham where a man who was a firearm certificate holder
was reported to the police by another who claimed that he
had been threatened with a pistol. The police searched the
premises and found a Glock, which the owner of the premises
said he had with him to take to the gun club after he finished
work. There was never any corroborating evidence he had
threatened anyone with it and it appeared the "victim" may
have had reason to lie.
Anyway, his FAC was revoked. Ten years later he applied
for a new FAC and the police refused. On appeal the police
decision was overturned because the judge felt that it
was wrong given the lack of a conviction, and after ten years
it was a moot point anyway.
There was a case down in Essex where an RFD shot a man who
entered the shop with a sawn-off shotgun. His RFD was revoked
but he got it back, largely because of a public outcry,
although there was some technical legal argument about whether
the area behind the counter was open to the public or not
and therefore whether he had violated the condition on his
RFD requiring secure storage of firearms in his possession.
But I can also think of cases where certificates have been
revoked merely because a licensing officers asks the question:
"If someone broke in, would you use your gun to shoot them?"
and the certificate holder has answered: "Yes."
On the other hand there have been cases where people have
shot people with illegally held guns, and because the act
of self-defence was legal there is a principle that the
possession could not be illegal during the act of
self-defence. Therefore they have gotten away with it.
But then there was another case where a guy got into a
fight in a pub and shot dead another guy who was attacking
him. He claimed he found the gun in a car he had bought
and received a L1,000 fine for illegal possession.
Basically there are no hard and fast rules on this one.
It doesn't depend so much on the area in which you live
but more on the mindset of the specific police officers
you talk to, the judge if you get charged, and how
good your lawyers are.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
