From: Jonathan Spencer, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Pearson, 53, of Rossington, Doncaster, was also convicted
>>of stealing two other guns, and of three charges of
>>possessing a firearm without a certificate,
>
>I'm surprised, given that in respect of two of the 'firearms' there was
>no evidence that they were 'firearms' and good evidence that they were
>antiques.
>--
>But presumably these firearms were handed in from FAC holders,
I can't remember now. They may just have come from members of the
public. The Hammerli .22LR was surrendered under the 97 Act.
>so arguing that they were kept as curios or ornaments would
>have been next to impossible, that's what I thought when you
>first mentioned it to me.
Well, the theft charges were based upon the argument that title to them
was given to the police authority, not to Pearson _personally_. If the
two guns that I say were not firearms were in fact antique firearms and
they were possessed by him as curios or ornaments, then he didn't need
an FAC - even if they were stolen property. See section 58. It doesn't
say _lawfully_ possessed, does it?
--Jonathan Spencer, firearms examiner
"Justice is open to everybody in the same way as the Ritz Hotel."
Judge Sturgess, 22 July 1928
--
I wouldn't want to try arguing that one in court!
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
