What do you guys make of this

[Jeros]

This was over on the yank flame warriors board.

BBC News - Grandmother jailed over WWII 'family heirloom' pistol

This is the bit that stuck out for me:

"The case began after police arrived at the 53-year-old's home on 17 June 2009 with an arrest warrant for her son who had failed to turn up for a court appearance.

He was not at the flat, but the 80-year-old pistol was found underneath a mattress in her bedroom."

Stupidity or genuine case of hidden firearm?

 

[MrHorus]

Stupidity or genuine case of hidden firearm?

Everyone knows handguns are illegal, and amnesties have been well publicised.

She had plenty chance to get it made safe and converted into a non-firing momento.

 

[Jeros]

The Courier: Taking you to the heart of Tayside and Fife

Both her and her son have been done for assault, their stories about the gun don't match, funny the BBC thought to omit those points.

 

[ECA]

What right did they have to search the property? I'm going to assume none.

 

[Jeros]

What right did they have to search the property? I'm going to assume none.

They were looking for her son.

And possibly drugs or weapons. We just don't know at this point.

 

[Gumbo]

What right did they have to search the property? I'm going to assume none.

You missed the bit about the arrest warrant for her son then?

 

[Jupitus]

The 'found under a mattress' bit does it for me - looks harsh at first but if she is hiding it under a mattress, as opposed to keeping it in a box of old pictures and memories of her Dad, for example, give her the 5 years.

 

[Zenith.UK]

Totally disproportionate to the alleged crime.
The age of the weapon alone bears out a large part of her story.
The fact that the judge said,

"I am not satisfied that a reasonable explanation has been put forward for not handing this gun into the authorities throughout the 29-year period she says she has had it in her possession."

Ummm, the fact that she considered it an heirloom is why she didn't hand it in.

She may have been stupid to hide it, but stupidity isn't a crime.
I would be surprised if she does more than 18 months, if that.

Of course, it could be that the judge is sending a message to the son. Don't try the patience of the court... it WILL fuck you up if you mess it around.

 

[ECA]

You missed the bit about the arrest warrant for her son then?

Since when did an arrest warrant give you the right to search someone's property?

( My parents have been prosecuted and found innocent of a crime that could have landed them in jail for several years - and also arrested and charged with a crime that the charges were then dropped for - because of stupid police wanting a jolly up north ).

I've seen the ugly side of police abuse of powers up close and personal - thank you very much the "you have nothing to fear if you didn't do anything" crowd need to be put through a prosecution or two for bullshit before they spout that garbage.

Our lack of constitution governing police powers grants the police a wide range of powers to abuse.

 

[Larossa]

I saw this earlier today - tbh IF she had the ammo for the pistol then certainly 5 years is fair. I don't think the general public get all the info on these cases and we are left thinking she is either a re-incarnated Ma Baker or just an innocent, misunderstood and slightly dippy granny.

 

[ECA]

I saw this earlier today - tbh IF she had the ammo for the pistol then certainly 5 years is fair. I don't think the general public get all the info on these cases and we are left thinking she is either a re-incarnated Ma Baker or just an innocent, misunderstood and slightly dippy granny.

I'm under no illusions that she's probably stashing it, deserves locking up and is a horrible person.

 

[Jeros]

her son had prior convictions for assault and carrying a knife and that she had a previous conviction, from 2001, for assault to severe injury.

She had a unlicensed unregistered gun and a record. Read into it what you will.

 

[PLightstar]

Yeah, but I still don't understand why the Police had the need to or the right to search the premises, if they are looking for a person. You can't a body under a mattress, under a bed yes. A lot of facts are missing from that story.

 

[throdgrain]

You lot make me worry

 

[Scouse]

What about throddy?

 

[Gumbo]

I would suspect that the officers on the ground had reasonable cause to suspect that she may have been hiding her son, and so entered her house to search for him. Or maybe even, they asked if they could come in for a look around, and as the son wasn't there she said fine so as to not appear obstructive. Fact is, we'll probably not find out, but it seems that the end justifies the means in this case.

I'm a gun owner, and a law abiding one at that. When I was younger, I had to give up a 4.10 shotgun which had belonged to my great grandfather because after hungerford they changed the rules on barrel length. So I am far from anti gun, and know the meaning of heirloom. This family are convicted thugs and hid a firearm and you're moaning about 'what right the police had to enter her home?'

I wonder what might have happened to the gun after this lovely little grandmother passed away and her evil shit of a son got hold of it?

 

[throdgrain]

I respect what you're saying Gumbo, and take it on board, but 5 years for possession of an 80 year old hand gun with no ammunition??

 

[Gumbo]

You know as well as I do that an 80 year old firearm can kill someone just as easily as a brand spanker. Hell my Darlow 12bore is probably older than that now. We don't actually know that it is an heirloom and that's pretty much what the court said. It's a nice story to come up with to try and explain it, but she could just as easily have been holding it for criminals. Not all gun crime is committed using Mac10's and Uzi's. Plenty of old hardware is still out there and they make just as big a hole in you.

The BBC are being fairly polite about it, but the fact is that these are bad people with a gun. You know the hoops we have to jump through just to own something for clays or game shooting. Maybe I should just avoid all that and leave my dads old gun under Mum's bed at her place, not bother with the cabinet and certificate, and just buy cartridges on the way to shoot.

 

[Ch3tan]

I respect what you're saying Gumbo, and take it on board, but 5 years for possession of an 80 year old hand gun with no ammunition??

It seems right to me; can you imagine the backlash against gun owners if for example, her son had used the gun? Isn't it people that don't follow the law who fuck things up for law abiding gun owners?

 

[MrHorus]

Yeah, but I still don't understand why the Police had the need to or the right to search the premises, if they are looking for a person. You can't a body under a mattress, under a bed yes. A lot of facts are missing from that story.

The searching of the property is one issue, but the firearm is a second one.

 

[throdgrain]

It seems right to me; can you imagine the backlash against gun owners if for example, her son had used the gun? Isn't it people that don't follow the law who fuck things up for law abiding gun owners?

It seems right? 5 years? Think about it - nonces and muggers dont get 5 years. This person hasnt done anything with the gun. I'm not saying she was all sweetness and light, I dont really know obviously but the idea of someone getting 5 years for owning a peice of metal seems insane to me.

Better off being a rapist than having a handgun with no ammo stashed under the bed?

It just seems skewed to me

 

[Ch3tan]

Depends mate, problem is the news reports are skewing the story. The judge probably took into account the circumstances and their previous, plus the fact that their stories about the gun seem to amount to lies.

 

[Gumbo]

I'm with you there Throdders, but more from the other angle of why are sentences for the others you mention so low? Which is another thread entirely.

There is room in the law to allow her to get away with it, if the court believes that there are exceptional circumstances. The court didn't believe her, and I'm sure they heard a lot more evidence than we have from the news reports.

 

[Scouse]

I just fucking hate rozzers myself. Never used to - I've got a couple of 'em in the family and just thought it happened to be that it was those two family members that were twats, not all cops. But I was wrong

I don't know if they had a legal right to search the woman's house, but I doubt it.

Completely unrelated - this is funny and representative of how cops are generally IMHO:

YouTube- hugs and kisses

 

[rynnor]

I cant see enormous sympathy from the public for owners of illegal firearms - shes only in her 50s so cant be senile enough to think its not a crime.

Why would you store an 'heirloom' under your bed? Sounds more like it was being kept ready for use.

 

[StRaNgEdAyS]

Yeah, but I still don't understand why the Police had the need to or the right to search the premises, if they are looking for a person. You can't a body under a mattress, under a bed yes. A lot of facts are missing from that story.

I addressed this point over on FW:
It's standard procedure, it's quicker and it's also possible for someone to hide under the bed. I've seen beds that have bases that extend to the floor yet under the mattress there is a handy area you can store stuff in like empty cases, out of season clothing, fugitive sons, etc.
As to the ammo, it's not at all hard to make improvised 9mm. I can send you an excellent tutorial on the matter if you wish.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

First impression...

Given that very recently there was a case in Whitehaven where a seemingly normal guy ran amok killing people, the "she seems nice" defence doesn't cut it any more, if it ever did.

This old bint had a gun under her mattress and she clearly knew she shouldn't have it because, while not a gun expert, I'm pretty sure that mattresses are not optimal storage for side arms.

Second impression...

It will be interesting to see if the text of the news report gets updated. Under mattress could mean under the bed if you choose to be salacious about reporting. If so, its not clear whether the gun was kept clean and oiled, or was a rusting old relic.

If it was an heirloom, there are many ways to render a gun forever inoperable that I'm pretty sure would mean the gun laws no longer apply to it. If she chose to keep it in an operating state then that could imply intent to use it at some point.

 

[soze]

The fact that the judge said,Ummm, the fact that she considered it an heirloom is why she didn't hand it in.

I would have though she could look into getting it deactivated and keep it maybe? Fill the barrel and remove the firing pin?