Suspicious possession of a handgun.

kilburn

The Ryan boys got done for this but my question is....
What kind of a clown came up with a charge called that, suspicious possession of a firearm, whats next accidental possesion of an Uzi or impure thoughts with a bazooka!
FFS no wonder the country is gone mad.

Jambo221

It's not idiotic, it implies having it in a situation where you intended to use it, not that you had it hidden under your bed at home, it distinguishes between unlawful ownership and liable intent to use.

kilburn

Jambo221 wrote: »

It's not idiotic, it implies having it in a situation where you intended to use it, not that you had it hidden under your bed at home, it distinguishes between unlawful ownership and liable intent to use.

pedantic

Insect Overlord

kilburn wrote: »

pedantic

You'd have many more people giving out if such "pedantic" laws were not in place. Really, how is it a bad thing that criminals can be charged for possession of weapons in public (in situations where they're not required for any good reason)?

kilburn

Insect Overlord wrote: »

You'd have many more people giving out if such "pedantic" laws were not in place. Really, how is it a bad thing that criminals can be charged for possession of weapons in public (in situations where they're not required for any good reason)?

im not saying anything about the law being wrong its the title. I would have thought possession of a handgun in a public place would be enough. Its the use of the word suspicious that I think is daft

Insect Overlord

It's probably to stop people from bringing spurious charges against army folk on armed patrol :pac:

the drifter

the law prob predates last years rule change where ownership of a handgun was made illegal. before then a licenced handgun wasnt a problem unless you were holding up the local post office. an example of unsuspious posession of a handgun in a public place is jope soap driving too and from the shooting range. Nothing wrong with that as long as its stored correctly however...johnny scumbag driving round in his bmw with it loaded on the passanger seat is supicous....i see nothing wrong with this charge to be honest.

Itsdacraic

the drifter wrote: »

the law prob predates last years rule change where ownership of a handgun was made illegal. before then a licenced handgun wasnt a problem unless you were holding up the local post office. an example of unsuspious posession of a handgun in a public place is jope soap driving too and from the shooting range. Nothing wrong with that as long as its stored correctly however...johnny scumbag driving round in his bmw with it loaded on the passanger seat is supicous....i see nothing wrong with this charge to be honest.

Ya that pretty much sums it up.
Don't see any problem with it.

billy the squid

Not a local issue, more a legal discussion

Thread moved from Limerick City forum. be sure to read the charter of the Legal discussion forum before posting as it may differ from the one in Limerick City.

homerhop

the law prob predates last years rule change where ownership of a handgun was made illegal

FYI - ownership of a handgun was NOT made illegal last year. Handguns are still available to licence under stricter regulations.

WoodView

possession of any unlicensed fire arm should fall under this category whether hidden under your bed or locked up in a shed--not having a liscence imputes villany not just having it in a public place

Delancey

An example should illustrate perfectly why such ' pedantic ' legalese is used :

An 80 year old widow had an unlicensed handgun that her now deceased husband brought home as a souvenir from the battlefields of North Africa in WW2 . This old dear has never handled this gun much less fired it but it is of sentimental value.

A 20 year old gouger with 40 previous convictions dating back to when he was 10 is a known member of a feuding drug gang and he also has an un licensed firearm for his ' protection '.

Now , lets imagine our Old Dear and our Gouger are arrested for firearms offences - do you think they both deserve 12 years each ?

The elderly woman is guilty of illegal possession of a gun whereas our thug is guilty of the same offence but with intent - that is why the law can appear pedantic. Simples.

WoodView

The 80 year old dear should apply for a licence in case the gouger steals it from her and holds up an off licence with it--at least the gardai might be able to trace gougers movements,they could also deactivate the weapon so he cant kill with it