On Nov 21, 11:50 am, Champ  wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:43:41 -0800 (PST), JackH
>
>  wrote:
> >> I give up. You're either too stupid or being deliberately obtuse.
> >> Perhaps both.

> >I can't spell it out any more plainly as this:
>
> >In point 2 above, you stated: 'I point out that, if it were indeed
> >legal to behave as he did...'
>
> "As he did..."

Yes... I get that bit.

Unfortunately he didn't act as you then went on to relate.

He didn't try and bullshit an officer who found him in possession with
a firearm in a public place.

He walked into a police station and handed it over of his own
freewill, crucially, without the police having apparently previously
been made aware of him having said firearm.

There is a subtle difference, or are you in fact arguing that all
scrotes with firearms will walk into police stations to hand them over
of their own freewill?

See below before ranting on about the law in relation to firearms
being absolute.

> I'm no longer talking about this chap.

You haven't been talking about him all along when it comes to the
circumstances in which someone might find themselves nicked... hence
why I said the point you made bore no relevance to this particular
case.

> I'm trying to explain why possesion of a firearm is a 'strict liability' offence.

Yes... it is.

Now go back to my previous post and take in the bit that pointed out
that whether you've got a gun in your possession at a police station
or your home when you alert the police to its existence, you're still
in possession of it.

And then, when you've done that... try again, to understand why maybe
the scenario you've wanked on about throughout this session of
'arguing the toss', is crucially different to the above.

I understand the law is absolute.

I also understand why, given the apparent 'mitigating circumstances'
as reported in this case, anyone who has followed the case to date
would perhaps now think more than twice before alerting the police to
the presence of a firearm they'd apparently found... do you?

> You keep banging on about the bloke in the story.  I'm trying to
> explain why it might be sensible to have the law as it is *for
> everyone".

And I've explained why it is that when applied as it has been,
assuming the facts of the matter are as reported in the press, anyone
with any sense will think more than twice about whether or not to
contact the police should they happen upon any guns in the future; it
is an absolute offence to be in possession of a gun, whether you're
the one alerting the police to its presence or not going by the story
as reported, and this... for one last time... is totally different to
being caught with it in the street and then offering up some bullshit
to the arresting plod, as you've kept intimating is on par with what
this chap did.

--
JackH