OT - What Punishment would u get in your contry

[General Pain]

In a small town (for lack of a better word) called Lillestrøm outside Oslo, police discovered a Barret M82A1 (12.7mm) Sniper/anti material rifle in a drug bust. The 36 year old criminal got 6 months in prison for breaking Norweigian weapon Legislation. (Norweigian prisions are refered as nice hotells were you get paid by east european criminals...god bless them) 6 months mean you get out in 4. (good behaviour etc.)

What would be the punishment in your area for the same "crime" ?

State country in anwser.

[Earthpig]

I believe(I'm not a lawyer) that ten years would be added to his drug charge penalty a felony crime committed while in possession of a firearm.

I do believe in gun owner rights, but if you are committing a crime with gun the penalty should be severe.

[headquarters]

the weapon was discovered during a razzia - 4 men had registered adresses at the place .

If there was only the weapons charge - i.e unlawful possession of M82 Barret
what would it be then ?

Or say if you are in possession of fo rinstance high capacity magazines in a state /province where this is restricted to the 10 round limit like CA-what are we talking ?

Just out of professional interest -we are playing a MERC2000 campaign with a lot of law breaking going on like this .

Qualified guesses appreciated too- no law degree pre req. to answer

[Rainbow Six]

Illegal possession of a firearm in the United Kingdom carries a mandatory minimum jail term of five years plus an uncapped fine.

As in Norway, it's normal to get time off for good behaviour...five years usually means out in three - three and a half.

Note it's a minimum jail term of five years - have no clue whether the type of weapon involved would mean a heavier sentence or not, but would think it more than likely...

[jester]

Originally Posted by headquarters

the weapon was discovered during a razzia - 4 men had registered adresses at the place .

If there was only the weapons charge - i.e unlawful possession of M82 Barret
what would it be then ?

Or say if you are in possession of fo rinstance high capacity magazines in a state /province where this is restricted to the 10 round limit like CA-what are we talking ?

Just out of professional interest -we are playing a MERC2000 campaign with a lot of law breaking going on like this .

Qualified guesses appreciated too- no law degree pre req. to answer

I am no lawyer but I did work in a Law Office, have a plice academy under my belt and one semester of Law School. And I am too lazy to actualy pull up the current codes with the posted punishments, but they don't matter much anyhow. Here is the reality of the what would happen.

1st, it needs to be said what jurisdiction is involved, if its State or Federal?

Usualy the State would take the charges, and the Feds would pass on doing much. <This does depend however on what was involved>

In Cali the .50 Caliber is illegal as of about two years ago, Thank You Ah-NOLD!

Its about a year in state prison for posession of an unregistered weapon. UNLESS, the weapon would have been owned prior to the banning and had been propperly registered and permitted and the owner had no incumbrances. <In other words they weren't a criminal or had a restraining order on them or were known members of a gang or had a charge of domestic violence against them> Technicaly they could also add a charge for impropper storage of a weapon as well if they did not have a gunsafe or gunlock.

Further, other issues that can add to it are, who was in possession of it? A person on probation, or if they had a prior felony, then those enhance the charges and penalties at least on paper. Realisticaly, not really with the scenario that has been presented.

Posession of a high capacity magazine: No penalty, as they are still allowed if they were owned prior to the 2000 ban. And how can the state prove you did not own them prior to. It is illegal to sell, give or transfer high capacity magazines after 2000 but only the biggest fool would admit they did not have them already. And few magazines have dates printed on them thus proving they are illegal.

As for reality:

Posession of a concealed weapon: its about a year, last time i checked it was a misdemenor in some cases a felony depending on all that is inviolved.

Midemenor is 1 year or less in country jail, felony 1 year or longer.

Unregistered Assault weapon, I forget, use of one in a crime 10 years.

Now, here is the reality from cases I worked on.

Felony Assault with an unregistered assault weapon <1st Offence with no priors> resulted in 9 days in jail and 3 years probation and all the incumbrances that go with a felony <Felons can not own or posess firearms unless they petition to have their civil rights restored>

The person above arrested 2 years 9 months later <so he is still on probation which gets him a probation violation and he can be required to serve the full time of his original senance>

Is caught with 14 weapons, the ammo they charged by the pound because there was so much of it. So felon in posession of a weapon X16 times <He didn't know he had them, although one was under his bed, an ammo can of ammo was under his bed, one in his night stand and a magazine and loose rounds> 3 unregistered assault rifles again and 2 modified to be used as machineguns! In addition to felon in posession.

He did 4 months and some days as time served and more probation then released due to overcrowding in the jails coupled with timne for good behavoir. Even though he was looking at about 12 years.

Couple alot of that with,

Most small charges misdemnors the person is taken to jail booked <fingerprinted, picture taken> then released with basicaly a ticker or sumons to apear at the court on a specific date to answer to the charges. Some are released automaticaly, Felonies they usualy are required to post bail then they are released, so the offender is out in a matter of hours or days at most if they can come up with bail unless:

Their crime was so grave then the DA or judge will refuse to grant it. Or they are an obvious flight risk <although 99.9 of illegals arrested for serious crimes ARE a flight risk and do flee to their country of origin.>

So, the character in California, if caught by the police can be held and booked and depending on the severity of the crime willl do about 6 to 8 hours in lockup, or for a more serious crime do the same before being bailed out, or have to wait before going before the judge and then posting bail.

And then of course you can do the all to common High Speed car chase we are used to in S. Ca trying to elude the police.

An then we also have to take into account the response time of most police agencies in the area. In my area City police response time is about 9 minutes of more depending on how important they consider the call and what other calls are going on. For county sheriff it is about an hour, again what else is going on, how important the call is, and where the deputies are in relation to the call. <And those figures are from 10 years ago so they may be longer times involved>

Bottom line, penalties are about 1 year, however, if they are without a prior police record they will most likely only spend the time in jail for booking and end up with probation. Or, they can just post bail and then flee before the trail, if they are Mercs that would be the most likely avenue.

And of course are their papers legit? Are they using aliases? And if they are found out, or their mission is learned then we have all kinds of anti terror laws and gang laws that may be applied to them which may bring in the Feds. That would be inteteresting the PCs get caught, police learn something of their mission turn them over to the FBI or Homeland security and they get swetted by the Feds maybe even sent to Gitmo.

Or they are found to have forged papers and held in a Immigration detention facility. Then through a comedy of errors, they are deported to MEXICO after 3 to 6 months in lock up. Or they can just be sent to their home country <but that would be boring, I like the idea of deporting them to Mexico better>

[Grimace]

I've got a friend that owns one. If he were to get busted for dealing drugs in his house and they found it during the raid the police would probably freak. But he's got a license to own it, it's not illegal or modified. In the state where he bought it, it wasn't illegal to own it. He's moved, so I don't know about his new state, though. But at least where he was, he wouldn't get any additional time for simply "owning" the rifle. If he tried to use it...then he'd have a heap load of extra time added on to his jail time...assuming he survived the encounter, that is.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Earthpig

I do believe in gun owner rights, but if you are committing a crime with gun the penalty should be severe.

Right on. Well put.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Earthpig

I believe(I'm not a lawyer) that ten years would be added to his drug charge penalty a felony crime committed while in possession of a firearm.

I do not agree here (though I am not a lawyer either). Strictly speaking, in the U.S., the courts give extra jail time when a firearm is used in the commision of a felony. For instance, if two people were arrested for bank robbery and one used a threatening note, and the other used a firearm, the guy who used the gun could be given extra jail-time.

Just having a gun in your home with drugs does not meet the statutory definition of "being used in the commision of a felony". I knew a guy who got arrested for growing illegal plants in his home. He was charged with a felony and the cops confiscated a legal shotgun from his home at the time of the arrest. He was not charged with a 'gun-crime'.

Originally Posted by Earthpig

I do believe in gun owner rights, but if you are committing a crime with a gun the penalty should be severe.

I would agree with this. In the U.S. violent crimes are not punished severly enough. All violent offenders should face severe legal punishment. Many of our jails (especially in California with the 3-strikes rule that has mandatory minimums for anyone convicted of 3 felonies, violent or not) are overflowing with non-violent drug offenders while murder rates rise.

So, to answer the question from the OP, I would guess here in Nebraska the offender would not face any additional charges, unless the firearm itself was illegal (sawed-off shotgun, full-auto mod etc.). I do think the gun would be confiscated, and the owner would probably never see it again.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Jason

So, to answer the question from the OP, I would guess here in Nebraska the offender would not face any additional charges, unless the firearm itself was illegal (sawed-off shotgun, full-auto mod etc.). I do think the gun would be confiscated, and the owner would probably never see it again.

I love this: a sawed-off shotgun being illegal while a Barret M82 remain legal. So, if I understand you well you can own a piece of artillery as long as it is not modified.

[General Pain]

thanx for answers to my question . - I was more interested in punsihment for having an unregistrerd M82A1 Barret. ..Funny thing is when police asked him whhy he haved it he explained it was for another guy he didn't dear mention the name of. - The criminal in question formerly was working in security department for a transport firm and he was earlier questioned in a similar disaperance of cargo,but charges was dismissed because of lack of evidence.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

I love this: a sawed-off shotgun being illegal while a Barret M82 remain legal. So, if I understand you well you can own a piece of artillery as long as it is not modified.

It's true that US firearms laws are at best schizophrenic. States' rights means that states can impose more restrictive firearms regulations than the federal standard but not less restrictive standards. As a consequence, the blue states tend to have highly disinct firearms ownership (and use) laws than the red states. In Arziona, you can walk around with your piece so long as it isn't concealed. Coming from Massachusetts, I was a bit startled when I was first posted in AZ and saw people with guns everywhere. In Massachusetts, on the other hand, the DA in one case asked a woman defending her life in her own home why, after she fled from room to room (thereby allowing the invader to take whatever material goods he wanted) and was finally cornered in the basement she didn't crawl out of the casement window or allow the intruder to rape her in lieu of taking his life. No kidding.

We have assiduously avoided having serious debate on the Second Amendment because no one seems to think it is in their interests to do so. The ban-'em-all crowd is afraid that if the Second Amendment is clarified municipalities will have to live with the results. Since the outcome almost certainly will be legal gun ownership for somebody, the ban-'em-all crowd won't take the chance. They'd rather undermine the Second Amendment on a state-by-state, municipality-by-municipality basis. Needless to say, they know it would be hopeless to try to amend the Second Amendment. Even making the effort would draw attention to the issue and thereby increase the risk that some sensible definition might be found.

The other extreme argues that the Founding Fathers intended for periodic revolution. A dictatorship cannot survive so long as the people are armed. Any form of regulation gives the state the ability to confiscate firearms in an unobtrusive way and places limits on the ability of the people to overthrow a government that oppresses them. Also, the crowd making this argument likes guns. Given that any analysis of the Second Amendment means coming to terms with the definition of "A well-regulated militia..." the anti-regulation crowd sees no value in opening a debate that will result in some form of regulation.

As a consequence, US firearms laws are rather like the Western Front in WW1. Enormous energies are invested in small gains or losses for either side. No strategic changes are possible using these means. No rational settlement of the issue is possible using these means. Both sides continue to push their localized actions (even at the federal level) because both sides fear that anything less than total victory means total defeat. The rest of us are caught in the middle, forced to choose between one extreme or another. It's rather like the bipolar nature of US politics as a whole.

Webstral

[jester]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

I love this: a sawed-off shotgun being illegal while a Barret M82 remain legal. So, if I understand you well you can own a piece of artillery as long as it is not modified.

Well, one can own a sawed off shotgun provided they have the special permits and liscencing.


The purpose is concealability. I dare anyone to hide a Barret light .50 under their coat so they can commit an armed robbery.

But, that is easily done with a sawed off shotgun, and that is generaly its purpose to conceal mostly for the purpose of roberies. Same for a short barreled rifle. Or even disguised weapons like a pen or cane gun. They have by their very design an illicit purpose.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Webstral

In Massachusetts, on the other hand, the DA in one case asked a woman defending her life in her own home why, after she fled from room to room (thereby allowing the invader to take whatever material goods he wanted) and was finally cornered in the basement she didn't crawl out of the casement window or allow the intruder to rape her in lieu of taking his life. No kidding.

I've never heard of that sort of argument actually being enunciated here in Oz but I'm absolutely certain that many authorities here feel that way. Very frustrating for people like me. I'm no gun nut but I believe that as long as a person has no criminal record, secures their firearms properly and is properly traned in the use and maintenance of firearms, they should be allowed to keep firearms in their homes and be allowed to defend themselves (on their own property) with them. Now that it is a non-issue over whether law abiding citizens can defend themselves, with firearms, in their own homes (because the government has taken nearly all the previously legal firearms away from people) the debate has moved to knives. Here in Perth the number of murders and serious assaults using knives has increased significantly in the past few years.

Back to the original question I'm not sure about the punishment here in Australia for owning an M-82 but there was a case here involving ex-Australian Army Captain Shane Della-Vedova who was involved in the theft and sale of nine LAW-66 rocket propelled grenade launchers (the media here still insists on calling them rocket launchers the fools). Only one of the weapons was ever recovered which is a bit scary. He was sentenced to 10 years prison last year.

[Grimace]

Funny that you mentioned that case about the intruder, Webstral. Here in Montana they're working on putting through legislation that will grant all homeowners the full and absolute right to shoot and potentially kill anyone that breaks into your house.

Of course, I think many people in other states view Montanans as gun toting hicks, so I guess it'll be okay for us to have a clear conscious when we blow an intruder away.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by jester

The purpose is concealability. I dare anyone to hide a Barret light .50 under their coat so they can commit an armed robbery.

I understood that Jest. What is the range of a Barret again? Probably no need to conceal it. I just found funny that the federal state seems more concern about someone robing the small town bank next door than about someone having the ability to shot down the president or stop the armored truck carrying money from all the small town banks around. That might be a problem linked to the idea that it is better to devellop big businesses. I like the idea of an Oswald like carrying a Barret instead of a Carcano.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Targan

I've never heard of that sort of argument actually being enunciated here in Oz but I'm absolutely certain that many authorities here feel that way. Very frustrating for people like me. I'm no gun nut but I believe that as long as a person has no criminal record, secures their firearms properly and is properly traned in the use and maintenance of firearms, they should be allowed to keep firearms in their homes and be allowed to defend themselves (on their own property) with them. Now that it is a non-issue over whether law abiding citizens can defend themselves, with firearms, in their own homes (because the government has taken nearly all the previously legal firearms away from people) the debate has moved to knives. Here in Perth the number of murders and serious assaults using knives has increased significantly in the past few years.

Back to the original question I'm not sure about the punishment here in Australia for owning an M-82 but there was a case here involving ex-Australian Army Captain Shane Della-Vedova who was involved in the theft and sale of nine LAW-66 rocket propelled grenade launchers (the media here still insists on calling them rocket launchers the fools). Only one of the weapons was ever recovered which is a bit scary. He was sentenced to 10 years prison last year.

I definitely agree. We have the same problem in France and knives are an increasing problem. That's also why the film "Bowling for Columbine" was false. It never took anything but guns into account. That's also why we have many hunting accidents.

By the way, do you remember the scene in Crocodile Dundee, the scene where he draws out a big knife in face of the small city jerk. I know someone for whom it became true. That friend was coming back at night, and in the subway, from his sword class when he was assaulted by a guy holding a knife. Saddly for that guy, they had a saber course that day and that friend drew out a cavalry saber. In the outcome, the guy who assaulted him left the spot in underwears.

Another one, the only time I was assaulted with a knife, the guy was so stupid that he never realized that we had walked right in front of a police station. I'm still laughing my ass off when remembering that one.

A last one that occured in my last year of High School. Two brothers were in charge of security (both had a won a European championship in Martial Arts and both were of the tall large types). They (one with a broken arm) were assaulted in Paris by three guys (1 knive, 1 axe, 1 big woodstick). The wounded brother step aside and the other one said outloud that he was taking care of this. I still don't understand why these guys kept attacking. They each ended up for three months in an hospital.

Therefore, don't panic and you have a good chance to end up with the upper hand except of course if the guy is crazy. Then, you end up dead Oops!

I'm still against guns at home but that's for an entirely different reason. Most people I know would tell you that they have it to defend themselves and scare someone away. I usually tell them that they are dead meat. In my familly (mother's side), we are taught to use firearms early but we are also taught that if you ever draw a firearm out that's only with one goal in mind: shooting down the other guy with no hesitation and with intention to kill. Moreover, at a time when we thought someone broke into our house (I was a kid), my father took out the gun and I took out my crossbow. I was more scared of him than of the guy who could have appeared in front. A trembling person who had never used a gun standing behind you with a 12 gauge rifle in his hand is a scary situation. As a result, I don't have a firearm at home.

For the Barret, I have no clue what the penalty would be. Since we had a member of a town administration (the guy with the RPG took him for a cop ) being blown up with an RPG they are reworking on that part of the law. As a result, it would be at least 3 years.

[General Pain]

Originally Posted by Grimace

Funny that you mentioned that case about the intruder, Webstral. Here in Montana they're working on putting through legislation that will grant all homeowners the full and absolute right to shoot and potentially kill anyone that breaks into your house.

Of course, I think many people in other states view Montanans as gun toting hicks, so I guess it'll be okay for us to have a clear conscious when we blow an intruder away.

I read something similar; where a US police officer (can't remember the state) said if you're gonna shoot someone ;see to it that they are in your house before you do it.

Somthing like:
"Tresspassers will be shot;survivors will be shot again!"

[Littlearmies]

Originally Posted by Grimace

Funny that you mentioned that case about the intruder, Webstral. Here in Montana they're working on putting through legislation that will grant all homeowners the full and absolute right to shoot and potentially kill anyone that breaks into your house.

Of course, I think many people in other states view Montanans as gun toting hicks, so I guess it'll be okay for us to have a clear conscious when we blow an intruder away.

Here in the UK we had a big fuss about this a few years ago. Essentially the common law position is that you are allowed to use "reasonable force" to defend you and yours from attack (I think that position is pretty common to all common law countries), you are also allowed to use reasonable force if you have a reasonable fear of attack. This requires the court, and the jury, to "get into your head" and decide whether or not your behavious was "reasonable" under the circumstances as you saw them at the time.

Now this obviously leaves a whole bunch of things open to interpretation but in the case in point a homeowner who had suffered several prior burglaries shot a couple of burglars using an illegally held pump action shotgun (the normal justification for holding a shotgun licence in the UK is sport or pest control - neither of which requires a pump action).

From memory the guy lived out in the country and police reaction times were accordingly slow, after previous incidents he had said he would take care of the problem himself. In this instance the two burglars had (I think I recall) knives. As it turned out the legal issue that got him a conviction was whether he had the necessary fear for his life to make firing "reasonable" under the circumstances. Also his statements that he would "take care of it himself" indicated pre-planning on his part - which is also legally a no-no here (the common law intent is that when confronted with a situation you have the right to defend yourself but you are not allowed to prepare for such a situation). This guy had also booby trapped his property which is also a no-no under English common law.

He was originally convicted of murder but this was reduced to manslaughter on appeal when the Court of Appeal accepted the fact that his mental state put his actions in the category of manslaughter rather than murder:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1627540.stm

But giving people absolute rights as in Montana is, in my opinion, a bad idea - you are always going to get someone who shoots the double glazing salesman because they are paranoid and then claims protection under the law. (Not that I'm suggesting that shooting double glazing salesmen might not be the right thing to do )

[Earthpig]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

I love this: a sawed-off shotgun being illegal while a Barret M82 remain legal. So, if I understand you well you can own a piece of artillery as long as it is not modified.

as long as the barrel is still 18 inches it is still legal.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by General Pain

thanx for answers to my question . - I was more interested in punsihment for having an unregistrerd M82A1 Barret.

Ah...ok. Well, here in Nebraska there is no State law requiring the registration of firearms; it is regulated on the city level. I live in the largest city in the state, and here only handguns must be registered, not longarms, even if they are .50 cal, so there would be no penalty for having an unregistered Barret. Confiscation would be the worst punishment, but if the gun was legal and owned by a friend, that friend could probably get the gun back if they had the money for a lawyer to navigate the paperwork.

In fact, I think the penalty for having an unregistered handgun in Omaha, NE is very minor, equivilent to a citation (like a traffic ticket).

[pmulcahy11b]

In most states in the US there are a lot of hoops you have to jump through, but one can legally own something like a Barrett. In California, though, I think the penalty is to be kicked in the balls until dead.

[jester]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

In most states in the US there are a lot of hoops you have to jump through, but one can legally own something like a Barrett. In California, though, I think the penalty is to be kicked in the balls until dead.

It was only in 05 that Arnold decided that too many crimes were being made committed with .50s, to many Desert Eagle .50s, Coonan Arms .50s, Baretts where doing drive bys of armored cars left and right and those evil Hawkin .50s and old .50 dueling pistols were making people drop like flies. <Actualy they had all of a total of 13 crimes committed with .50 caliber weapons since they tracked the info, this was from Barett Inc> And of the crimes that were committed they were mostly administrative type crimes.

And for the record I will not vote for that fake next election and I hope his heart problem returns with a vengance putting him on life support but not as a vegetable so he has all his mental faculties but no ability to move or utilize them.

[kato13]

Jester your frustrated is noted but such politically charged negativity is uncalled for.

[jester]

Originally Posted by kato13

Jester your frustrated is noted but such politically charged negativity is uncalled for.

Punishment is dictated by laws, and laws are dictated by politics wich seldom have a base of reason but more pandering. So the topic was a powder keg waiting to happen.

[Haven]

I am gonna have to go full on with Webstral on this one.

Great explaination of the 'gun control' fight here in the US.



I happen to fall on the 'right to own' group, but as with most things you should be able to see both sides.

I hope to never ever have to use any of my guns in anger but i'd rather have them and not need them.

Its always a 'judged by 12 rather than carried by 6' mentality in my red state, rural mind.

[headquarters]

just wanted some info for a campaign guys..

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by Haven

I am gonna have to go full on with Webstral on this one.

Great explaination of the 'gun control' fight here in the US.



I happen to fall on the 'right to own' group, but as with most things you should be able to see both sides.

I hope to never ever have to use any of my guns in anger but i'd rather have them and not need them.

Its always a 'judged by 12 rather than carried by 6' mentality in my red state, rural mind.

I'm with you. I'm a "bitter Pennsylvanian who clings to God and guns."

I hope to never use my firearms for aggression but if it came down to defense of myself, familiy, friends, etc., I just pray to God that He gives me the courage, wisdom and ability to survive such an encounter and the comfort He can give me afterwards.

Chuck M.

[Graebarde]

Originally Posted by Earthpig

as long as the barrel is still 18 inches it is still legal.

Which is why mine is chopped to 18.5