Widow faces jail for possession of late husband's illegal pistol after it was stolen during burglary

[Johnny Rico]

(United Kingdom)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9086833/Widow-faces-jail-for-possession-of-late-husbands-illegal-pistol-after-it-was-stolen-during-burglary.html

Kathleen Woodward, 64, reported the loss of the vintage pistol after her home was ransacked by a thief who escaped with the gun along with other stolen property. But while he ended up being jailed for just six months, Mrs Woodward could be sentenced to five years for possession of the firearm.

Mrs Woodward, whose late husband was a gun collector, returned to the house to find it ransacked and when she reported the theft immediately told police that among the property stolen was a handgun which sparked a major operation to find the weapon. The thief who stole the gun which was inside a cash box, Guy Whitelaw, was later jailed for five years after admitting illegal possession of the prohibited weapon, although his sentence was quashed on appeal.

Parliament has laid down that a minimum of five years imprisonment be imposed for such an offence, unless exceptional circumstances can be shown. Whitelaw (29) later had his jail term cut to six months resulting in his immediate release. A court earlier heard that Whitelaw, also known as McCall, had "seemed anxious" that if he was to be prosecuted over the firearm then his victim should also face proceedings if they did not have a permit for the revolver.

...

The judge, Lady Stacey, deferred sentence for the preparation of a background report and told her: "Mrs Woodward I don't think you need me to tell you this is a very serious matter. The terms of the legislation, at first blush, are uncompromising. This is a very serious matter and there is an aggravation of there being two charges," she said.

"To find a gun is quite bad enough, but to find ammunition is a serious aggravation," she said.

(complete article at link)

[ellisonz]

1. There's a reason the UK doesn't have the homicide rate we do. n/t

[Glassunion]

3. Yes

They do not have over 30,000 gangs in their country consisting of well over 1 million members responsible for roughly 80% of crime.

[ellisonz]

4. lol

Did you miss the recent London Riots entirely? The UK has a significant gang problem too, and although I cannot find any good national statistics, the British Home Office found that "between 6% and 10% of 10- to 19-year-olds said they were in a gang."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15238377
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13051111

[Glassunion]

12. No I did not miss the riot.

They still do not have anywhere even close to the gang problem we do.

Take all the gang members in all of England and Wales and it still would not add up to the amount of gang members in just the city of Los Angeles.

England and Wales population = 54Mil
E&W gang population = 30,000


LA city population = 3.7Mil
LA city gang population = 39,000

[ellisonz]

19. By any logic British criminals and gang members are less violent...

...because they have face higher legal consequences for illegal gun possession.

I don't know where you're getting that figure, but realistically you need to account for Scotland which likely has a higher percentage of gang members.

[Glassunion]

76. "By any logic"

Are you telling me that the folks who traffic in Drugs, Guns and Humans are somehow less violent in a given country solely because of their gun laws?

Are you stating with a straight face that a person who sells other human beings for money is concerned about gun laws?

There are no other variables?

The UK is primarily an island where ALL smuggling has to come by boat or plane.
All of the gang members in the entire country(including Scotland) do not add up to what is in LA county.
Their drug problem vs their national GDP is less than 1/2 of what the US sees.
Their culture is different from the US.
Their drug policies and enforcement tactics differ.

According to a recent report on FBI.gov they estemate that 80% of all crime in the US can be attributed to gangs.

[ellisonz]

77. All I'm saying is that...

...clearly having strong gun laws reduces violent crime, the severity of which is influenced by the greater lethality of guns compared to weapons such as knives. There is no denying that gun crime is deadly and more prevalent where there are more guns. You can try and argue against that, but the only people who really believe that are people with a severe personal attachment to guns.

[HALO141]

79. Your repeated insistance on a thing does not make it a fact.

You keep saying things like, "clearly....[blah blah blah]" but you offer no objective proof that your assertion is true. You also seem to be accusing those who don't agree with you of having an irrational bias, the evidence of which is said disagreement. That argument is self-serving and more than a little insulting.

[ellisonz]

80. lol

I like how you accuse me of "having me an irrational bias" and then use an ad hominem - me a river for the victims of gun violence.

[TheWraith]

81. And everything you just said would be wrong.

Starting with the premise that knives are less lethal than guns. In reality, emergency room statistics show that the fatality rate of being stabbed once with a knife is almost exactly the same as being shot once with a handgun--one in five, assuming that you receive prompt medical attention.

Moreover, you seem to still be under the misapprehension that the murder rate in the UK went down when they banned guns. It did not, at all. They have a lower murder rate than we do because they have ALWAYS had a lower murder rate than we have. Meanwhile, the murder rate in the US has been declining for nearly 20 years, even as the number of guns have increased by 50%.

[ellisonz]

82. "Starting with the premise that knives are less lethal than guns."

Prove it. But I would just caution that the idea that it is easier to kill someone with a knife than a gun is ludicrous on the face of it. Ever hear the phrase - "don't bring a knife to a gunfight"

Moreover, you seem to still be under the misapprehension that the murder rate in the UK went down when they banned guns. It did not, at all. They have a lower murder rate than we do because they have ALWAYS had a lower murder rate than we have. Meanwhile, the murder rate in the US has been declining for nearly 20 years, even as the number of guns have increased by 50%.

This has been addressed here many times. Using a single-variate analysis to correlate gun possession with the murder rate is misleading. Why do you think the UK is less inclined to homicide than the United States? I mean it's not that radically of a different society. Seems to me your argument depends on an idea of American exceptionalism. Gun control - give it a try!

[gejohnston]

83. nothing to do with American exceptionalism

but a history and culture that is different enough to create those conditions. Our history is unique partly because of revolt but mostly because of slavery in the past and organized crime.

[Union Scribe]

5. Maybe, but I don't think that reason is

threatening to lock up a senior citizen for ten times longer than the person who broke into her house.

[ellisonz]

7. I expect they'll go light...

...but clearly the law was broken. It's a good law and it's an effective law.

[pipoman]

9. They can't "go light"

combined with the idiocy of the face of this case is the idiocy of mandatory sentencing. No law which carries manditory sentencing is a good law, at least if one gives a shit about actual justice as opposed to actual injustice.

[ellisonz]

20. "unless exceptional circumstances can be shown"

[pipoman]

23. Mandatory sentencing is as stupid as 'zero tolerance'

Oh, and how much more exceptional can it get than this?..apparently someone's exceptional meter is broken..

[ellisonz]

24. I CAN HAZ BRITISH LEVELS OF VIOLENT CRIME

[pipoman]

25. Wow, that high,huh?

[ellisonz]

28. Actually, I'm only high on caffeine...

...Kauai coffee is great. Want to apologize for that little insult? You know what I really love about when that one get's thrown around. If anyone is having their civil rights oppressed by the system, it's non-violent potheads. Seriously man, get a grip!

[Straw Man]

32. It was about "high" rates of violent crime, no?

Who said anything about potheads?

BTW, unless those potheads are dealing with medical marijuana dispensaries or are growing their own, they're financing the murderous drug cartels with their weed purchases. You can blame the system for that too, but the smokers are making the choice to buy, without giving a shit for the consequences.

[ellisonz]

34. Really?

You think cartels control the entire domestic marijuana business. Although, this might be true for parts of the country where they don't have good growers, a substantial portion of the domestic business is non-cartel related, non-dispensary and non-homegrown. Please share your thoughts on this matter in GD.

"You can blame the system for that too, but the smokers are making the choice to buy, without giving a shit for the consequences."

Isn't that what the gun industry does too?

[Straw Man]

42. Yes, really.

You think cartels control the entire domestic marijuana business.

I think nothing of the kind. Please refrain from telling me what I think.

Although, this might be true for parts of the country where they don't have good growers, a substantial portion of the domestic business is non-cartel related, non-dispensary and non-homegrown.

And the buyer usually has no idea where his or her dope comes from. Plenty of it comes from the cartels, who would not exist if it weren't for the US dope buyer's dollars. There are also domestic criminal growers who rival the cartels for murderous ruthlessness. Nope, dopers don't get an ethical pass from me.

"You can blame the system for that too, but the smokers are making the choice to buy, without giving a shit for the consequences."

Isn't that what the gun industry does too?

No. Gun manufacturers know where their product is going. The Feds keep pretty close tabs on that. It's a legitimate business.

[ellisonz]

43. "Gun manufacturers know where their product is going. The Feds keep pretty close tabs on that."

"It's a legitimate business."



I just might have to nominate that for a DUzy.

[Clames]

44. Cite evidence to the contrary?

No, I don't think you can. Your argument here is

[ellisonz]

45. So that's why they need that shield law from civil liability!

Congress gives gun industry a lawsuit shield
President Bush expected to sign bill following approval by House
Associated Press - Updated 10/20/2005 3:27:00 PM ET

WASHINGTON — Congress gave the gun lobby its top legislative priority Thursday, passing a bill that would protect the firearms industry from massive lawsuits brought by crime victims. The White House says President Bush will sign it into law.

The House voted 283-144 to send the bill to the president after supporters, led by the National Rifle Association, proclaimed it vital to protect the industry from being bankrupted by huge jury awards. Opponents, waging a tough battle against growing public support for the legislation, called it proof of the gun lobby’s power over the Republican-controlled Congress.

Under the measure, about 20 pending lawsuits by local governments against the industry would be dismissed. The Senate passed the bill in July.

The bill’s passage was the NRA’s top legislative priority and would give Bush and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill a rare victory at a time when some top GOP leaders are under indictment or investigation.

More: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9762564/ns/politics/t/congress-gives-gun-industry-lawsuit-shield/#.T0no9F2Rl_k

Wanna explain why the gun lobby got the Republican Party to pass a law protecting them from legal liability for controlling their product? Must be an awful lot of guilty parties in the gun lobby

[Straw Man]

47. Do you even know what this liability issue is?

Obviously not.

Wanna explain why the gun lobby got the Republican Party to pass a law protecting them from legal liability for controlling their product? Must be an awful lot of guilty parties in the gun lobby

Controlling their product? You mean holding the manufacturer responsible for what any bozo anywhere down the chain of custody might chose to do with a firearm. Should the victims of drunk drivers be able to sue Ford and Chevrolet? How about Seagram's and Smirnoff?

Any possessor of any firearm is legally and morally responsible to ensure that the person to whom he or she transfers that firearm is legally qualified to possess it. When the manufacturer transfers the gun to a legally qualified wholesaler, the manufacturer's responsibility ends.

[ellisonz]

48. Yes.

And yes...

It's called moral responsibility, some people take it, some people don't. The gun lobby chooses not to demand better regulation of its product.

[Straw Man]

49. No. You don't. You really don't.

It's called moral responsibility, some people take it, some people don't. The gun lobby chooses not to demand better regulation of its product.

You want gun manufacturers to take moral responsibility for something that is entirely beyond their control. You want them to guarantee that no one anywhere will ever do anything reprehensible with one of their products. No manufacturer of anything could possibly pass that test, so why do you want to impose it on gun manufacturers?

It's time for you to get real and admit that in your eyes gun manufacturers are morally culpable just for existing.

[Clames]

61. Sure...

...when you explain why you should be held liable for damages that could result the next time you sell something at a garage sale, sell a vehicle, or a ticket to a venue you couldn't go to. Your crystal ball has some rather large cracks in it...

[Straw Man]

46. It's a simple statement of fact.

I just might have to nominate that for a DUzy.

Chuckle away merrily now. Your ignorance in this matter is profound.

Did you think that gangbangers just back a van up to the loading dock at Ruger and say "Fill 'er up"? What exactly do you think the ATF's role is, anyway? There is a traceable chain of custody from manufacturer to wholesaler to first retail sale for each and every firearm.

Educate yourself:

http://www.atf.gov/statistics/

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/atf-f-5300-11.html

http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/121611-firearms-commerce-2011.pdf

[Straw Man]

17. They can't.

Mandatory sentencing, y'know.

It's a good law and it's an effective law.

If by effective you mean "disarms ordinary citizens but leaves criminals in peace," then, yes, it would be.

[ellisonz]

21. "unless exceptional circumstances can be shown"

[Straw Man]

26. The judge doesn't seem to find any.

"The terms of the legislation, at first blush, are uncompromising. This is a very serious matter and there is an aggravation of there being two charges," she said.

[ellisonz]

29. That's pretty preliminary.

She hasn't been sentenced yet if I remember what I read last night correctly? But honestly, do you think laws should be selectively applied or something?

[Straw Man]

31. So we'll see what happens, I guess.

But honestly, do you think laws should be selectively applied or something?

If by "laws should be selectively applied" you mean that sentencing should take into account the circumstances of the offense and the past record of the offender, then yes, I do. If that's not what you mean by "selectively applied," please explain what you do mean. Or something.

[SteveW]

74. I think that's called a hotbox in baseball. nt

[MicaelS]

18. It's a VERY BAD law...

That penalizes people for having the means to protect themselves. But this is the type of law that shows just how extreme is the position of Gun Prohibitionists.

If You and other Gun Prohibitionists don't believe in the concept of armed self-defense and the use of lethal force, than that is acceptable to the rest of us, ONLY as long as you restrict it to NOT imposing that belief on others. If you're willing to sacrifice your life, that is your choice, don't impose that belief on others.

Frankly I think one of the root cause of the opposition to the concept of armed self defense is the belief that criminals should not have to worry about being shot by civilians. On the grounds that the criminal is somehow getting his rights violated by the civilian, and thus the criminal's rights are more important the the victim of crime.

[ellisonz]

22. Wrong.

The concern is about a spiraling gun violence problem that claims too many lives. We want responsible gun ownership. Take your claim that I'm somehow a gun prohibitionist who wants to coddle and enable criminals and back off, because that isn't remotely true.

The proof is in the pudding:

In 2008-09 firearms were involved in 0.3% or 1 in every 330 crimes recorded by police in England and Wales
Firearms were used in 14,250 recorded crimes in 2008-09, an 18% decrease on 2007-08, and the fifth consecutive annual fall
Excluding air weapons, firearm offences decreased by 17% to 8,208
Handguns were used in 4,275 offences during 2008-09, a rise of 2% on 2007-08
There was a large fall in the use of imitation weapons, which fell by 41% to 1,511
Overall, firearm offences involving any type of injury were down by 41% in 2008-09, from 4,164 in 2007-08 to 2,458
There were 39 fatal injuries from crimes involving firearms in 2008-09, the lowest recorded by the police in 20 years

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10220974

[Straw Man]

27. Really?

We want responsible gun ownership. Take your claim that I'm somehow a gun prohibitionist who wants to coddle and enable criminals and back off, because that isn't remotely true.

So in your world "responsible gun ownership" equates to a complete ban on handguns. Interesting. I don't know what else to call that except "prohibitionist."

[pipoman]

30. Doesn't the term "spiraling"

really mean increasing in this context? If so, you should probably review the actual stats...OTOH, spiraling would be a good term to use when describing the actual violent crime rate in the panacea of the UK...violent crime is in fact spiraling out of control there..

[ellisonz]

35. Gun homicide rates have dramatically gone up?

[pipoman]

36. Homicide rates have dramatically declined?

[Glassunion]

51. Numbers are not important.

Tis far nobler to lose 10 to the fist than to lose just 1 to the gun.

[MicaelS]

64. With you defining "responsible gun ownership"?? Hollow laugh

"Responsible gun ownership" to you is banning everything but muskets. And then making anyone who own said musket undergo licensing, registration, buying "gun insurance", and any other obstruction you can think of to put in place.

"Reasonable restrictions on guns" is like reasonable restrictions on abortion. It's just a salami slicing technique whose ultimate goal is complete Prohibition.

There's not a bit of doubt that you're a Gun Prohibitionist.

[ellisonz]

67. "There's not a bit of doubt that you're a Gun Prohibitionist."

And you would be wrong...

[Clames]

70. I think he's right.

I bet many here would feel the same.

[ellisonz]

71. lol

What do you think most of DU thinks of this group?

[Clames]

72. Since you are not "most"...

...nor have any real idea (those pesky facts again...) I really don't care what you think on that particular note...

[oneshooter]

73. I believe that he more a hopolaphobe than anything else.

[Remmah2]

78. England, good laws?

That's the country that inspired the US to part company with the royalty due to debtors prison laws.

England prosecutes people for not paying their TV tax.

England banned their competitive shooting teams right out of the country.

England the land of knife control.

It's a nanny state, check your brain at the border citizen.

[Atypical Liberal]

69. I'm OK with that tradeoff.

I accept the homicide rate we have as a consequence of living in a free society with relatively free access to firearms.

We have more crime, and more freedom. I'm OK with that if they are.

[Skittles]

2. I CAN HAS THE GUN DEATH RATES OF THE UK?

YEE HAW!!

[pipoman]

10. I am usually pretty good at English

but this is apparently beyond my reading comprehension.

[Skittles]

33. it is LOL CAT-ese

yes INDEED

[Union Scribe]

6. "if he was to be prosecuted over the firearm then his victim should also"

Criminal logic. Terrifying that authorities would take it seriously.

Oh, and I loved this:

"Whitelaw (29) later had his jail term cut to six months resulting in his immediate release"

Tempus fugit!

[slackmaster]

8. That's fucked up like a football bat

[ileus]

11. This is what happens when you give the antis an inch...

they take a mile, and turn a victim into a buttfucked victim.

[rrneck]

13. Where were the authorities when her house got broken into? nt

[Johnny Rico]

14. Don't forget that when your life is on the line and every second counts...

The police are only 15 minutes away.

[rrneck]

16. Government that functions as an exercise in negative reinforcement

generally seems to result in distinctly unpleasant response from the citizenry sooner or later.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

15. Violent Gun Crime

How does violent gun crime in Britain compare to US? Wonder what they are doing different.

[BiggJawn]

37. I wonder how the knife and blunt instrument crime rates stack up?

For a country that plays Cricket I understand that they sell a HELL of a lot of baseball bats there.

Give 'em another 25 years. They'll have laws requiring all food to be sold pureed and make knives illegal...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

38. Right

So people primarily buy knives and baseball bats to kill?

Didn't think so.

[Clames]

40. Knives have become such a problem in England...

....that possession of even a small pocket knife in public can mean a 12 jail sentence on the first offense. Zero-tolerance bullshit hard at work in that country. No wonder my cousins want to give up and move here.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

50. Great

Running from the laws of our allies always makes for great citizenship in this country. Good grief. Welcome to America.

[Callisto32]

52. So people shouldn't flee bullshit laws?

You should just stay and take it, right?

Wow, just fucking wow.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

54. BS?

It's BS that someone is fleeing the country because it's illegal to carry a knife.

But heh, if the State Department buys it on the residency application when they ask 'did you bring any weapons into this country', let me know.

[Clames]

56. Wrong again.

Nobody said that was the reason. Just an example out of many as to why they know they would have a much higher quality of life here than in England. This is where personal experience trumps baseless rhetoric.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

58. What a Crock

The rhetoric came from you.

Either they are leaving the country for that reason or they are not.

If not, no purpose bringing up other than your rhetoric.

If they are, then it's real and not rhetoric.

[Clames]

59. I wonder...

...if you even read your own posts as you type them. Sorry, you don't have the ability to judge with any certainty their reasons for moving here. Keep spinning, it's all you have.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

60. Only What the Poster Says

What was that reason again?

[Clames]

62. See #57...

...you might learn something.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

63. See #40

That comes before #57.

[Clames]

65. You're struggling.

And your reading comprehension needs some polishing up. #57. Keep trying, you'll get there sooner or later.





ProTip: Look for a "5" and a "7" in close proximity.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

66. Oh Gosh

....ok.....(LOL)..... I'm struggling.

Seriously? That's the best you got?

Ok I'm struggling ......to keep from laughing.

[Clames]

68. I've been laughing quite openly...

...over your posts in this group. Anyway, when you can find where I even came close to implying that knife laws were the sole reason (instead of the zero-tolerance policy bullshit I stated) for them wanting to move to America, I'll entertain the idea you have a clue about what you are talking about here. Until then, your posts =

[BiggJawn]

55. Why not?

You think that's the ONLY reason anybody buys a gun... See the ridiculousness of your position now?

I didn't think so....

[Logical]

39. Well, the USA does have a horrible murder rate compared to other countries. I admit....

that and I am sure guns make it easier to kill people.

Unfortunately, there is no way to stop criminals from having guns at this point.

So honest citizens should have them also.

[Clames]

41. It's a joke of a system they have.

I took one of my visiting cousins to a local sporting goods store to buy some ammo for the range and after leaving the store with two boxes in hand he stated that back home he'd be facing more than 1,500 years in jail time for what he was holding. England is a crap place to live now and is only getting worse.

[Callisto32]

53. Bring him over, (if you can, bullshit "immigration" laws)!

It always warms my heart to see an Englishman/woman who hasn't kowtowed to doubleplus goodthink.

[Clames]

57. Bringing either of them over would be easy...

...family sponsorship considering I have dual-citizenship and my father is a permanent resident alien would make it a non-issue. There they make decent money and have nothing to show for it because of taxes and the nickel-and-dime mentality of basic public services.

[SteveW]

75. England's secret: Copy our crack-cocaine laws and stop drug abuse. nt