Firearms conviction.

[Rockhopper]

http://m.leicestermercury.co.uk/colt-re ... story.html

This one is interesting. If I'm reading it correctly the guy had handled the pistol at some point (but wasn't involved when it was actually recovered and there was no evidence show he had loaded it) and got five years. That seems a bit unfortunate to me! As usual though there is probably more to the story than is being reported.

I'm sure I've handled some slightly iffy things in my time but then my DNA isn't on a database....(as far as I know!)

[BamBam]

He had previous convictions and now they've found his DNA on a section 5 revolver. I'm disappointed that 5 years was all he got.

[Rockhopper]

True but not for firearms offences. Are they saying that just be because you touch something at some undetermined time in the past that counts as possession?

[bradaz11]

He could have handled it somewhere where it wasn't sec5. Ie abroad and then it came over here

[Egg on Leggs1]

DNA evidence has to be contextual to stand up as evidence. Either the DNA was sufficient in form to prove actual handling or he folded and admitted it.

[Gazza]

"Officers found the blue bag contained the Colt double-action revolver with six chambers – all with a live round in each of them at the time it was recovered."

Would it have been so difficult for the newspaper people to find a picture of a revolver instead of the semi in their article?

Ahh, sorry, yes it would.

Sorry about my comment not being on topic but it got up my nose a bit!

[Sim G]

From the article;

"However, in court he pleaded guilty to possessing a prohibited American Colt Police Positive Special .32 weapon."

What's the issue?

[Rockhopper]

So as i said, there is more to the incident than is being reported. If he was convinced by the Police that simply having touched that pistol at some time in the past equals possession then he folded and admitted it - end of story and the Police wouldn't investigate any further. If he pleads guilty then end of investigation - just means he might have been badly advised.

[Andy632]

Jeez, I hate to think how many firearms my DNA's on!

But if he pled guilty and he was a bad boy, fair doo's, he deserves it!

[joe]

Since he was looking at 5 years min anyway maby he should of pleeded
Not guilty and that would mean having the trial court or maby even the appellant court contrue if your DNA on a section 5 is deemed to be possosesion