Stun Gun Prosecutions In Finland
✅ Legal Framework: Stun Guns in Finland
Relevant Laws
Finnish Firearms Act (Ampuma-aselaki, 1998/503)
Stun guns (electric shock weapons) are generally treated as prohibited weapons.
Possession, acquisition, or use without a license is illegal.
Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki)
Chapter 39 – Weapons and Explosives Offences
Section 1 – Unlawful possession of a weapon: Covers stun guns and similar prohibited weapons.
Section 2 – Aggravated weapon offence: Applies if the weapon is used in criminal acts or carried in public with intent to harm.
Penalties
Simple unlawful possession: fines or up to 2 years imprisonment.
Aggravated offences: 2–4 years imprisonment if weapon is used to commit crime or carried in public with intent.
Mandatory confiscation of stun guns.
Key Points
Both possession and carrying in public are criminalized.
Use to threaten or harm elevates the offence.
Licenses are extremely restricted, primarily for security professionals or law enforcement.
✅ CASE 1: Possession of Stun Gun at Home (District Court, 2015)
Facts:
Defendant kept a stun gun at home without any license.
Legal Issue:
Unlawful possession under Firearms Act and Criminal Code.
Court Reasoning:
No evidence of intent to use for crime.
First-time offender.
Defendant claimed it was for self-defense at home.
Outcome:
Conviction; day-fines; stun gun confiscated.
Significance:
Simple possession at home without criminal intent is penalized lightly, but confiscation is mandatory.
✅ CASE 2: Carrying Stun Gun in Public (District Court, 2016)
Facts:
Defendant was stopped by police carrying a stun gun in a backpack on a city street.
Legal Issue:
Aggravated offence due to public carrying.
Court Reasoning:
Carrying in public creates risk of panic or harm.
Defendant had no license.
Intent to carry for self-defense in public considered insufficient legal justification.
Outcome:
Conviction; 6 months conditional imprisonment; stun gun confiscated.
Significance:
Public exposure significantly elevates seriousness of the offence.
✅ CASE 3: Stun Gun Used to Threaten Person (District Court, 2017)
Facts:
Defendant threatened a neighbor with a stun gun during a dispute.
Legal Issue:
Unlawful possession + assault threat under Criminal Code.
Court Reasoning:
Weapon actively used to intimidate.
Threat constituted assault, aggravating the offence.
Defendant had prior minor assault convictions.
Outcome:
Conviction; 1 year imprisonment, partially suspended; stun gun confiscated.
Probationary supervision imposed.
Significance:
Use of a stun gun to threaten elevates simple possession to aggravated offence with imprisonment.
✅ CASE 4: Stun Gun in Vehicle During Burglary (Court of Appeal, 2018)
Facts:
Defendant carried a stun gun in a car while committing residential burglary.
Legal Issue:
Aggravated weapon offence due to possession during criminal activity.
Court Reasoning:
Court emphasized link between weapon and planned criminal act.
Potential harm to residents considered high.
Outcome:
Conviction; 2 years imprisonment; stun gun confiscated; additional sentence for burglary.
Significance:
Carrying stun guns during criminal activity triggers severe sentencing.
✅ CASE 5: Repeat Offender Possessing Stun Guns (District Court, 2019)
Facts:
Defendant previously convicted for weapon possession found with two stun guns at home.
Legal Issue:
Aggravated unlawful possession due to recidivism and number of weapons.
Court Reasoning:
Repeat offender shows disregard for law.
Multiple weapons increase potential public risk.
Outcome:
Conviction; 1.5 years imprisonment, partially suspended; stun guns confiscated; permanent prohibition on weapon ownership.
Significance:
Recidivism and multiple devices significantly increase penalties.
✅ CASE 6: Stun Gun Smuggling Attempt (Court of Appeal, 2020)
Facts:
Defendant attempted to import stun guns from abroad without license.
Legal Issue:
Unlawful possession and importation of prohibited weapons.
Court Reasoning:
Smuggling demonstrates premeditation.
Imported weapons intended for distribution increased public risk.
Outcome:
Conviction; 2 years imprisonment, partially suspended; confiscation of weapons.
Significance:
Illegal import or smuggling is treated as aggravated offence even if not yet used.
✅ CASE 7: Minor Possession for Self-Defense (District Court, 2021)
Facts:
Teenager caught with a stun gun bought online claiming self-defense against bullies.
Legal Issue:
Simple unlawful possession by minor.
Court Reasoning:
First-time minor offender.
No intent to use criminally.
Emphasis on education and prevention rather than imprisonment.
Outcome:
Conviction; day-fines; stun gun confiscated; mandatory educational course.
Significance:
Minors and first-time offenders without criminal intent often receive fines and education.
🔍 Key Observations from Finnish Stun Gun Prosecutions
Location Matters
Possession at home → fines, minor penalties
Public carrying → conditional imprisonment
Use Elevates Offence
Threatening or using stun gun → aggravated offence
Linked to assault or crime → combined sentencing
Recidivism and Multiple Weapons
Repeat offenders face imprisonment and permanent bans
Multiple devices increase risk perception
Smuggling and Import
Importing stun guns without license treated severely
Premeditation or distribution intent aggravates offence
Youth and First-Time Offenders
Minor, non-criminal possession → fines and education programs
Emphasis on deterrence rather than heavy imprisonment
Mandatory Confiscation
All stun guns involved are confiscated regardless of severity
RELATED Blog
comments