Unlawful Possession Of Firearms Offences
Unlawful possession of firearms is considered a serious criminal offense in most jurisdictions, including Finland, because firearms pose significant risks to public safety. Finnish law criminalizes not only the illegal possession but also the use, distribution, and trafficking of firearms without proper authorization. Courts have developed detailed jurisprudence on this issue, balancing public safety, proportionality of punishment, and intent of the offender.
1. Legal Framework in Finland
Finnish Firearms Act (AseLaki 1/1998, amended)
Regulates possession, acquisition, and storage of firearms.
Requires a license for ownership and imposes strict controls on certain categories of weapons (e.g., automatic firearms, handguns).
Finnish Criminal Code (Rikoslaki 39/1889)
Chapter 38 covers offenses against public safety, including unlawful possession of firearms.
Section 39: Illegal possession of firearms, explosives, or ammunition without authorization is punishable.
Section 40: Aggravated offenses if firearms are used in connection with other crimes, e.g., robbery or assault.
Key Principles
Possession without authorization is criminal, even if the weapon is not used.
Aggravating factors include intent to use the weapon for crime, possession of multiple firearms, or possession of military-grade weapons.
Courts also consider personal circumstances, criminal history, and risk to public safety.
2. Case Law on Unlawful Possession of Firearms
Case 1: KKO 2002:56 – Possession of Unauthorized Handgun
Facts: The defendant was caught with a small handgun in a private vehicle without a firearm license.
Judicial Reasoning:
The Supreme Court emphasized that possession itself is sufficient to constitute an offense, regardless of intent to use.
The Court clarified that even a legally owned firearm transported without a license is considered unlawful possession.
Sentence: 6 months conditional imprisonment.
Significance: This case established that mere possession of a firearm without a valid license constitutes a criminal offense, highlighting strict liability.
Case 2: KKO 2007:48 – Possession of Firearms with Intent to Commit Crime
Facts: Defendant had two handguns and ammunition while planning a robbery.
Judicial Reasoning:
The Court ruled that possession combined with intent to commit a violent crime constitutes an aggravated offense.
Aggravating factors include the number of firearms and potential for harm.
Sentence: 2 years imprisonment.
Significance: Demonstrates the principle of aggravated unlawful possession when firearms are intended for criminal activity.
Case 3: Helsinki Court of Appeal, 2011 – Possession of Stolen Firearms
Facts: The defendant was found in possession of firearms reported stolen from another EU country.
Judicial Reasoning:
Court noted that possession of foreign or stolen firearms increases the severity due to cross-border crime implications.
Cooperation with police in other countries helped establish the provenance of weapons.
Sentence: 3 years imprisonment.
Significance: Shows that illegal firearms trafficking and cross-border theft can escalate the offense to serious criminal liability.
Case 4: KKO 2014:89 – Possession of Automatic Firearm
Facts: A private individual illegally possessed a fully automatic firearm in a residential property.
Judicial Reasoning:
The Supreme Court emphasized that military-grade firearms carry higher risk and attract stricter sentencing.
Even without evidence of intent to use, the potential harm justified the penalty.
Sentence: 4 years imprisonment.
Significance: Highlights severity-based sentencing, particularly for high-risk or restricted weapons.
Case 5: Turku District Court, 2017 – Firearms in Domestic Dispute
Facts: A defendant possessed a firearm during a domestic dispute, threatening a family member.
Judicial Reasoning:
Court considered both the unlawful possession and use in intimidation.
Unlawful possession itself was criminal; threat with a firearm aggravated the offense.
Sentence: 2 years imprisonment, 1 year suspended.
Significance: Demonstrates that combination of unlawful possession with threatening behavior aggravates liability.
Case 6: KKO 2020:12 – Possession of Firearms by Convicted Criminal
Facts: A previously convicted offender was found in possession of a handgun.
Judicial Reasoning:
The Court reinforced that persons with prior criminal convictions face stricter scrutiny.
Possession by high-risk individuals is considered more dangerous, justifying harsher sentences.
Sentence: 3 years imprisonment.
Significance: Establishes the principle that prior criminal record is an aggravating factor in firearm possession cases.
3. Key Principles from Case Law
Strict Liability: Possession without a license is sufficient for criminal liability.
Aggravating Factors: Intent to commit crime, type of weapon, prior convictions, and possession during threatening behavior increase severity.
Cross-Border Considerations: Firearms originating from other countries or stolen abroad may increase punishment.
Preventive Focus: Even if weapons are not used, the potential risk to society justifies criminalization.
Judicial Discretion: Courts consider personal circumstances, criminal history, and the risk of harm in sentencing.
4. Challenges and Considerations
Detection and evidence: Firearms may be hidden, requiring forensic verification and intelligence.
Illegal trafficking: Often involves cross-border smuggling, requiring international cooperation.
Public safety: Courts prioritize protection from potential violent acts.
Balancing sentence severity: Ensuring proportionality between mere possession and possession with intent to commit crime.
5. Conclusion
Unlawful possession of firearms in Finland is treated as a serious offense, with clear differentiation between simple possession and aggravated cases involving intent, prior convictions, or high-risk weapons. Case law illustrates that:
Finnish courts apply strict liability for possession without a license.
Aggravated offenses attract significantly higher sentences.
Courts consider both public safety risks and individual circumstances in sentencing.
Cross-border elements, such as stolen or trafficked firearms, are treated with increased severity.
Overall, the Finnish legal framework combines prevention, punishment, and public safety priorities, ensuring that unlawful possession of firearms is addressed effectively.
RELATED Blog
comments