Analysis Of Several Problems About The Crime Of Illegal Possession Of Firearms

In the case of "playing the balloons in Tianjin",the people from all walks of life have a lot of controversy over the first and second trial of the case.Each person's position is different,which leads to a certain difference in the way of looking at the problem and the angle of view.The application of the penalty is obviously based on the three basic elements,first of all,whether the behavior should be defined as a criminal act,and the next is whether the sentencing after the conviction has the corresponding criminal law,and the last is whether the penalty and the criminal law are relative to the hazard assessment of their behavior.The focus of the legal theorists on the dispute mainly focuses on the conviction and sentencing and the justice of the penalty.The problem of conviction mainly from the subjective elements,whether there is a knowledge of the firearms,whether there is a mistake in cognition,whether there is a subjective intention,and in the process of discussing the subjective intention,it is important to grasp a point,that is,the intentional factors of cognition do not.It is the external fact cognition that the actor produces the objective element element only,and if the actor is required to realize the result and the corresponding social influence.This is essentially the point that the perpetrator will have a negative social impact on its own behavior,with a clear and clear understanding that the perpetrator should know that he is "endangering the society".Of course,due to the restriction of the threshold of legal knowledge,we can not expect everyone to have a professional understanding of intentional crime.Generally speaking,as long as the actor canrecognize that his behavior has existed,the legislator defines it as the special meaning of crime.This view is actually the theory of parallel evaluation in the field of outsiders,which is put forward by Mezger.If the perpetrator is not aware of the elements of the objective constitutive elements of his own behavior,or does not reach the meaning connotation of the constituent elements of the parallel evaluation in the field of the layman,the intentional nature of the crime is not true.Whether the air guns held by them have a socially harmful aspect,Zhao Chunhua holds the gas.The gun,and the air gun has the certain killing force,but this kill force horizontal contrast other daily life's killing tool,such as the axe,the kitchen knife,and so on,the killing force is still somewhat inferior.That is to say,there is a more obvious correlation between the name of the act of holding a gas gun and the behavior of holding a firearm,and the degree of the actual harm of the actual behavior is not very high.In addition,in addition to the firearms,our country has some control over some highly lethal instruments,such as kitchen knives.But because these items are often the necessities of people's life,these control instruments are prohibited under a specific occasion,and if there is a violation of the prohibition,they are also subordinate to them.The administration is illegal,not a crime.Since the killing force of the air gun in life is not only not comparable with the firearms,but also weaker than the other special items of the control tools,it is unreasonable to make the punishment of holding the air gun guilty according to the balance of the law and the characteristics of the final means launched by the criminal law.In fact,in the face of difficult legal problems,the judge can explain the legal provisions by means of "language,history,tradition,purpose and consequence".According to the limit of purpose,the case of Zhao Chunhua should not be convicted and sentencing.In the case of Zhao Chunhua,the case does not exist in the real senseof the gun,Zhao Chunhua case should not be identified as the crime of illegal possession of firearms,and the second instance of the case of sentencing part also has a lot of problems.