Determination Of The Crime Of Illegally Possessing A Firearm

When determining the crime of illegal possession of firearms,it is very important for the determination of firearms.The current firearm injury force identification standard is muzzle specific kinetic energy of 1.8 joules per square centimeter.In real life,the act of holding firearms that have a certain degree of danger and lethality and meet the standard of determination is convicted of this crime,which is understandable according to the social perception of most ordinary people.However,penalties are imposed on behaviors that control the possession of various types of guns such as toy guns,water guns,air guns,etc.,although they meet the standards for gun identification,but are not socially harmful,and are easily related to the general public’s social perception Contradictions have caused public opinion to question and brought pressure from public opinion such as the Tianjin Zhao Chunhua case.Based on the plight of the referee in the Zhao Chunhua case and similar cases in judicial practice,the "Two Highs" issued the "Response" to guide real-life gun-related cases.This article reviews and analyzes the principles of gun identification,comprehensive evaluation of social hazards and the suitability of crime,punishment and punishment in the reply from the perspective of judicial interpretation of "two highs".Finally,I put forward some considerations on the issue of determining the crime of illegally possessing a firearm in current practice,with a view to having a slightly positive effect on judicial practice.The article is divided into five parts,the contents are as follows:The first part analyzes the judicial interpretation,and concludes that the judicial interpretation’s consideration for the conviction and sentencing of illegal possession of firearms is the principle of guns,social harm,and the punishment for crime.The second part is the determination of firearms in judicial interpretation.Most of the firearms involved in the illegal possession of firearms in judicial practice are mostly non-standard firearms.Therefore,the author here mainly analyzes the certification standards for non-standard firearms,including the changes in standards and the current certification standards such as the number of guns,the muzzle specific kinetic energy,and the damage caused by guns.In addition,the author believes that it is important to distinguish between guns and gun-shaped objects when determining the crime.The third part is the understanding of the comprehensive evaluation of social hazards in judicial interpretation.Social harm is one of the essence of crime.Most of the controversial and public opinion pressure cases of illegal possession of firearms have plots that even if the thing held by the perpetrator meets the criteria for the identification of firearms,the behavior of their possession is neither socially harmful nor socially harmful.There are many factors to evaluate the harmfulness of society.The author mainly discusses from three aspects: objective harm of criminal behavior,subjective malignancy of the perpetrator,and personal danger.The fourth part is the corresponding understanding of crime,responsibility and punishment in judicial interpretation.That is,serious crimes and heavy penalties,minor crimes and minor penalties.Therefore,it mainly discusses the content of the principle,the judgment standards of felony and misdemeanor,and the relationship between the principle and the harmfulness of society.The fifth part is the understanding of illegal understanding in judicial interpretation.To determine whether the perpetrator has illegal knowledge is the proper meaning of the principle of adaptation of crime,responsibility and punishment.However,in real life,those who hold toy guns,air guns,and water guns have not realized that their possessions are firearms that are prohibited by ordinary citizens from being held in criminal law before being held accountable.Cognition,it is difficult to recognize the illegality of behavior.Therefore,this part mainly analyzes the attitude of our country’s criminal law practice to the understanding of illegality and the wrong positioning of illegality in the criminal theory system.