I found this story fascinating:

A memorabilia collector has been jailed for five years for possessing a Second World War rifle listed as a prohibited firearm. The rifle was not in a condition to fire live ammunition.

But Stafford Crown Court heard replacing the deteriorated pin would have made that possible. Phillip Peter Kent, aged 29, of Owen Walk, Highfields, Stafford, was arrested in the street by police acting on information at 7.30am on June 20 this year.

Officers asked what they would find if they searched his home and he immediately told them about the Lee-Enfield rifle.

Mr Stephen Bailey, defending, told the court yesterday Kent had not bought ammunition nor sought to make any alterations to allow live bullets to be fired.

He also said Kent, a former member of the Territorial Army, was told by the seller the weapon had been de-commissioned.

Mr Bailey said: “He is a collector of memorabilia . To his knowledge the rifle was not capable of firing. He paid £100 for it from a man in Hanley about a year ago. He never knew about firearms legislation.

“He was told by the person who sold it to him it was de-commissioned. He was a bona fide, not secretive, collector and was immediately and absolutely co-operative.

“The gun was in the state in which he received it and, although that does not make it a non-prohibited weapon, there was no ammunition, no evidence of his seeking any or of intentional or actual use.”

Kent pleaded guilty to possessing the rifle. Pleading with Judge John Maxwell to spare him the minimum five-year jail term for this category of offence on the grounds of exceptional circumstances, Mr Bailey said: “Custody would be devastating. It would deeply affect his family and he would lose his accommodation.”

But Judge Maxwell said Parliamentary guidance meant strong sentences should be given for illegal firearms possession. “I feel bound to impose the minimum sentence of five years,” he added.

So here we have a man who harmed no one, and no one doubts never intended to harm anyone, kidnapped for five years.  Everyone knows that he was not a criminal, yet the judge “feels bound”

Albert Jay Nock wrote about this sort of thing:

Once, I remember, I ran across the case of a boy who had been sentenced to prison, a poor, scared little brat, who had intended something no worse than mischief, and it turned out to be a crime. The judge said he disliked to sentence the lad; it seemed the wrong thing to do; but the law left him no option. I was struck by this. The judge, then, was doing something as an official that he would not dream of doing as a man; and he could do it without any sense of responsibility, or discomfort, simply because he was acting as an official and not as a man. On this principle of action, it seemed to me that one could commit almost any kind of crime without getting into trouble with one’s conscience.

Clearly, a great crime had been committed against this boy; yet nobody who had had a hand in it — the judge, the jury, the prosecutor, the complaining witness, the policemen and jailers — felt any responsibility about it, because they were not acting as men, but as officials. Clearly, too, the public did not regard them as criminals, but rather as upright and conscientious men.

The idea came to me then, vaguely but unmistakably, that if the primary intention of government was not to abolish crime but merely to monopolize crime, no better device could be found for doing it than the inculcation of precisely this frame of mind in the officials and in the public; for the effect of this was to exempt both from any allegiance to those sanctions of humanity or decency which anyone of either class, acting as an individual, would have felt himself bound to respect — nay, would have wished to respect.