• OwOarchist@pawb.socialEnglish
    27·
    23 days ago

    His lawyers, however, argued that because most of his collection was non-functioning, he could not be charged.

    Yeah … I don’t think that “most of it is non-functional” argument is going to hold up in court when it’s illegal to own even one functional piece.

    Now, if he could say that all of it was non-functional, then maybe they’d have a point. But, yeah … there’s a reason they’re not making that argument, isn’t there?

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      20·
      23 days ago

      Yep, and from what I remember (this all happened like 5 years ago) the court said basically the same thing (“What do you mean he mostly didn’t break the weapons control act??”) and that’s why they took his tank away

      • Shayeta@feddit.orgEnglish
        11·
        23 days ago

        Well, the tank was ENCLOSED in a reinforced room - it had no way of exiting that room and was thus “non-functional”!

        • crater2150@feddit.org
          11·
          22 days ago

          I don’t think it had no way of exiting:

          It was common knowledge in town that the homeowner owned a tank, a man who grew up there told Stern. The tank even proved useful for clearing snow during the 1978 snowstorm. A news report mentions how the tank driver helped someone pull out trees

          Original text in German

          Im Ort sei bekannt gewesen, dass der Hausbewohner einen Panzer besaß, sagte dem stern ein Mann, der in dem Ort aufgewachsen ist. Der Panzer habe sogar in der Schneekatastrophe 1978 gute Dienste beim Schneeräumen geleistet. In einem Pressebericht ist die Rede davon, wie der Panzerfahrer jemandem beim Herausziehen von Bäumen geholfen habe

          https://www.stern.de/panorama/weltgeschehen/panzer-im-keller---84-jaehriger-waffenfan-bekommt-mildes-urteil-30643576.html