Thread: Fit and proper. Be careful

They need some balance in these rulings. This is a professional shooter whose livelihood depended on being able to possess firearms. He obviously made a big mistake, but is he really a danger to the public by owning a firearm?

Originally Posted by Fatberg

They need some balance in these rulings. This is a professional shooter whose livelihood depended on being able to possess firearms. He obviously made a big mistake, but is he really a danger to the public by owning a firearm?

Hate to sound like a karen but he was certainly a danger to the public choosing to drive under the influence knowing full well its dangerous and he could easily crash / kill someone. He may not be a danger to the public as far as firearms offences are concerned but who knows, hes already chosen to flout the law and drive drunk potentially putting others in danger so only seems reasonable to assume he could break the law further. Just because its his livelihood doesn’t make him exempt from the law or due any special treatment. Unfortunate for him that its potentially ended his career but end of the day he made the decision to drive drunk with firearms in the car, fuck around & find out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by 6.5 CRD

Hate to sound like a karen but he was certainly a danger to the public choosing to drive under the influence knowing full well its dangerous and he could easily crash / kill someone. He may not be a danger to the public as far as firearms offences are concerned but who knows, hes already chosen to flout the law and drive drunk potentially putting others in danger so only seems reasonable to assume he could break the law further. Just because its his livelihood doesn’t make him exempt from the law or due any special treatment. Unfortunate for him that its potentially ended his career but end of the day he made the decision to drive drunk with firearms in the car, fuck around & find out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree from the DUI perspective. But in the ruling the judge referenced his "history". So I had a good google and could find no previous convictions or issues. That leads me to believe that the ruling was based in including the firearms offences which had been dismissed.

Originally Posted by vulcannz

I agree from the DUI perspective. But in the ruling the judge referenced his "history". So I had a good google and could find no previous convictions or issues. That leads me to believe that the ruling was based in including the firearms offences which had been dismissed.

If they were dismissed, were they actually offences for which conviction might have been the outcome?

Originally Posted by Fatberg

They need some balance in these rulings. This is a professional shooter whose livelihood depended on being able to possess firearms. He obviously made a big mistake, but is he really a danger to the public by owning a firearm?

Well he is certainly a danger to the public driving a car in that state......

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk