Thread: Fit and proper. Be careful

Originally Posted by tetawa

DUI without firearms involved COULD be enough for loss of firearms license.

It is. They are getting revoked for this now all the time.

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 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

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?

Plenty of history surrounding this guy. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-o...idUSKCN0YF050/

If you hold a FAL you ought to be capable of making good judgements about your own and others' safety.

Yup, some history mentioned here. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-...-ban/101883506

In a submission to the tribunal in 2022, the commissioner's representatives stated that Diamond had also been involved in a series of domestic incidents.
"The police were called to domestic incidents involving the applicant 12 times between 2003 and 2021," the submission said.
It was outlined that in one incident, on May 21, 2016, Diamond was reported to be "aggressive and very intoxicated and drove off in his vehicle with a firearm".
"During the period he was also the subject of AVOs which were revoked."


Looks like he may have a history of being a fwit.
Probably lucky to not have lost his license a lot sooner - if he was Joe Bloggs and not a "medal winning Olympian" it would have been gone years ago.

Being fit and proper isn't about being careful (to not get caught), it's about not being an f'wit and doing dumb stuff that shows you either don't think or have a general disregard for the finer points of the country's statutes and laws. On this it really isn't a case that the rules are vague and the requirements aren't clearly communicated, the info is right there and for the new people who are going in a sitting their licence requirements it's in clear black and white in several places.

In a lot of cases, the individual in the case in this thread being a good example - people are given a huge amount of leeway in the system and multiple opportunities to alter the trajectory they've put themselves on. But, they choose not to change anything. Then when they finally get to the short end of the rope and they aren't given any more leeway they cry unfair and why is this being done to me - I really don't have a huge amount of sympathy especially when it's your competitive profession and you choose to lead your life in such a way that you basically chuck it all into the bin.

Due to the standard of driving I have seen, very few police officers are fit and proper to have a drivers license!