Thread: Insanity rules in the vetting process

Originally Posted by Tahr

The bloke doesn't need a gun licence if he wants to revert to crime again. Everyone knows that.
He wanted a gun licence so that he can enjoy hunting, the bush, nature. And influence the disadvantaged into doing the same.
Fill your boots I say.
Just 'cos we are pissy about the gun laws and how we and others are treated does not mean that this guy doesn't deserve a break. He's maybe done more for society in seeking his redemption in a short time than many FAL holders have done in their lifetime.

True. The issue is the inconsistent nature. People having licenses removed for speeding tickets but 15x criminal conviction gets a license

Originally Posted by Danger Mouse

True. The issue is the inconsistent nature. People having licenses removed for speeding tickets but 15x criminal conviction gets a license

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Danger Mouse

True. The issue is the inconsistent nature. People having licenses removed for speeding tickets but 15x criminal conviction gets a license

Yes and I think it's fair that all of us get the same chance at redemption. Being able to show a reasonable period of time where you have improved your ways, should give you a second chance.

Originally Posted by whanahuia

Yes and I think it's fair that all of us get the same chance at redemption. Being able to show a reasonable period of time where you have improved your ways, should give you a second chance.

I agree.
Not many of us would be able to honestly say that if everything we did in our younger years was exposed, that we never did anything which would draw suspicion on our fit and proper status. We just may not have been caught or convicted.
I think in this case, the guy is "now" one of our better citizens. If we all helped as many vulnerable people as he is now, we would live in a better place.

Originally Posted by 7mmwsm

I think in this case, the guy is "now" one of our better citizens. If we all helped as many vulnerable people as he is now, we would live in a better place.

As a self professed member of the hang ‘em at dawn brigade, I find it surprising that in this particular instance I am in total agreement with you. Ordinarily I would be using the old adage that Leopards do not change their spots but this fellah seams to be a proven exception and because of that (and his demonstrably positive contribution to the good of society) I don’t see an issue with him being given a Firearms License. In considering my (to myself) unusual view on this matter I think it is the considerable change that has swayed me.

Originally Posted by Rushy

As a self professed member of the hang ‘em at dawn brigade, I find it surprising that in this particular instance I am in total agreement with you. Ordinarily I would be using the old adage that Leopards do not change their spots but this fellah seams to be a proven exception and because of that (and his demonstrably positive contribution to the good of society) I don’t see an issue with him being given a Firearms License. In considering my (to myself) unusual view on this matter I think it is the considerable change that has swayed me.

Firstly, I have been following this thread and holding a view but wasn't going to comment until I saw this, it has encouraged the below, in a good way.

I am not going to try and play down the tension between this persons past and their current status as a FAL holder, but what is worth considering is that there are essentially two systems to choose from, one very rigid 'if x then y' without any room for exceptions, and the other, is one with stipulations but with some room for judgement calls as well. There are good and bad with both, the bad of the rigid is that it works fine until someone comes along who is naughty on paper only, it could be in the vein of sober driving a drunk friends car home on a restricted licence at 10.02pm. A rigid system sees the difference between 9.58pm and 10.02pm as legal/illegal even though there is no material difference. A police officer with discretion might let a restricted driver off if they were turning into their street at 10.02pm. And that is the good of the system with room for exceptions, it can look at whether the law was broken on paper without breaking the intent of the law. It allows people to over ride the rules when they see a lack of commonsense in how the system might treat a specific case.
This is also the negative of the discretionary system, it opens the window to serious mistakes. But whatever system we operate under, we take the good and the bad. It is fair to say the subject of this thread is an edge case, one that calls into question whether the ability to deploy some discretion is a good thing. But before I call for anyones past to be aired as dirty laundry, I consider my own, and hope that if I had to choose between one type of system or another, that I would first consider some of my previous life choices.