Paul,

"Australia's leading shooting exponent Michael Diamond

[he is not Australia's leading shooting exponent, far from it]

is facing serious firearms charges. Diamond refused a roadside breath test and later blew 0.159. It is alleged by police, a search of Diamonds car produced a hoard of 150 shotgun cartridges

[hoard? I go through a couple of hundred at the clays on a Saturday afternoon, especially if there is a shoot off].

Diamond has been charged with high range drink-driving, not keeping a firearm safe

[because he was under the influence, not because he didn't have it physically secure under NSW law]

and using a firearm while under the influence of alcohol.

Speaking with the ABC this morning, Diamond referred all questions to Shooting Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-23/arrest-threatens-michael-diamonds-olympic-shooting-dream/7436220

Is Mise the WA article was dated May 1st 1996, 3 days after Port Arthur took place, fresh news at the time"

But not fresh 29 years later. convenient for having a go at a respected business man but not true as you would have found out had you used Google yourself; stop relying on lying Green handouts.

Nothing to say about the Federal Government of the time and their trade deals with China?

Is Mise, please enlighten me, what is a shoot off, is that six guns at ten paces, to see who's quickest on the draw? Is it Dodge City stuff? What is the difference between a shoot off and shoot up?

Now are you claiming the WA article of 1996, that's 20 years ago BTW. is untrue?

I was shocked, by the Micheal Diamond allegations. If a leading public figure of the shooting world should proved to be a wrong doer, what hope is there for all other shooters to be trusted to act responsibly. What can one say!

I don't know what other message one could take from the Diamond charges than the very obvious one, that the firearms licence places very onerous conditions on the holder. -Which this competitor has met to now and hopefully no-one will be prejudging the outcome. Except for the gutter dwelling Greens it seems.

I find it quite distasteful that the Greens would fudge information about the firearm used that the Port Arthur murderer to embarrass some perceived political opponent or associate many years after.

It bears out what I was saying earlier about Greens and other political interests (some from overseas) constantly riding on the backs of the victims and their relatives for shabby political purposes.

How to obtain any closure under those circumstances?

Paul,

"I was shocked, by the Micheal Diamond allegations. If a leading public figure of the shooting world should proved to be a wrong doer, what hope is there for all other shooters to be trusted to act responsibly. What can one say!"

One could say that as a leading member of the Nationalists, an MP, was convicted of murder that all Nationalists are potential murderers but that would be rater stupid, don't you think?

Or that because David Shosbridge has lied to Parliament that all Greens would do likewise

As far as Paul 1405 is concerned Diamond is guilty until proved innocent. Paul1405 is rejoicing, chortling as Greens do at the misfortune of a someone who is a pillar of society, a good man.

However, if Gold medalist Mr Diamond was a Green, Paul and others would be complaining indignantly that Diamond stands to be punished several times over and harshly for the one offence, alleged DUI.

If he was one of their own, they would be frothing at the mouth because not only is he punished twice it is actually thrice because where the legally licensed owners are concerned, police have the discretion to remove his firearms licence and his possessions on the spot, which they do.

Imagine one's expensive possessions, competition tuned shotguns valued at many $thousands each, being casually handled and thrown into the back of a police wagon, onto the steel tray and being bounced for kilometres then treated again with all care and no responsibility to be stacked in a lock-up somewhere. There is no recompense for any damage done either.

He later has to negotiate with police (who have broad discretionary powers) for his firearms licence to be reinstated, which is NOT protected/guaranteed at all and for his possessions to be returned, where again he can he inconvenienced and denied at the pleasure of the police. There is discretionary power for police to scrap or sell these privately-owned, legally purchased and legally registered assets. A reversed standard of proof is applied - he has to make the case, not the police. An expensive court appeal is usually necessary.

On top of that, police conduct a full uniformed raid on the licensed person's home, where they can interrogate all present, but particularly the wife and near relatives. Under the regulations they don't require a Warrant and will remove all of his/her possessions from his/her gun safe. Again to be unceremoniously thrown into the rear tray of a police wagon and carted off.

tbc..

contd..

The firearms regulations were drafted to cause the maximum annoyance, inconvenience, outrageous paperwork and cost (multiple large fees, read as new taxes - Governments excel at that), and doubled-up penalties for the reputable citizens who pass all hurdles and character tests to gain a licence.

To top it all off, from when they seek and obtain a licence these many thousands of proved and police-certified good citizens are treated as potential criminals, red-flagged on police computers as 'persons of interest' (shows on police computers that read number plates) and are subjected to random uniformed police raids for inspection and interrogation in their homes (again no Warrant necessary).

Now the 'gun control' Greens would say that those losses of rights and sad treatment are all quite OK to exact on certified responsible, law-abiding citizens of good character citizens for the 'privilege' of enjoying their hobby, recreation, sport or to protect their income as farmers must do.

But that stands in stark contrast to the howls of self-righteous indignation and protests from the Greens, Labor and their leftist 'Civil Rights' entourage at Queensland's Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act 2013 that enabled police to take some action against the excesses, including violent weapons and gun offences and drug trafficking, of outlaw motorcycle gangs (and other organised crime).

Heavens above, merely stopping a bikie in his 'colours' for a few polite questions was seen by the Greens, Labor and the human rights fraternity as one of the grossest invasions of civil rights imaginable. Unfair to bikies! Reprehensible! High dudgeon! QCs, expensive silks, called to the battle line to appeal and protect outlaw bikies' rights in the High Court of Australia. However the High Court upheld the VLAD.

One of the first priorities of Palaszczuk's Labor government and the treacherous Greens was to trash the successful VLAD law. Another was to lower the age of consent for anal sex. No more examples needed, but there are many that show where the leftist 'Progressives' put their values and priorities, and the rights they see as worth protecting.