Michael Diamond - 10 year ban

[SomeoneElse]

Olympic shooting champion Michael Diamond handed gun ban
http://ab.co/2q1AgsI

I suppose the take-away is: don't drink and drive and shoot.

[hobbit]

beat me by a minute

[Download]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Pity he did so so publicly.

[Title_II]

He drove drunk with a shotgun in the trunk and you guys think that for some reason he should no longer be allowed to own firearms. Should he no longer be allowed to own kitchen knives?

You know what? If you don't think you deserve what you got, don't look at Parliament, or the Greens, look in the mirror.

[hobbit]

He drove drunk with a shotgun in the trunk and you guys think that for some reason he should no longer be allowed to own firearms. Should he no longer be allowed to own kitchen knives?

You know what? If you don't think you deserve what you got, don't look at Parliament, or the Greens, look in the mirror.

Absolutely. The man is a repeat offender. He did the crime now he can do the time,
He is by definition NOT a law abiding firearm owner.

Correct me if i'm wrong but even in the states aren't criminals banned from firearms?

[Title_II]

He drove drunk with a shotgun in the trunk and you guys think that for some reason he should no longer be allowed to own firearms. Should he no longer be allowed to own kitchen knives?

You know what? If you don't think you deserve what you got, don't look at Parliament, or the Greens, look in the mirror.

Absolutely. The man is a repeat offender. He did the crime now he can do the time,
He is by definition NOT a law abiding firearm owner.

Correct me if i'm wrong but even in the states aren't criminals banned from firearms?

It depends on the crime. But look at your reasoning.

Why should he not be allowed to own firearms? Has he used firearms in crimes? No. Is he violent? No.

What has happened here is you have started to worship the law. And you have established your sense of ethics and morality based on the law, rather than establishing the law based on your sense of ethics and morality. You have been subjugated.

And you have turned firearms into something magical that must require rigorous government inspection, investigation, intervention, and worst of all, permission to own. You can't even defend yourself. And don't give me that "Yeah we can" crap, you know your breathing bulls**t. You complain out of one side of your mouth and then when somebody breaks a law that has nothing to do with violence you berate them out of the other side of your mouth. If you have been conditioned to think this way, why in Hell would you possibly expect the people out to take your rights to be reasonable?

Back to America. As I said, it depends on the crime. And most of it is bulls**t. But you will note that I say it is bulls**t, I don't say, "Well Mr. X broke law Y so take his rights away!" Because I have not been brainwashed, I have not been subjugated, and my sense of ethics and morality are not based on the law, even though they often coincide and I do follow the law.

[wrenchman]

tittle in the state of michigan a repeat offender after a 3rd offence will be a felon and cant have a fire arm at some point if you cant man up you loose your rights.
also to be in posetion of a gun while intoxicated is a crime here also.
he can at least get his right back after 10 years

[Title_II]

Doesn't work that way in most states. And, no offense, but Michigan...

I know this is a touchy issue in the US, but the very rare times I have gotten drunk in public, all over the country, I have been legally armed. These activities would generally involve business trips, I don't hang out at pubs in personal life. I know people are gasping right now. But I haven't had to get in a fight in the past 20 years. I talk and I walk. I'm pretty good at getting out of trouble. The only difference me being drunk makes is that I am LESS likely to draw and I have the gun covered so nobody gets beer muscles. But if somebody tries to hurt somebody I care about I will intervene. And if I am intoxicated (which is like 0.01% of the time) it just means I will sacrifice myself and rush them and close to prevent any collateral damage.

Besides, the damn thing was unloaded in his trunk. What does that even have to do with anything under American standards? (Yes I know it happened in OZ).

[pomemax]

It had been alleged the 44-year-old was involved in a domestic incident with his brother at Nelson Bay, north of Newcastle, before he was stopped by officers on the road.
Domestic is a reason here also no court needed firearms will be sized if you hold firearms licence that will be sized too
The fact that he was drunk in charge of unsecured firearm is another reason no court needed
Unsecured gun / ammunition in car is another reason they take the firearm at road side
Driving under the influence with out the others it can be used that you are not a fit person never heard of it being used tho .

I believe in the US if you involved in domestic some states they will take you firearms ? or if a hurricane wipes out your city
I do tend to agree that we have to work with the laws we have what else can we do we protest and lobby politicians nothing seems to get to them

The laws in the US are different we know that ,in your constitution it says that the Government shall not make laws to hinder the ownership of firearms not that you have the right to bear arms that is taken for granted, that,s taken from British common law . But they can limit what type of firearm you can have in different states IE California laws and some others are different are they not .

1996 the Australian government ignored British common law and people let it get through so now were stuck with it
In you post you said it depends on the crime. But look at your reasoning
Why should he not be allowed to own firearms?
Has he used firearms in crimes? No. Is he violent? No we don,t know that but reading the paper report it says he was stopped leaving a domestic with unsecured firearm /ammo
Here it is reversed why should he be allowed to own a firearm .
In ten years if he still interested he MAY (NOT WILL ) get his licence back.

[Title_II]

Nobody here has ever gotten in a fight with their brother? Give me a break.

Unsecured firearm? What does that even mean? Yeah, I've been here long enough to have a pretty good idea. But perhaps you should give it some thought.

And you are still advocating, and even making excuses to take away the firearm rights of someone you all know damn well is no threat to anyone.

You want to know what I think? I think some of you mates complain about the laws, but you actually like them in a way. I think you think you are elite and have made an achievement to own a firearm. And secretly like the fact the people are held to ridiculous standards that have nothing to do with violence whatsoever. Because that means you are the guy with the gun and your neighbor is not. Not referring to anybody in this thread specifically.

We have different cultures. I try not to get too deep in your business, as it is not my place. But we have a thing in the US Army called "buddy f***ing." It's not exactly what it sounds like, and many people misunderstand it (I just did a websearch on it). It's NOT about doing something bad to someone. It's about not saying something when somebody is screwing up. At some point I have to open my Yank mouth. You are eating your own and reinforcing the silly basis for your ridiculous laws. Which side are you guys on?

Not going to wear out my welcome, I am going to leave it at that, and I hope I have not offended anyone. G'day.

[Archie]

I think you can make the case at the same time that 1/ the law regarding cancelling licences under circumstance where a firearm wasn't actually involved in violence or intimidation is ridiculous and also 2/ independent of that, Michael Diamond is an idiot.

I'm happy to agree that our laws are too restrictive and our freedoms are frequently infringed. I'm not sure this is the case I'd want to hang my hat on though. There are lots of other examples of legal over-reach that don't involve drunken morons (and I despise drunk drivers. If you drive while wasted you are undeniably being totally irresponsible with a potentially lethal weapon - your car).

As an aside, I do think its unfortunate that his professional sports career is over as a result. Footy players can do almost anything it seems and all they have to do is act apologetic and it's fine in a week or two.

[Wylie27]

Title it's not about being elite, We don't have a bill of rights protecting our ownership of firearms.

We are in a constant fight to maintain our laws as they are, we are constantly fighting to ensure we are not demonised by joe public and the MSM.

Then a person who has won 2 Olympics gold in shooting and for a short time put shooting in a positive light just made us ALL look like dumb arse redneck goons.. and this guy has done it before.... he nearly didn't go to one Olympics because he had his firearms taken away!

It's about time people like Diamond lost their licence as we are in a fight for our sport and bad publicity is just like fuel to the fire..

We have a level of discipline that we need to maintain in order to start to revert our restrictive laws

[gazza]

Title II, you are correct. A lot of kids on this site don't know how good it was when our laws were more relaxed.

[Bent Arrow]

Very split feelings on this. Yes our laws are overly restrictive. That is a given. Drink driving is just stupid. Diamond would have known the consequences, made a string of poor decisions, and got caught.

[Bent Arrow]

Title II, you are correct. A lot of kids on this site don't know how good it was when our laws were more relaxed.

I remember. We had all of our guns on an open rack in plain sight. Pump action and semi auto shotties, semi auto 22's and centre fires. Boxes of ammo sitting next to each. They were great days in lots of ways. I also remember my dad drink (read "smashed") driving with 3 kids in the car and the far too numerous incidents of domestic violence towards my mum and us kids. Not so good days. Not everything in life was better in the good old days.

[AusTac]

Seems a little harsh, it's not like he pointed the firearm and used it in any crime it just happened to be with him at the time

10 years is too much, but something like a 5 year license suspension and then having to re apply for it, something like the rest of us would get

[Oldbloke]

Seems a little harsh, it's not like he pointed the firearm and used it in any crime it just happened to be with him at the time

10 years is too much, but something like a 5 year license suspension and then having to re apply for it, something like the rest of us would get

Yep I agree. You can argue the number of years but 10 is way too much.

[Wombat]

He was charged with " using a firearm while under the influence of alcohol." along with the high range drink driving, domestic, incorrect storage etc.
That makes all the difference. If he was indeed using firearms while pissed he deserves every minute of the 10 years, but that may be a technical charge tacked on.
Incorrect storage? Well he sure as hell should know the rules in NSW and should have been following them.
The domestic with his Brother I have some sympathy with and that may have precipitated the drink driving ( and incorrect storage etc) but it is still no excuse.

[Supaduke]

Would this debate be happening if it was some unknown bogan and not an Olympic shooter. Sportsmen (doesn't seem to occur with sportswomen) get enough free passes in this country as it is.

[on_one_wheel]

Nobody's perfect. Perhaps he'll move to the land of the free and continue shooting like a champ.
That shotgun probably lived in his car, there shouldn't be a law against that. After all there's already a law to stop people from stealing.

This whole saga has been a massive over reaction to what was a non-event.
If he had used his gun in the domestic I could understand.

He has fallen victim to our over the top FA laws.

[RoginaJack]

In 2 minds about this. OK, Diamond apparently has a drinking problem and needs to clean it up but this licence cancelled (not suspended) stops him from earning a income etc.
I've read where many motor vehicle drivers have been caught driving pissed, convicted and disqualified from driving for x period of time. They have then applied to the courts for a "work Licence" to permit them to drive to and from work and continue earning a living. Naturally, this licences come with certain conditions.
Is there provision under the firearms acts for such a licence and if not, why not?

This cancellation of licence not only applies to the above but what about R licences holders, Pest Controllers etc.

QUOTE _ "Barrister Daniel McMahon asked for the magistrate to proceed without a conviction under section 10 following the guilty verdict.

He said his client would “effectively be without his professional career” and “without a capacity to earn a livelihood” because he had left school at the age of 12 to pursue professional shooting......etc

Read more at http://www.sportingshootermag.com.au/la ... offence....

Cheers.

[Gwion]

Title. You have no idea of Australian syntax:
"You mates..." Is incorrect Australian English and signing off with "G'day" is just plain wrong. For future reference, "you blokes" is acceptable.

Should he lose his licence for 10 years? Maybe not.
Was he doing the wrong thing? Too bloody right he was!
Do we know if the firearm made an appearance in the 'domestic'? No, we don't.

And by the way, yes you have been brainwashed.

[RoginaJack]

But signing off with "Hooroo" is good Australian English,

So Too-da-loo, see ya later.

[Title_II]

Title. You have no idea of Australian syntax:
"You mates..." Is incorrect Australian English and signing off with "G'day" is just plain wrong. For future reference, "you blokes" is acceptable.

Should he lose his licence for 10 years? Maybe not.
Was he doing the wrong thing? Too bloody right he was!
Do we know if the firearm made an appearance in the 'domestic'? No, we don't.

And by the way, yes you have been brainwashed.

In case you didn't notice, I bowed out so you could conduct your business within the confines (confinement?) of your own culture. So I consider this in bad taste.

If Liberty has brainwashed me, then what does that make you? Enlightened by totalitarianism, perhaps?

But I see you are from Tassy LOL. I do thank you for the tips on the syntax, it's pretty obvious I'm winging it I will certainly bow out at this point, you can say whatever you want about me but I don't want to overstay my welcome. Have no fear, I will be back in other threads to tick you off j/k







G'Day



LOLOLOLOL

[Gwion]

Well, mate; I find it in poor taste to make sweeping statements about how our culture operates and then 'bow out' expecting that means what ever you have said to be accepted without comment.

You say we are all brainwashed but fail to see your own cultural indoctrination.

That will be all.

[Tiger650]

Title_II

Your comments were justified and most welcome, we appear to have indoctrinated fellow travelers [of plants] aboard who would disagree.

Michael Diamond did stupid but appearing before our "justice" system he was on a hiding to nothing, white male, prominent shooter etc, his behaviour had nothing to do with firearms or any threat of violence but his career has been ruined.

We have a serious crime wave with violent home invasions and carjackings etc, I invite the privates to dispute that.

We would have to cut the hands off the young recidivist offenders to end their careers, certainly our "justice" system appears incapable, the Magistracy is universally left wing and the Police beaten into politically correct compliance.

Then the bastards get their gums [they have no teeth] into a political undesirable like Diamond and a DUI charge finishes his career !

Check this out.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-01/i ... ds/8485004

The above creature will not go to jail and will probably end up in a Public Service job, she is of a preferred gender and race and religion, to be protected at any cost.

The d**khead public servants who gave her the $400K should be demoted to cleaning staff but there is no accountability there, no need when money is free.

[PoorShot300]

Check this out.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-01/i ... ds/8485004

The above creature will not go to jail and will probably end up in a Public Service job, she is of a preferred gender and race and religion, to be protected at any cost.

The d**khead public servants who gave her the $400K should be demoted to cleaning staff but there is no accountability there, no need when money is free.

Ya just know we're being fleeced by the 'language' of the 'media' when they come up with this from that article;..."rorted hundreds of thousands of dollars of government money..."

The Gov'nt don't have any $$...it was TAXPAYERS money fgds....

[sebrule]

The police found the firearm in his car and charged for handling a firearm while drunk. Come on really? This feeds the anti's and police. We don't know the full story was he with his brother and an argument happened. He grabbed his stuff through it into his car and drove home? He cant leave his guns at another house without himself.

I think it's just an agro cop. Didn't help he refused a breath test.

[Supaduke]

Refusing a breath test is the worst thing you can do. It is essentially an admission of guilt and you are charged the same as a high range reading.

Therefore you are , from a legal standpoint, wasted and driving around with a firearm and ammo.

This demonstrates contempt for the laws of the land. The LA part of LAFO is law abiding. I'm sorry Mick Diamond but you f@@ked up badly.

His punishment is well deserved. The circumstances of why he ended up behind the wheel is not relevant.

As an ambassador of the sport who has made money and gained fame from it , he should know better.

Some 'social commentator' making stupid remarks on Anzac Day has no bearing or relevance to this case.

Micheal Diamond broke the law in several ways, he was caught and he was punished.

[Gwion]

The key point is that he is an ambassador for the shooting sports in general. Perhaps a 10 year cancellation is a bit over the top but he has certainly done us all a huge dis-service with his actions.
As above, he knows the laws and flaunted them. There is no excuse. Disagreeing with laws and working to change them is all well and good. Ignoring them when you are one of the most prominent proponents of a related sport is just plain stupid and sets a very bad example. Kind'a like Craig Lowndes doing circle work in some back street with no seat belt and a dozen beers in him.

You might say i'm feeding the antis and police by making these statements but i will turn it right back on you and say that you are feeding the anti gun lobby by publicly supporting and excusing illegal and irresponsible behaviour. You don't change laws by breaking them and then complaining about the consequences; you change them by abiding by them and putting forward reasonable and real arguments for why they are unjust, putting forward workable alternatives and building public support.