Laws have to be clear cut and if this case was allowed to pass where would you draw the line? Should someone in the regular armed forces be allowed to have a weapon in their home too? What about a territorial soldier? Or someone who legally owns a firearm in another country?
The law has to be clear and applied consistently. It's in the sentencing guidelines that the shades of grey can be introduced. It's pretty bizarre that some posters can't distinguish between what's acceptable in your professional career with what's acceptable when you're not on the job.
And who cares what the US thinks of this case? This happens to be our law, just the same as the law in Florida allows you to shoot a black teenager under pretty murky circumstances and walk away from it.
Last edited by Arcanum; 25th Jul 2013 at 21:46.