The couple were asleep when a 34-year-old man allegedly entered their home and attacked them with a knife. Di was stabbed in the chest. Keith suffered serious abdominal injuries. Keith was able to fight off the alleged attacker with a knife forcing him to retreat onto the verandah, Keith called 000. Before the police could arrive, the alleged intruder attempted to regain entry into Keith’s home, Keith was able to retrieve a legally held firearm, and fired one shot. The alleged intruder was hit in the abdomen. Keith and Di were later airlifted to hospital in critical condition.
This was not some bloke chasing a burglar down the street because his television had been stolen.
Detective Superintendent Chris McKinnon said at the time that Keith had done his best under extraordinarily difficult circumstances to defend himself and his wife, describing what he managed to do despite his injuries as "quite impressive". Police also acknowledged that a person is entitled to use reasonable force in self-defence.
Speaking several days later, the Premier said: "I think Keith acted like a hero in these circumstances." Minns said Keith had saved himself and his family and described the attack as the kind of crime that destroys people's sense of safety inside the one place they should feel secure, their own home.
Keith's wife was even clearer. After leaving hospital, Di described her husband as her hero and said: "Without him I believe I would not be alive today."
Three months later, there is now a very different question hanging over this case.
THE HERO WHO IS REPORTEDLY NO LONGER "FIT AND PROPER"
Shooters, Fishers and Farmers MP Mark Banasiak says Keith Blessing's firearms licence has now been revoked.
According to Banasiak, the decision was not simply a temporary suspension while the June incident was investigated. He says Keith received a revocation notice and has been deemed not to satisfy the "fit and proper" requirement to hold a firearms licence.
Recent reporting also states that Keith has not been criminally charged over the shooting. That creates an obvious question for the NSW Government and the NSW Police Firearms Registry.
What changed?
In June, the public was told that Keith had been seriously wounded, that his wife had been stabbed, that he called police, that the alleged attacker attempted to re-enter their home and that Keith used his registered firearm.
Police praised his actions. The Premier called him a hero. His wife said she believed she would be dead without him.
Now, according to Banasiak, the same man has lost his firearms licence because authorities have determined he should no longer hold one.
REVOCATION IS NOT THE SAME AS SUSPENSION
Under NSW Police's own published guidance, a suspension is temporary. It can be imposed where authorities believe there is an urgent public safety reason to prevent someone accessing firearms while an issue is resolved.
Revocation is different.
Once a licence is revoked, the person is no longer authorised to possess or use firearms and their firearms must be surrendered. NSW Police says a licence can be revoked where, among other grounds, the holder is no longer considered a "fit and proper person", where conditions or legislation have been breached, or where other grounds for refusal apply.
The Firearms Registry describes the fit and proper test as considering matters including character, law-abiding behaviour, judgement and whether a person can be trusted to possess firearms and comply with firearms laws.
THIS IS ALSO BIGGER THAN ONE FIREARM
Predictably, the case has already reopened the debate about so-called Castle Law.
Banasiak has used the Blessing case while arguing for his proposed Crimes Amendment (Use of Force Against Intruders) Bill, which seeks to provide additional protections for people using force against intruders in homes and other premises.
NSW already recognises self-defence. The law considers whether the person believed their actions were necessary to defend themselves or another person and whether the response was reasonable in the circumstances as they perceived them. Legal experts have pointed out that the application of that test depends heavily on the facts of an individual case.
There is also an important distinction between legally owning a firearm and using a firearm during an emergency. NSW does not recognise personal protection as a "genuine reason" for obtaining a firearms licence.
In light of the debates circulating online, the Government and NSW Police should be clear about what happened here. Was Keith's licence revoked because authorities concluded his actions during the home invasion demonstrated that he was no longer fit and proper?
Was there some separate licensing issue?
Was it a procedural decision arising from the investigation?
Was there information that has never been made public?
These are questions NSW authorities should answer.
FROM "HERO" TO REVOKED IN THREE MONTHS
Keith Blessing did not ask to become part of a firearms debate.
The Premier of NSW called him a hero.
Now his firearms licence has reportedly been revoked.
Retrospectively, if Keith did not have firearms, and did not act in the way he did there is a high possibility Di and himself would not be here today.
How can the Australian people rely on Government agencies to tell the truth and to act in the citizens best interests when there is constant scrutiny on logical actions.
