Is that different from “poses a risk”? The firearms officer already has pretty broad judgment over that. I'm trying to see how this changes it. I want to make sure people are protected. Generally, we're talking about protecting women here.
I'm wondering how this change in practical terms actually makes a difference, or whether it does or not. From what I understand, the CFO already has broad discretion in determining this.
Is this actually going to make a difference in interpretation?