The past of militancy in the Veneto Skinhead Front has precluded an entrepreneur from the renewal of the hunting rifle port by the Pordenone Police Headquarters. Now the case has come to Council of State, after the TAR has rejected the appeal from the entrepreneur. The appellate judges have not granted the suspension of the effectiveness of the TAR sentence, pending the discussion on the merits, yet to be fixed. The Police Headquarters justified the refusal to carry a shotgun to the entrepreneur in relation to the proceedings, including criminal ones, in which he was involved between 1992 and 2002 (a daspo was also inflicted on him) and to active militancy in the Veneto Skinhead Front, "far-right movement, characterized by evident anti-Semitic and racial connotations".
The hunter had been licensed since 2002, renewed from piazzale Palatucci until, on September 16, 2020, a decree of the commissioner rejected the request. In a report dated 2 July 2020 sent to the Police Headquarters, the carabinieri specified that "after the commission of these facts (from 1992 to 2012) the person concerned has always maintained a regular behavior and respectful without ever giving rise to remarks of any kind; therefore, at the present time there is no knowledge of conditions impeding the renewal of the police title in question ".
The lawyer Paolo Viezzi, the hunter's lawyer, highlighted how his client has for almost twenty years distanced himself from Veneto Skinhead front and was acquitted from the trials, linked to his proximity to the movement in his youth, as extraneous to the disputed facts (hypothesis of vandalism connected to some meetings of the club). Viezzi then added as after 2012 the participation of his client at the funeral of a militant of the Front and at a musical event in Pordenone (for which membership in the club was necessary) were considered as a further element of persistent contiguity to the far-right movement. «The judgment of unreliability he has been proven wrong by the facts: he has always behaved impeccably, "he objected.
At the time, the TAR, referred to by the hunter, agreed with the Police Headquarters, rejecting the appeal. The first instance judges noted that the assessment of the license is discretionary and that public safety prevails over private interest. As for the previous license renewals granted, the TAR noted that "there can be no defect of excess power due to contradiction with other acts if these are configured, as in the present case, excessively indulgent and unreasonable, since the administration cannot be expected to continue to persevere in the same error "(Messaggero Veneto).