1. Well, I am. He's OK to be free to walk the streets, he's OK to do it armed, like any free citizen.
2. I suspect journalistic malpractice in describing a similar looking semi-auto rifle as an "AK-47", but on the off chance it really was one, he passed a proctological FBI/BATFE background check and paid a $200 tax and an exorbitant purchase price for one manufactured before 1986. That should make him "legal" to own it.
3. Obviously, I'm one of those weirdos that believes that the Second Amendment is, by it's own wording, the only legal "gun law" in the United States of America and its territories. And I vote that way every chance I get!
I didn’t say I felt he should not have gun rights. I only mean to say that I suspect he plans to use it for more robberies.