I read the actual motivation of the Belgian court.
The guy used to have the gun on a license for self defence (1980's) but due to a law change sef defence was no longer a valid reason so he trafered that gun (S&W .38 special) to his sports license (that he already had other guns on)
The shoot itself was ruled a good shoot but then the state turned around and said (illegaly) keeping the gun loaded and using it for self defence meant he careelessly with firearms and his license was suspended for 1 year.
The court ruled that it was determined that he acted in lawfull selfdefence and thus it could not be said that the gun owner acted in such an irresponsible way to justify the state's claim that he was careless in the possesion of his firearm.
As I read the case the guy was lucky to have judges that wern't retared and could see past the BS state claim that since the license for self defence was more or less abolished the guys need for self defence also evaporated.