Posted on 04/08/2003 5:57:45 AM PDT by kattracks
A Navy veteran who shot an intruder in his toddler's bedroom decided against pleading guilty to a gun charge yesterday. Ronald Dixon rejected a deal that would have spared him from having to do jail time because he does not want a criminal record, his new attorney said.
Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes initially charged Dixon, 27, with possessing an illegal weapon - an unregistered pistol - after he shot a career burglar he found prowling in his Canarsie home on Dec. 14.
Last month, Hynes reduced the charges to misdemeanor attempted weapon possession, which carries a maximum 90-day jail term. Hynes said he would only ask Dixon to serve four weekends in jail in exchange for a guilty plea.
Criminal Court Judge Alvin Yearwood changed that deal to a year's probation.
"After the people reduced the charges, this was put on for possible disposition," Yearwood told Dixon and his new attorney, Joseph Mure, yesterday. But the Jamaican immigrant declined the deal and left the courtroom without comment yesterday.
"That means he would have a criminal conviction, and that is a big concern to us," Mure said afterward.
Dixon gained widespread sympathy after he was charged with a crime. In a tearful interview, Dixon told the Daily News he could not afford to spend any time in jail because he was working seven days a week to support his family and pay his mortgage.
Originally published on April 8, 2003
It is if some state decides to allow that spectrum band to be used for something other than short-range telephone and permits a 50 KW transmitter on those frequencies.
I'm no fan of the feds regulating things that ought to be local matters, but some things the Founders didn't think of just aren't local matters. (They can be, but there's nothing inherent in, say, radio technology that naturally limits it that way. On the other hand, I don't see why the feds should be involved in what goes on between a cable company and a subscriber, that's all over private cable.)
Telling.
Not being a Constitutional lawyer or a Supreme Court Judge, I guess we'll have agree to disagree. Having 50 sets of air traffic control laws would shut down the skies over America. Apparently, the individual states have ceded control of the airspace to the feds which is a wise choice.
Hey, that's kinda like the millions of illegal aliens crashing our borders and creating epic lawlessness and fraud on a national scale, while our law makers and so-called leaders stand around with their thumbs up their butts.....
Deserves saying again.
Personally, I won't fly until things change drasticly.
If you do want to try such a stunt, get the permission, and hopefully legal backing, of the CEO/Owner of the airline first.
Exactly. Signs near all the checkpoints have wording to that effect, something like "you're free not to be searched if you choose not to board an aircraft".
It's been a while, but back when I was renting planes and flying myself around, I didn't go through any screening and could carry whatever the heck I wanted aboard my own plane. I imagine there's more security between the general aviation and commercial airline sections of airports these days.
I don't think the free market would accept this, and an acceptable solution would enevitably follow.
Apparently, the individual states have ceded control of the airspace to the feds which is a wise choice.
If the states indeed voluntarily ceded control to the feds, then so be it. Somehow, though, I don't quite believe that was the case.
They already do. 'Pod
The whole exploding cabin thing is crap thought up in Hollyweird.
Guns, however, were available, and it matters not what kind of gun we are talking about, but how it compares to the military standard of the day. In 1776 a musket was the standard. In 2003, the full auto, night vision and lazer range finder equipped, assault rifle with hi-cap mags is the kaboomer du jour. Unless we as citizens can maintain a personal arsenal equivilent to the military, the 2nd amendment is being violated.
And yes, that means that I belive we can own grenades, LAWs, SAMs, tanks, and even fighter aircraft and helicopter gunships.
And for the paranoid that will think that if we had this, the nation would be rubble within weeks, these things are all available on the black market, and would already have been put to use here in a crimminal way, if that was the nature of the American that could afford such toys.
Very good point, and worth repeating.
Even if, as in the case of Federal Air Regs, there is some wording that may be interpreted to authorize such (ICC, treaties), it would be far better to explicitly amend the Constitution to grant it that authority.
On something like aviation regs, where it clearly makes sense for it to be federally regulated, such an amendment should be easily ratified.
(Emphasis on "should be". Unfortunately state and national politicians alike show a remarkable propensity for letting something other than common sense guide them.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.