ESPN reports
Welterweight contender Robert Guerrero, facing up to four years in prison for carrying an unloaded gun in a New York airport, had his case dismissed on Tuesday after pleading guilty to disorderly conduct in New York State Supreme Court for Queens County.
All of the firearm possession charges were dropped as Guerrero pleaded guilty to a violation -- not a crime -- was fined $250 and ordered to complete 50 hours of community service, which he will be allowed to perform in his home state of California.
"I'm pleased that the district attorney's office considered my case carefully and resolved it fairly," Guerrero said in a statement. "I never intended to violate New York law, but I know that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Lesson learned. I'm happy this incident is behind me and looking forward to returning to the ring as well as serving my community as ordered by the court."
I guess all the crybaby gun-rights fanatics were wrong about this one too. Even in New York they don't put people in jail for stupidity like this.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
It sounds to me more like your typical celebrity suck up to me. Many localities that have very strict gun laws seem to have no problem making exceptions for various celebrities and political allies.
ReplyDeleteFor example, Robert De Niro has a very rare carry permit issued New York City, yet is outspoken in his support for the President's attempts to restrict this freedom. Howard Stern and Marc Anthony.
Brady Campaign supported Sylvestor Stallone is one of the few with a carry permit issued by Los Angeles County.
What exactly makes their safety more important than someone who doesnt necessarily get to choose where they live?
"One of the few in Los Angeles?" "Robert De Niro has a very rare carry permit issued New York City," very rare?
DeleteI suppose compared to Arizona, you could describe it like that, but it's not really very accurate. "Rare" and "very few" are very misleading terms which the crybaby pro-gun movement just loves to use.
Besides, I don't see this boxer in the same category as the celebrities you mentioned. If anything, boxers would be treated worse due to their bad reputations.
The point of my post, which you kinda glossed over in order to whine about what you see as celebrity special treatment, is this: people aren't going to jail for these things like you guys keep saying.
Mikeb, are you seriously claiming that ordinary citizens can get carry licenses in LA or New York with the same ease that celebrities get them? We've been over this ground before. Why won't you learn something?
DeleteYou can't do your weekly shopping in LA or New Your with the ease that celebrities do it. Quit whining about it.
DeleteYou can't do your weekly shopping in LA or New Your [sic] with the ease that celebrities do it. Quit whining about it.
DeleteYou're the only whiner and crybaby in this discussion. Furthermore, there is a rather gargantuan difference in being unable to afford the overpriced monuments to consumerism that celebrities must have for validation, on the one hand; and facing the wrath of the government and its armed, taxpayer funded henchmen, for behavior (self-preservation, in this case) that leads to a slap on the celebrity's wrist, on the other.
You call it whining. I say that it's a violation of American prinicples to have groups that get special treatment from government. But we've seen time and again that you label demands for equal treatment and rights as whining. Your kind likes to set up groups for special favors. It's no wonder that Obama won all of you over.
DeleteBuying stuff with money is different than buying rights.
DeleteMike, do you really believe the shopping experience is analogous to obtaining a concealed carry permit?
DeleteEverything's easier for celibrities. You guys are just being envious and petty. Furthermore, regular folks in NY and CA can and do own guns. And you can bet they are much more qualified and responsible than your average Billy Bob down in Mississippi.
DeleteYou're being evasive. The objections people posted were to your apparent belief that the relative ease or difficulty a person might have shopping is analogous to the relative ease or difficulty one might have obtaining a concealed carry permit. You can dismiss it envy and pettiness if you wish. Your logic is flawed as are any conclusions drawn from it.
Delete"Everything's easier for celibrities. You guys are just being envious and petty."
DeleteSo, after people said that they can accept the income inequality, but that their problem was with unequal application of the law, you come back with this?
Damn, Mike. You'd think that a simple thing like asking that everyone be equal before the law would qualify as noble, but according to you, it's just whining. I guess we can take equal rights before the law and put it into the "other rights" category on which you've called us "fanatics."
It looks more and more like being an "other rights fanatic" under your definition, simply means supporting our Constitutional system of government rather than being a servile little sycophant who happily accepts that it is his lot to have fewer rights and freedoms than the pigs, because at least they keep him safe.
"Furthermore, regular folks in NY and CA can and do own guns."
Non-sequitur. Discussion was about permits to carry.
"And you can bet they are much more qualified and responsible than your average Billy Bob down in Mississippi."
Honestly, this statement is just so stupid and so prejudiced that it's not even worth taking the time to go after it.
Now you're conflating, Mikeb. The question that Sarge started this off with was about carry licenses, not ownership. But even legally owning a handgun in New York City is exceedingly difficult.
DeleteIn fairness, depending on what state law says, some states allow cities and counties to regulate carry permits and many other restrictions involving firearms. The down side of this is that having different laws in the same states sets up an otherwise law abiding permit holder to unwittingly break one of these laws. For example, until Minnesota passed its preemption law, my permit was limited to the whole state except for the cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Duluth. State level preemption eliminates this problem.
DeleteCalifornia doesnt have a preemption law and carry permits are issued solely on policies developed by the chief or sheriff. Some counties in California are defacto shall issue counties while some like LA county try to emulate New York City.
Mikeb, are you really claiming that Billy Bob is less responsible with a gun than Donald Trump or Sean Penn?
DeleteSo Mike, if we go back into the archives we'll find that you were one of the loudest chanters of "Free Brian Aitken"? Shall I go check, or do you wish to revise your statement?
ReplyDeleteBut I ask this: if you say these criminal charges are universally dropped, why not change the law to be a mere fine in the first place? I bet you find a problem with that idea for some reason. Why tie up the courts? Of course the real solution is that unloaded, cased, locked, transportation is supposed to be protected under FOPA- treat NYC as if it were part of the United States.
Brian Aitken didn't report a gun at the airport. What he did was a good bit more complicated.
DeleteMy point is you guys keep saying people are going to jail for these minor offenses. It just ain't so.
You just said you don't support imprisonment for non-violent crimes. So where is Brian Aitken's victim of violence?
DeleteIt was thought that poor persecuted Brian was up to no good with his victimless gun violations. Maybe that was the case. He sure faded from the headlines considering he was such good poster-boy material.
DeleteMy position has been made clear. Quit trying to play gotcha. I'm not contradicting myself as much as you keep trying to find evidence of that.
That's a good deal of innuendo dancing right up as close to slander as possible to cover up that you're too lazy to look the case up and refuse to admit that it was an example of these ridiculous laws being fully applied.
DeleteAfter all of the fighting, Aitken got two of the three charges against him overturned--the court said that he was not up to no good and that he was covered by the moving exception.
What about the third? Well, the court found that while he legally owned the hollowpoint bullets, the law did not cover moving them. He could own them, but not transport them to his new dwelling.
And so, because he tried to transport his legally owned property to his new dwelling, rather than abandoning it at his old dwelling (which would, in effect, illegally transfer it to the new resident), the court allowed that conviction to stand.
But then again, maybe you weren't being lazy and you knew this--you just think that this catch-22 is a reasonable law.
I guess all the crybaby [anti-genocidal tyranny, pro-humanity] fanatics were wrong about this one too.
ReplyDeleteAh--so those who protest evil, unconstitutional laws are "crybabies," are we?
Besides, an evil law is supposed to become acceptable, just because it is not always enforced (as in the case of the accused being a celebrity) as harshly as it could be? We're supposed to be grateful for that?
That attitude might make sense for abject, boot-licking cowards (such as the average "gun control" advocate), but decent Americans find it loathsome and contemptible.
It is obviously not unconstitutional. You're failing in precision with that whopper.
DeleteIt's not that "it is not always enforced," it's that for offenses like this it (almost?) never is. In that statement, like many of your passionate appeals, you're spinning the thing to the breaking point.
It is obviously not unconstitutional.
DeleteUm--yes, it obviously is. But don't worry, you being massively, fundamentally wrong is a new experience for no one, so I have no fear that we can all handle it.
It's obviously unconstitutional to me. We can't help the fact that your reading skills are lacking.
DeleteIt's not that "it is not always enforced," it's that for offenses like this it (almost?) never is. In that statement, like many of your passionate appeals, you're spinning the thing to the breaking point.
DeleteI eagerly await your evidence that incomplete enforcement is the rule, rather than the exception. If you present said evidence, and if it is compelling, you still have done exactly nothing to demonstrate any mendacity in my statement that this evil "law" "is not always enforced."
And again I ask, does an evil law become more acceptable--and for the sake of argument, we'll go into hypothetical fantasy land, where you're most comfortable, and pretend it's never enforced--just because it leads to someone with no criminal intent, who has done no harm, "merely" being detained for hours and fined hundreds of dollars (and perhaps needing an attorney, and thus still more money), instead of jail time?
If it is the behavior of a "crybaby" to condemn an evil law that is not enforced, what do you think about people who protest capital punishment, even in states where such a sentence has not been carried out in decades? Are they "whiners" and "crybabies," too?
By the way, if it were your decision whether or not to prosecute, would you have not sought jail time? Would the wealth/celebrity status of the accused make a difference to you?
Requiring people to refrain from flying into New York with guns is not an EVIL law. You keep repeating that, but that doesn't convince anyone other than the already convinced.
DeleteFailure to comply with it out of stupidity or ignorance is met with a slap on the wrist, not with lengthy prison sentences like you guys keep saying.
That law is as evil as one requiring Muslim women to remove their head scarves would be. It's as evil as a law requiring Jewish men to remove yarmulkes. (I'm talking to you, France.) It's as evil as requiring a Christian to leave his Bible at home. Rights are rights.
DeleteRequiring people to refrain from flying into New York with guns is not an EVIL law.
DeleteUm, yes--it is. As TS points out, it's also illegal, under provisions of the federal Firearm Owners Protection Act.
That may indeed explain why only non-wealthy people face the full horror of the heinous New York law--they aren't likely to fight it in court.
I enthusiastically support capital punishment for everyone responsible for implementing and enforcing this atrocity.
For "people" who only support it, but don't play any active role in its vast evil, life imprisonment (in a real hellhole) is probably sufficient.
Do you support changing the law to be only a fine then? That way we can be sure it's not just celebrities who get it reduced. If you are ok with a fine being the level of punishment, you must be ok with this. Or do you still want to reserve the right to throw Bubba from Mississippi in prison?
DeleteI think you need to have the prison part on there for repeat offenders and guys who have negative extenuating circumstances. The judge uses discretion in sentencing.
DeleteThe point is, rich or poor, people are not doing prison time for "forgetting" they brought a gun to the airport or for being so completely ignorant of the law that they brought one and reported it like the boxer. Only you guys who exaggerate everything, like Kurt's calling these laws "evil" and "atrocities," keep saying people are going to prison for minor gun offenses. They aren't.
If you're worried about repeat offenders, you deal with that by making a statute that has different penalties for 1st, 2nd, 3rd offense. If you want to be able to make the punishment more severe for extenuating circumstances, you state what those are and what effect they should have.
DeleteYou tailor the fucking statute to the situation, otherwise you're putting all of that power into the hands of a mere man--a judge. Someone who may be a drunk, a racist, a grudge holder, or a mercurial bastard who shows mercy and severity based on his mood at the moment. Who knows, maybe the judge views being black, or having a tattoo as a negative extenuating circumstances.
Ditto the above. Thanks, anonymous, you saved me some typing.
DeleteMike, you say you don't want prison for non-violent crimes, yet you support every example that I bring up.
Keep pretending you don't understand where I'm coming from. You'll eventually win the argument through tedium.
Delete