wrote in
ups.com:

From the ARRL Letter:

"The FCC has ordered that David Edward Cox, W5OER, of Pride,
Louisiana, be stripped of his Technician class Amateur Radio
license. In October 2005, the FCC sent Cox an Order to Show Cause to
initiate a hearing proceeding to determine if Cox, who's serving
time on several felony convictions, possessed the requisite
character to remain an FCC licensee or should face license
revocation. The FCC says Cox failed to respond to the show-cause
order. A Commission administrative law judge subsequently concluded
that Cox had waived his right to a hearing, terminated the
proceeding and released an Order of Revocation December 4."

Other details on the ARRL website.

FCC has been using its 1990 "Character Order" against amateurs
convicted of felonies and some other violations for several years now.
Basically it comes down to whether a person convicted of a serious
nonradio violation can be trusted to hold an FCC license grant.

73 de Jim, N2EY


I hope they make Homosexuality illegal, then they can jerk Markie's
license.

SC

"Slow Code" wrote in message
...

The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society with
crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this keeps
society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its'
citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type of
crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape,
etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue is
the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with
unalienable rights by
his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees that
any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights to
the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources granted us
by our creator.

I am no attorney, however, I suspect that could only be made to work against
felons who are incarcerated or on probation/parole.

Still, the logic fails me of why you would ever revoke someones license who
had been convicted of, say, a felony regarding bank fraud--felony drunk
driving--manslaughter--etc. This type of logic, once again, demonstrates
why I hold such a low esteem for some in amateur radio.

Most likely, in all cases, if the criminal had spent more time in the hobby
aspect of radio his desire to commit a crime would have been diminished!
Best we help this criminals before society suffers, rather than punish them
after the fact (and someone ends up without his/her property, or worse,
dead!)

JS

John Smith wrote:
"Slow Code" wrote in message
...
The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society with
crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this keeps
society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its'
citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type of
crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape,
etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue is
the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with
unalienable rights by
his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees that
any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights to
the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources granted us
by our creator.

That's certainly one way to look at it.

Here's another, somewhat similar view:

An amateur radio license is not a right. It is a privilege, granted by
a process that includes passing the required examinations *and*
demonstrating that the licensee is trustworthy to follow the rules and
regulations.

The FCC assumes that all license applicants are trustworthy, unless and
until they prove they are not. Conviction of a serious crime is
considered by the FCC to be an indication of not being trustworthy.

Note that the conviction is considered to be an indication, not proof.
License revocation is not automatic. The person whose license was
revoked was offered the opportunity to show that they were still
trustworthy in terms of an FCC license. But the person in question did
not reply to the FCC's letter at all, so FCC had the license revoked.

I am no attorney, however, I suspect that could only be made to work against
felons who are incarcerated or on probation/parole.

Maybe. OTOH, the argument that a license is a privilege and not a right
might win out.

Still, the logic fails me of why you would ever revoke someones license who
had been convicted of, say, a felony regarding bank fraud--felony drunk
driving--manslaughter--etc.

Because such convictions indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Or to put
it another way, the ability to make good choices and control one's
behavior. Someone convicted of felony drunk driving obviously has
problems in those areas.

And note again that the revocations are not automatic.

This type of logic, once again, demonstrates
why I hold such a low esteem for some in amateur radio.

It is the FCC, not amateurs, who make these decisions.

Most likely, in all cases, if the criminal had spent more time in the hobby
aspect of radio his desire to commit a crime would have been diminished!

Maybe.

It would be interesting to see the rate of serious criminality among
licensed radio
amateurs compared to the general population.

Best we help this criminals before society suffers, rather than punish them
after the fact (and someone ends up without his/her property, or worse,
dead!)

You're talking prevention rather than punishment - and I agree.

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:
John Smith wrote:
"Slow Code" wrote in message
...
The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society with
crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this keeps
society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its'
citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type of
crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape,
etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue is
the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with
unalienable rights by
his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees that
any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights to
the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources granted us
by our creator.

That's certainly one way to look at it.

Here's another, somewhat similar view:

An amateur radio license is not a right. It is a privilege, granted by
a process that includes passing the required examinations *and*
demonstrating that the licensee is trustworthy to follow the rules and
regulations.

The FCC assumes that all license applicants are trustworthy, unless and
until they prove they are not. Conviction of a serious crime is
considered by the FCC to be an indication of not being trustworthy.

Note that the conviction is considered to be an indication, not proof.
License revocation is not automatic. The person whose license was
revoked was offered the opportunity to show that they were still
trustworthy in terms of an FCC license. But the person in question did
not reply to the FCC's letter at all, so FCC had the license revoked.

the problem with that is was he truly offered such by virtue of him
BEING in jail at the time of the hearing and notice

I am no attorney, however, I suspect that could only be made to work against
felons who are incarcerated or on probation/parole.

Maybe. OTOH, the argument that a license is a privilege and not a right
might win out.

it might indeed

OTOH the regalotry pupose might as well

as well an aurguement he lacked access to the proceeding because he was
in jail at the time

Still, the logic fails me of why you would ever revoke someones license who
had been convicted of, say, a felony regarding bank fraud--felony drunk
driving--manslaughter--etc.

Because such convictions indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Or to put
it another way, the ability to make good choices and control one's
behavior. Someone convicted of felony drunk driving obviously has
problems in those areas.

And note again that the revocations are not automatic.

This type of logic, once again, demonstrates
why I hold such a low esteem for some in amateur radio.

It is the FCC, not amateurs, who make these decisions.

currently in theroy However at least We the pople though elected reps
decide how they will work

Most likely, in all cases, if the criminal had spent more time in the hobby
aspect of radio his desire to commit a crime would have been diminished!

Maybe.

It would be interesting to see the rate of serious criminality among
licensed radio
amateurs compared to the general population.

Best we help this criminals before society suffers, rather than punish them
after the fact (and someone ends up without his/her property, or worse,
dead!)

You're talking prevention rather than punishment - and I agree.

indeed we can all agree

73 de Jim, N2EY

wrote:

That's certainly one way to look at it.

Here's another, somewhat similar view:

An amateur radio license is not a right. It is a privilege, granted by
a process that includes passing the required examinations *and*
Whoa! Let's be accurate! Radio frequencies are a "natural resource",
granted us by our creator and the laws of physics he/she/it/"the-aliens"
constructed. Why I will allow a gov't agency to manage these in a manner
which is ultimately governed by "the people", I will not support laws, rules
or regulations which run contrary to such ... or in short, the people
control the use of the air waves, and the air waves are made available to
the people in a very logical method.

The FCC assumes that all license applicants are trustworthy, unless and
The FCC can assume anything it wishes, but I insist it obeys the
constitution and the laws of the creator in doing so.

Maybe. OTOH, the argument that a license is a privilege and not a right
might win out.
I don't believe there is any argument of merit which can be proposed which
would take radio frequencies from us, they are simply one of those
"inalienable rights" our creator has gifted upon the peoples of this earth.
I would quite openly question anyones sanity who claim differently.

It is the FCC, not amateurs, who make these decisions.
I live in America, I grew up when the constitution was not "interpreted",
rather, we took it for granted our forefathers "said what they meant, and
meant what they said."

You're talking prevention rather than punishment - and I agree.

73 de Jim, N2EY

I am pleased we agree on the above, I like to live in a safe country,
composed of safe states, harboring safe cities/towns, which are conductive
to safe neighborhoods ...

Warmest regards,
JS

wrote in message
ups.com...
John Smith wrote:
"Slow Code" wrote in message
...
The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society
with
crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this
keeps
society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its'
citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type
of
crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape,
etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue
is
the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with
unalienable rights by
his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees
that
any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights to
the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources granted
us
by our creator.

That's certainly one way to look at it.

Here's another, somewhat similar view:

An amateur radio license is not a right. It is a privilege, granted by
a process that includes passing the required examinations *and*
demonstrating that the licensee is trustworthy to follow the rules and
regulations.

The FCC assumes that all license applicants are trustworthy, unless and
until they prove they are not. Conviction of a serious crime is
considered by the FCC to be an indication of not being trustworthy.

Note that the conviction is considered to be an indication, not proof.
License revocation is not automatic. The person whose license was
revoked was offered the opportunity to show that they were still
trustworthy in terms of an FCC license. But the person in question did
not reply to the FCC's letter at all, so FCC had the license revoked.

I am no attorney, however, I suspect that could only be made to work
against
felons who are incarcerated or on probation/parole.

Maybe. OTOH, the argument that a license is a privilege and not a right
might win out.

Still, the logic fails me of why you would ever revoke someones license
who
had been convicted of, say, a felony regarding bank fraud--felony drunk
driving--manslaughter--etc.

Because such convictions indicate a lack of trustworthiness. Or to put
it another way, the ability to make good choices and control one's
behavior. Someone convicted of felony drunk driving obviously has
problems in those areas.

And note again that the revocations are not automatic.

This type of logic, once again, demonstrates
why I hold such a low esteem for some in amateur radio.

It is the FCC, not amateurs, who make these decisions.

Most likely, in all cases, if the criminal had spent more time in the
hobby
aspect of radio his desire to commit a crime would have been diminished!

Maybe.

It would be interesting to see the rate of serious criminality among
licensed radio
amateurs compared to the general population.

Best we help this criminals before society suffers, rather than punish
them
after the fact (and someone ends up without his/her property, or worse,
dead!)

You're talking prevention rather than punishment - and I agree.

73 de Jim, N2EY


I "suppose" they (the FCC) could consider a way of reinstating said
license - much like any State Bureau of Motor Vehicles would for a person
found DUI/etc - if proper conditions were placed into effect. I doubt that
will ever happen.

Quite frankly, I don't see what "CB/Ham/2 way" radio in general - has to do
with a "Felon" - UNLESS they were used in the commission of said crimes -
which by the way - carries additional penalties.

I mean - if a person has it in them to kill someone - rob a bank, etc.....
radio "didn't" drive them to it - unless maybe they're looking for cash to
build a bigger station, etc. That is laughable. People commit crimes for
various reasons. Money, Jealousy, definate Mental impairment which breeds
anti-social behaviour - and so on. Was Hitler a "ham"? Probably not. Was
Osama Bin Laden or any of his ass kissing henchmen? Probably not! I am
willing to bet - the majority of criminals have had NO or very little
exposure to radio - with exception of maybe CB and FRS - since they're so
prevalent and easily used and acquired. But even at that - the
aforementioned issues are mainly at fault and I'm sorry - I fail to see
where "Radio" has anything to do with it.

I will agree with the one poster - had anyone "convicted" of a crime who
"was" into Ham - been more involved in the hobby, it "may" have prevented
said crimes. FWIW - crimes differ from state to state as to what may be
considered as a "felony". What may be a felony in one state, may not be in
yet another.
Then again - some people - regardless if it is "ham" radio, "CB", pick up
games of sports, etc. - lose their cool so very easily - and BAM - a crime
is committed. People have died at youth sports games when the "parents" went
nuts and attacked others. You can't blame the "Youth" sports for those
deaths - anymore than you can Ham radio for a crime. People are just going
bonkers more and more now days and they use any little excuse to try to
justify their cause.

Not only "Ham", but CB and FRS as well, AND even on a Police channel on the
scanner - a couple times - I've heard people argue to the point of telling
others - they were going to kiss their ass. Yes, I've heard COPS get into it
on the radio. Talk about "professionalism"! Yes, I've heard of fights on Ham
and CB where one person is "trying" to talk and another - instead of acting
like a gentleman - acts like an ass - and whalah - an argument ensues.
Instead of changing channels or letting the issue drop - they pursue it.
Some - yes - to the point of personally hunting the other down for an ass
kicking or murder. That is "rage" which was brought on - not by radio - but
by those who have issues dealing with others - who don't like to be crowded.
The radio was only a means of them asserting their behaviour publicly - and
finding a victim. Not much different than Road Rage.

You can't pick "just" HAM RADIO out of the bunch - any hobby, sport,
activity, job, etc - can set people off.
Conducting research to see how many hams committed crimes - would be "less"
interesting than one which shows how many accidents were as a result of
using all radio modes while driving - be they Ham, CB, 2 way, etc. - AS
OPPOSED to CELL PHONE! I don't EVER recall seeing the states cracking down
on CBers or Hams - due to "irratic driving" as they are now - with Cells.

With the heavy use of Cell Phones, I'd be willing to bet that Ham radio "IF"
responsible for ANY crimes - is like maybe 1/1000th of a percent - compared
to cells - which are used for harassment, stalking, spying, etc.
"Maybe" - just "maybe" - I could go along to some very minor extent - but
for the most part - I DOUBT Ham is as responsible for crimes as this post
seems to suggest. IF there are any "psychologists/psychiatrists" out there
or "social workers" who read these, PLEASE DO - chime in. I'd love to see
your opinion as well.


It's not "ham radio", CB, vehicles, etc.......... it is SELF CONTROL - which
makes the difference.

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
"Slow Code" wrote in message
...

The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society
with
crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this
keeps
society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its'
citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type of
crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape,
etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue is
the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with
unalienable rights by
his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees that
any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones rights to
the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those resources granted
us by our creator.


That is in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

Dee, N8UZE

Dee:

HELLO!

You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of "clumping"
all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am guilty of
being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining confines when it
comes to their rights.

Warmest regards,
JS

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
"Slow Code" wrote in message
...

The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society
with
crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this
keeps
society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its'
citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type
of
crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape,
etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue
is
the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with
unalienable rights by
his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees
that any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones
rights to the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those
resources granted us by our creator.


That is in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

Dee, N8UZE

In article ,
"John Smith" wrote:

Dee:

HELLO!

You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of "clumping"
all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am guilty of
being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining confines when it
comes to their rights.

But the rights flow only from the Constitution legally and otherwise.

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
Dee:

HELLO!

You are quite correct (and unalienable is used.) I am guilty of
"clumping" all of these together, including the amendments also ... I am
guilty of being "pro-for-the-people" and quite lax about maintaining
confines when it comes to their rights.

Warmest regards,
JS

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
. ..

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
"Slow Code" wrote in message
...

The way I understand our constitution, a man creates a debt to society
with
crime, once he pays this debt he is to have his rights restored; this
keeps
society from creating dangerous and dark forces through abuses of its'
citizens. While I do believe special arguments can be made of the type
of
crime a criminal commits, child molestation, premeditated murder, rape,
etc., in most instances the above should be followed. I think one clue
is
the statement in our constitution, paraphrased here, " ... endowed with
unalienable rights by
his creator ..." This is best seen when one applies thought and sees
that any tampering with such rights immediately infringes upons ones
rights to the "pursuit of happiness", freedom and access to those
resources granted us by our creator.


That is in the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

Dee, N8UZE



Still it is an important distinction that it is in the Declaration of
Independence but not in the Constitution. And is it important to understand
the differences in their purposes.

The Declaration was designed to explain to the world why the colonies wished
to separate themselves from England. It was intended to elicit sympathy and
support from the enemies of England and to convince England's allies to stay
out of it. The majestic rhetoric of "unalienable rights" and "life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were geared towards those goals.

On the other hand, the Constitution was designed to define how we were
actually going to govern ourselves. The rhetoric of the Declaration is
inappropriate

Let us take liberty as a very simple example. If that were included in the
Constitution as an "unalienable" right, we wouldn't be able to lock up
serial killers.

Let's also take that "pursuit of happiness" in terms of radio spectrum
resources. If each of us could operate whenever, where ever, and however we
pleased because we had the right to pursue happiness, it would be utter
chaos and very few would actually be happy. In the early days of radio,
that very situation existed and it caused problems and thus was born the
predecessor to the FCC.

In every group or society, some type of structure is necessary to enable the
group or society to survive and thrive. This means that there are rules and
regulations in almost everything we do affecting our daily lives. That by
its very nature limits people's rights.

Dee, N8UZE