Protecting the family: Paul Walfield on N.Y. man busted for defending home with gun

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Saturday, January 25, 2003 | Paul Walfield

[JohnHuang2]

Ronald Dixon has two children, two jobs and a desire to keep all of them. On the night of Dec. 14, 2002, he awoke to find a stranger walking in the hall outside his bedroom. After calling 911, Mr. Dixon saw the man enter his 2-year-old son's room and he knew he could not wait for the police. He picked up his 9mm. pistol and went to protect his children.

When he entered his son's bedroom and confronted the burglar, the thief charged Mr. Dixon who then fired his 9mm. twice. The burglar was hit and fled down the stairs and out of the Dixon home. When the police arrived, they arrested the wounded career burglar, and they also arrested Mr. Dixon.

Mr. Dixon's home you see is in Brooklyn, N.Y., and he needs to be an example to everyone. Regardless of the circumstances, anyone who possesses an unregistered handgun must face jail time in New York. Accordingly, his possession of the unregistered 9mm. is a misdemeanor, and he now faces up to one year in prison. Brooklyn had nearly 500 shootings last year, and District Attorney Charles Hynes cannot condone illegal firearms.

It does not matter that Mr. Dixon purchased the handgun legally in Florida, or that he was in the process of registering it in Brooklyn. It doesn't matter that Mr. Dixon did what any reasonable person would have done under the circumstances. According to the District Attorney, he must spend time in jail for his "crime."

Andrew Friedman, who is Ronald Dixon's attorney, turned down a plea bargain offered by the DA in which his client would spend four weekends in prison. According to the article in the New York Daily News, Dixon holds two jobs, and weekends in jail would certainly cause the loss of one of them.

The Second Amendment is a short concise recitation of an American's right to possess a firearm. The fact that that right "shall not be infringed," has never hampered legislatures from chipping away at it in a consistent and methodical manner. Unlike any other amendment to the Constitution, the Second, is viewed by the left as fair game. Of course, to do that they need to misinterpret it.

The left has determined that the Second Amendment should only apply to "a well regulated militia" and not to individuals. By doing so, individual Americans have no right to a gun and therefore are subject to any restrictions or bans the government decides upon. Gun ownership then becomes a privilege and not a right under the Constitution.

The ACLU takes the position that the Second Amendment only refers to the state militia. However, if our forefathers intended it to mean only that, why did they add the phrase, "right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

Additionally, even if we assume for the sake of argument that the Second Amendment refers to a "militia," what did that mean to the framers of the Bill of Rights? Militia, as was known in the 18th century, was described by George Mason, who along with Patrick Henry opposed the Constitution without a Bill of Rights, as "the whole people." In 1787, the Federal Farmer, published in New York in the Poughkeepsie Country Journal, referred to the militia as in fact "the people themselves."

Even in the infamous Supreme Court case of United States vs. Miller decided in 1939, Justice McReynolds in describing the purpose of the Second Amendment determined that the debates, history, and writings at the time of its creation show plainly that militia meant, "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."

Some may argue that times have changed and that the need for individuals to own guns has been made obsolete by the creation of modern police forces. However, that argument would remain hollow for a father in the middle of the night watching a criminal enter his child's bedroom.

---

[JohnHuang2]

Saturday, January 25, 2003

Quote of the Day by Lurker

[EGPWS]

he must spend time in jail for his "crime."

Firearm, shmirearm! The guy was defending his home, and most likely in his mind saving his sons life! It, I'm sure is worth the sentence being imposed upon him, but IMHO the guy should be paraded and given praise for his galant actions, and for the concern. (through his love for his child)

[Jay D. Dyson]

Firearm, shmirearm! The guy was defending his home, and most likely in his mind saving his sons life!

You know that and I know that, but just try to convince the Left of that. They'll claim he wasn't being the Right Victim and that he should have cooperated with the attacker and should have tried to "negotiate" with the intruder.

Let's face it, the Left has one primary agenda that drives all their actions: to leave us defenseless and dependent on the State (en loco parentis) for everything. This is why they glorify victims and belittle those who take charge of their lives.

Hell, if the Left of today had been around in 1776, we'd still be kissing the ass of the King of England.

-Jay

[EGPWS]

You know that and I know that, but just try to convince the Left of that. They'll claim he wasn't being the Right Victim and that he should have cooperated with the attacker and should have tried to "negotiate" with the intruder.

He DID negotiate from what I understand from the media explaination of the situation. He just happened to have the upper hand at the time when somebody decided to infringe upon his personal rights as a homesteader.

He wasn't considered a victim until it hit the courts.

[JSMosby]

This was on the net in December. I wonder if the DA would prosecute Mr. Dixon for lack of paperwork if his intruder had shot him in the face before he shot back? Or maybe the purtitan DA would have prosecuted both for the same reasons. Mr. Dixon is in the right- his only problem is that he lives in Brooklyn-- in the South there would be no charges--- period. We need to support this guy for several reasons-- minorities have Second Amendment rights and liberals think they do not, and secondly, it is the right thing to do. Here's the article:


Marine Shoots Back

Sergeant James C. Lowery, 22, serves with Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 252, based at the Marine Corps Air Station at Cherry Point, North Carolina. Members of his squadron fly tankers that refuel aircraft while in flight.

Shortly before 10 p.m. on December 16th of last year, while on leave, Sgt. Lowery was in the drive-thru lane of a McDonald’s restaurant near the entrance to Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base in southeast Alabama when an armed man approached his Chevrolet Suburban. As the Marine exited the vehicle, the would-be carjacker shot him in the face. Sgt. Lowery then managed to retrieve his own .45-caliber handgun from the car and shoot his assailant numerous times. Thaddeus Antone, 19, died at the scene.

Sgt. Lowery was hospitalized in fair condition with a wound to his top-left cheek (the bullet lodged near his voice box), but the injury was not believed to be life-threatening and he was expected to make a full recovery. Alabama’s Gadsden Times reported that while the incident would be routinely reviewed by a grand jury, “the fatal shooting was viewed by investigators as a case of self-defense and no charges were filed” against Sgt. Lowery.

[sneakypete]

Brooklyn had nearly 500 shootings last year, and District Attorney Charles Hynes cannot condone illegal firearms.

Ok,so out of those 500 shootings last year,how many people who were comitting aggressive criminal acts were prosecuted for mere gun possession by this DA? I'd be willing to bet the correct answer to this question is "none" because he agreed to drop the charges against actual criminals as part of a plea bargain. In other words,the DA and the legal system save these charges to use against honest citizens they don't have any grounds to make any other charges against.

WHERE are those hypocrites in the NAACP? Why aren't they involving themselves and their considerable political muscle to rescue a honest black man who was merely defending his family and his property? Where is Sharpie and JJ? I'll tell you why they are remaining silent,because they rely on criminals for their financing,and they can't afford to have their cash flow shut down if they are seen to publically support people shooting criminals. They don't represent the average black citizen any more than the KKK does.

[sneakypete]

Let's face it, the Left has one primary agenda that drives all their actions: to leave us defenseless and dependent on the State (en loco parentis) for everything.

Of course. This is a survival strategy for them. If people realized they could take care of themselves,the bureaucrats and their employees would be out of jobs.

[coloradan]

Hell, if the Left of today had been around in 1776, we'd still be kissing the ass of the King of England.

On the contrary, we'd be kissing the ass of the hand-picked successor to Adolph Hitler - and we'd be kissing it in German. Remember who defeated Hitler?

[TYVets]

The Fox News show Hanaday & Combs is giving alot of coverage to Ron Dixons plight.

If faced with the same situation, would the D A Charles Hynes stand by while his famly was suffering?

[Quiller]

--- If faced with the same situation, would the D A Charles Hynes stand by while his famly was suffering? ---


A. No, because he could find a good hiding place while the wife and kids keep the intruder occupied.

B. No, because Hynes has his own firearm; if Ron Dixon was anybody special he wouldn't be in this mess.

C. No, because Hynes would successfully negotiate with the intruder, and bring him to understand that his life of crime was rooted in deep-seated emotional distress and internalized rebellion against social injustice and inequitable distribution of wealth, thereby creating an irrational and dysfuntional interaction with society at large while bringing himself into conflict with established behavioral norms. At this point the burglar would realize his improper infliction of distress upon non-permissive third-party actors, and immediately summon transportation to appropriate facilities at which he could resolve his inner turmoil and re-establish his ties to acceptable social norms.

D. All of the above.

As far as the Second Amendment goes, the whole militia thing goes back to people needing to buy their own guns because the government was new and couldn't afford to give one to everyone, but still needed everyone to be ready to answer the call. Now that the government is better established, I think it's time they ante up, and start providing all law-abiding citizens with a modern government-issued firearm. I'd like to know where to sign up . . . .

[yoe]

Walnut Hills Resident Fatally Shoots Robber Reported
Police said there are no charges in the case, but the final report on the investigation will be reviewed by the Hamilton County Prosecutor's Office.(That was in Cincinnati)

Protecting the family: Paul Walfield on N.Y. man busted for defending home with gun
On the night of Dec. 14, 2002, he awoke to find a stranger walking in the hall outside his bedroom. After calling 911, Mr. Dixon saw the man enter his 2-year-old son's room and he knew he could not wait for the police. He picked up his 9mm. pistol and went to protect his children.

Good law in Cincinnati and Bad law in New York. I understand the need for such laws in NY, I hope the judge sees the father’s side of this.

[Hot Tabasco]

It does not matter that Mr. Dixon purchased the handgun legally in Florida, or that he was in the process of registering it

I'm questioning the accuracy of this statement. I didn't think one could legally purchase a firearm out of state.

I attempted to purchase a .22 handgun from Cabela's while in Nebraska this past fall and the salesman said I could not purchase it and take it with me. Rather, he said I had to have it shipped by them to a licensed FFL dealer here in Michigan if they were to sell it to me. With Michigan laws being what they are, I would have then had to obtain a purchase permit from my local sheriff dept. in order to take posession of the firearm.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Just who is the real criminal here,The one that was shot or the government?The pro-gun people need to do what the liberals do,file lawsuits!Anytime a government violates the constitutional rights of a citizen,that government should be sued for its entire state budget.Scr*w your da*n stupid laws,the constitution comes BEFORE your laws.

[Dick Bachert]

Gosh, the socialists in America today sounds quite similar to that hilarious Hitler fella -- ALSO a socialist -- from the 30s. THIS was Adolph's solution. Look for it in YOUR neighborhood soon.

CAMP GUNFREE.
A common sense and historically proven way to keep those dangerous and destructive GUNS out of YOUR life.
MEMBERSHIPS AVAILABLE NOW!
Details below

Concerned about the easy availability of guns in our society?

Alarmed about the "gun nuts" and other freedom wackos the government allows to run loose?

Wish the government would just repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate all the guns because you believe sensible people shouldn't suffer because of some idiotic notion about some antiquated “right?”

While we can't take the guns away from the people, we CAN take the people (or at least SOME of them) away from their guns.

At CAMP GUNFREE, we have created an atmosphere of near-total tranquility where you and your family will experience the benefits of a GUN FREE environment.

The unique main gate at Camp GunFree. Most arriving camp guests never see this view from their comfortable rail cars.

Each of our camps is a gated community designed to keep guns away from camp guests. Firmly enforced security measures ensure that these dangerous and destructive devices are kept outside. Each camp boasts 24 hour, 7 day a week sentries and state-of-the-art enclosure systems, guard dogs, trenches and surveillance equipment to absolutely GUARANTEE that no firearms enter the facility. Rigidly controlled access ensures that no guns can ever be smuggled in.

No cost has been spared to ensure that Camp GunFree remains gun free.

All camp members are given distinctive uniforms to distinguish them from any gun-toting barbarians who might attempt to evade our security measures. Each camp member is also assigned a distinctive ID number to ensure that only the right people are allowed within the camp.

Room and board are provided to each member in exchange for rewarding tasks designed to provide a sense of accomplishment and to demonstrate that large numbers of people CAN exist in a gun violence free community.

Camp members engaged in one of our many fun-filled organized work activities.

The current headlines prompt us to remind you that there has NEVER been a shooting by a student in any of the camp schools and we can GUARANTEE that there never will be!!

For more information, call 1-800-GUNFREE
OR visit our new website at
http://www.privategunsareabadthingandwe'llseethatyouare”safe”.batf.gov

(This idea from a pamphlet originally created by The Minnesota Center for Individual Liberty, PO Box 32170, Minneapolis, MN 55432-0170)

[harpseal]

I understand the need for such laws in NY,

Please explain any need for such laws in New York. Please include in your explanation the reasons why New York needs more crime, how New York is not part of the United States of America, why innocent victims should be sacrificed to criminals, and why specifically the elite rules of New York City should be exempmt from the laws governing the peasents.

[unixfox]

Nuck Few York !!

[maxwell]

Please explain any need for such laws in New York.

Yeah, really. It may be a cliche but it's true-- when it becomes criminal to own a firearm, then only criminals will own firearms.

I just got done reading a couple other threads about a guy in Dallas who (after sending his wife and young kids into the back room) shot and killed two of three would-be-burglars who shot in his front door to get in, and who will "probably not face charges" because, as the DA put it, Texas believes in the idea that your home is your castle. And here's the pic of the day; notice the dead vermin in the background...

If this sort of gun control happened more often, people would think more than twice about breaking into other folks' property. Slapping more regulations onto law-abiding citizens is NOT gonna cut down on crime and anybody who thinks so has more than a few screws loose. Only justified bloodshed will get the message across.

[harpseal]

I defy anyone to show any benefit from any gun registration law, or even any law that prohibits concealed carry. John Lott has shown that every gun control law has a social cost.

It is long past time to let any comment about the need for such laws to pass without demandingf to know the reasoning behind such laws. One may make a case that the reason for registering handguns in NY is to make way for confiscation as was done with semi automatic long guns.

[Buck W.]

Is this the same NYC DA who recently reversed (as I recall) the convictions in the Central Park jogger case?

[Buck W.]

I think I just answered my own question--that was Morgenthau.