Dad who pluggedprowler spurns deal

New York Daily News ^ | 4/08/03 | NANCIE L. KATZ

[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

[Dead Corpse]

Wrong. Look to Art 1 Sec 8 for the proper powers of the legislature. No where in there does it state they have the power to control interstate travel nor do they have the pwoer to legislate a department to do so. The President, only has administrative power over those departments that the legislature can legally set up under Art 1 sec 8.

Creating the DOT and FAA are extra-Constitutional under the "commerce clause". The same "commerce clause" that has been abused to prop up the WOD, welfare, and the social security ponzi scheme.

If the airlines are so busy, why do so many over them want bailout money from our taxes to keep them from going belly up?

Nothing stops someone bent on suicide. Using that as justification for disarming us all is ludacris and only creates a target rich enviroment for the criminal element and politicians.

[Dead Corpse]

Boxcutter Vs. bar hands. 3 out of 4 "wins" for the Bad Guys.

Bad Guys with Guns Vs. Good Guys With Guns. Much better odds as the Iraq conflict is now proving.

[stuartcr]

Agreed that it is not verbatim, very little of what we have today, over 200yrs later, is verbatim. As are most laws, interpretation is the key here. The constitution has given the president the power to, as you say, 'create extra-constitutional departments'. Whether you agree or not, or like it or not, that is the way it is. The airlines are still busy, worldwide, and the airlines are very greedy. Like many huge organizations, scruples mean little to them. They will play this bailout crap as long as they can. The justification in not allowing ANY handguns on an aircraft, is pretty obvious. We won't even go into the fact that if you are making intercontinental flights, there is a good chance that you will not be on an American carrier. Many foreign airlines are run by the state, so whether you're govt allows a gun or not, you will leave it at the terminal when boarding a foreign domestic flight. Correct, suicides are hard, if not impossible, to stop, but, it's much harder to stop a terrorist that has a gun, and subsequent civilian injuries, than it is when the terrorist is armed with only a boxcutter, at the most. I'm sure even you would agree, that 5 people rushing a man with a knife, have a better chance of winning, than 5 people rushing a man with an auto.

[stuartcr]

Good guys, your size, with bare hands vs bad, skinny guys with bare hands, even better odds....especially for those not directly involved. (no stray rounds from someone scared, shooting undisciplined)

[Dead Corpse]

Agreed that it is not verbatim, very little of what we have today, over 200yrs later, is verbatim. As are most laws, interpretation is the key here.

Stop right there. Judicial interpretation of plain english to find penumbras and emenations are WHY things are going so far afiled in our government. Excusing it by saying "that's just the way it is" does not make it legal, nor does it come close to making it right.

5 people may rush one with a box cutter. 1 person with gun can easily stop one person with a box cutter. 1 madman with a gun can kill 5 unarmed victims. 1 madman with a gun doesn't stand a chance against 5 good men with guns.

That last one is the one that will kill your arugment every time. Give it up.

[tpaine]

I think the underlying question is: What defines a "substantial arbitrary imposition" or "purposeless restraint"? -sgt-

Common sense.
Infringments on our liberties as outlined in our constitution are fairly obvious to most of us.
Those who quibble on technicalities, have other, - imo usually anticonstitutional, -- political agendas.
388 -tpaine-

I'm inclined to agree with you, but I think that law based on "common sense" is by nature difficult to document.

Not really. Our constitution is not 'difficult' at all, if you agree with its basic principle, - maximum individual freedom.

Each man still must decide for himself whether or not any given imposition is substantial, arbitrary, and/or purposeless. Since we will all invariably arrive at different conclusions, it is up to the courts to determine whose definition the general public is expected to follow.

You are operating on a false premise, that "we will all invariably arrive at different conclusions"...
-- Why would we, given that we all want individual freedom, living in a free constitutional republic?

You have been subjected to the 'big government' view of our system, that courts get to determine & define the constitutional law the general public is expected to follow.
Not true. Government courts are bound to the constitution, just as we.

[Dead Corpse]

Good guys, your size, with bare hands vs bad, skinny guys with bare hands, even better odds...

Yes. But now what about bad guys my size against your 16 year old daughter. Call 911? The cops are 1/2 hour away at best. The most they will be able to do is clean up the mess.

[Eva]

Good for him! I hope his lawyer can get him off.

[bc2]

excuse me for not reading the rest of the thread to see if someone responded, so this may be redundant info.

here in NY we're a "discretionary State" meaning you can get a CCW permit if you've never been in any trouble, but NYS is a real bastard about it... you have to go through a lot of time and $$ to get the permit (all told it's about $100). In addition, you will have to wait 6-8 months to find out if you're going to be able to CCW.

You are allowed to carry just about everywhere in NYS EXCEPT FOR NEW YORK CITY.

NEW YORK STATE PISTOL PERMITS ARE NOT VALID IN THE 5 BOROUGHS OF NEW YORK CITY

NYC issues their own pistol permits, but good luck getting one if you are not a law enforcement officer or you are not able to bribe the New York City Police Department.

I live in Rochester and am currently trying to get my pistol permit application finished so I can get fingerprinted and submit it.

Now you know why I dream of moving to Vermont, where a 21 year old with no felony convictions can walk into a gun shop with a drivers liscense or State ID, purchase a handgun, put it in your pocket or waistband, and walk out. LEGALLY.

[demosthenes the elder]

compared to 1-10, the 14th is recent, yes.

[Luna]

Wow! The Moderator has been busy on this thread.

And, just to put in my two cents on the topic:

The Constititution is the supreme law of the land, and state governments do not have the right to infringe upon it or override it. It is not legal for them to pass laws that infringe on a citizen's right to own a firearm, anymore than it is legal for them to try to infringe on the rights of the press.

[stuartcr]

Might not be right, might not be legal. But that is the way it is. This is getting tiring, so I will leave, but remember, if you can bring a gun on-board, so can he. If 5 of you can bring guns, so can 5 of them. If it is impossible for anyone to bring a gun, no one gets shot. There is no arguement, just common sense.

[Luna]

Constititution = Constitution

Spelling error. Sorry!

[stuartcr]

The discussion was about guns on an aircraft. If I had a 16yo daughter, she would be carrying everywhere but on an aircraft.

[bc2]

have you called the DA's office down there yet? I have not and intend to this evening. I have the contact info from the SCOPE e-list.

If I had anything but total contempt for NYC I would be more interested in this case. As it is I could care less if the 5 boroughs burned to the ground.

I mean no offense to any true conservatives living in NYC, but please think about what your area of the State has done to the rest of us.

[stuartcr]

This is one of the reasons I will never live north of Virginia.

[Dead Corpse]

There is no arguement, just common sense.

Your brand of "commen sense" should have gotten it's wake-up call when 2-3 guys a peice armed with small box-cutters took over four aircraft on 9-11.

Criminal activity drops in every area the Law abiding are allowed the freedom to use the tools necessary to protect themselves. Criminals are VASTLY outnumbered no matter what type of doomsday scenario you try to spin.

[demosthenes the elder]

I will point out some obvious facts:
9/11
19 badguys, with boxcutters = 3000+ DEAD goodguys

there is such a thing as acceptable losses.
If I was on a plane, and it got hijacked, and I was armed...
I might die. some passengers MIGHT die. some terrorists WOULD die. and no plane would crash into a friggin skyscraper.
Is the math simple enough for you yet?

[stuartcr]

Sorry I missed your response. As I stated, I doubt any airline that wanted to turn a profit, would allow guns on-board...too hard to tell the good from the bad. Also, when travelling to another country, where the state/govt runs the airline, you will be subject to their rules, and would more than likely have to leave your gun at the terminal, or drive home from Europe or Asia, or wherever.

[demosthenes the elder]

If an AIRLINE prohibited carry-on firearms, that is one thing...
For the GOVERNMENT to arbitrarily abridge my Constitutional Rights is quite another matter.