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
Same stuff, after you get off the plane.
It reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I certainly get the "shall not be infringed" part. In fact, if the Amendment read to start with "the right of the people ..." it would be damn clear. Unfortunately, we are left with an Amendment, which the drafters decided to draft with the opening words, "a well regulated militia."
Now, I know that the dedicated folks here will begin hitting me with links as to the "true" meaning of militia at that time, and the true meaning of "well-regulated." I have read all that stuff before, and it certainly pieces together an argument. It is not, however, very clear.
Let's assume that we are all part of the militia. In fact, some state Constitutions define certain age groups as automatically members of militias. Let's further assume that "well-regulated" means "disciplined", or "trained" as many of these folks woud say. Thus, it does not mean regulation in the sense of Government as we now believe. Would that still mean we each have an unfettered right to keep and bear arms? I respectfully disagree?
In fact, if one is not a member of the militia (which in many states is undefined), and if one is not "well-regulated" or disciplined and/or trained, then one, by definition, then one's rights obviously can be infringed? I think that's a damn fair reading.
Now, let's through out the militia term. Or, at least, let's go with the broadest interpretation. That would mean that all able-bodied persons could be a member of the militia. Thus, granting advocates that argument, we must still leap the "well-regulated" language. (certainly our Constitutional purists can't simply ignore the term, it was written in plain English, and does not "emenate" from the text). Well, we need to know what that means, and whose rights may be infringed depending on how it applies.
If "well-regulated" only means disciplined, or trained, then most people's rights "shall not be infringed." That's my view. It is also my view that the burden rests with the Government. Therefore, permitting a license is not optional, rather it is mandatory absent the Government meeting its burden that an individual, being a member of the militia, is not "well-regulated."
There is certainly debate as to how that is interpreted. Some states, for instance, like the home of the IRA in Virginia, will issue such a permit to carry a hand-gun upon application. Thus, one survives a back-ground check ("well-regulated"/disciplined) and one must also take a training class ("well-regulated"/trained). The NRA will let you take the class for free or a minimal charge is my understanding. The application is put before the Circuit Court, and the Governmetn must find cause to oppose. The process is quick and easy.
In my view, these reasonable restrictions are consistent with the Amendment in even the most favorable view. I frankly don't see how we can argue otherwise without ignoring the text of the document.
As for the Government right to restrict carrying on an airplane, well -- we certainly can't go to the founding fathers for that! It could be argued that if one is "well-regulated" and "disciplined", then no restriction passes muster. I think, however, just like "free speech", not all rights are absolute. Thus, while one may not use speech to incite a riot or to "yell fire in a crowded theater", the Government has to make a compelling case to restrict such 2nd Amendment freedoms. In this instance, the Government certainly has a striong argument that saftey prohibits such carrying, and like restricting some types of speech, the right to carry can be restricted once the Government shows a compelling state interest in the restriction. The issue is certainly arguable.
As for what State law says about it, there is no State Constitutional provision for RKBA, however, Section 4 of the New York Civil Rights Law provides: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed."
Oops. Sorry Roscoe. But thanks for playing.
Which says?
Even absent our differing views on the scope of the 2A of the US Constitution, New york civil rights law would still trump a city statute. No local ordinance can have more strength than a State law. See supremacy clauses in every State, and even the US federal, constitutions.
Moot point as you won't even concede that a Constitution is the document setting up a government and giving it its limited power, but that governing power springs whole cloth from the laws passed. Clearly a fallicy when compared to all the writings of the Founders on how they envisioned our government to run.
Now go away before you embarass yourself again.
| * The purpose of conscious life is to live happily. * The function of government is to guarantee those conditions that let individuals fulfill their purpose. Those conditions can be guaranteed through a universal constitution that forbids the use of initiatory force, fraud, or coercion by any person or group against any individual. *** No person, group of persons, or government shall initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property. Article 2 Force shall be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1. Article 3 No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2. |
The above is from: http://www.neo-tech.com/pax-b1/a1.php
True enough, but:
-- Monkeys fly when roscoe makes sense. Beware of duplicity.
"Hard to discern what the facts in the case might be from all the ignorant posturing by the fanatics in the thread."
-roscoe- inanely comments
What effect would supposedly "ignorant posturing" have on the facts, roscoe? Or on your ability to discern them?
Granted, of course, that you are easily distracted, due to your own fanatic ignorance.
Here is a brief synopsis of the applicable gun control laws. As you can clearly see, they clearly contravene the very same States Civil Rights provisions as well as the US Constitution.
Pointless for me to type all that because now is where you say,
"No. It doesn't."
Completely sourceless of course with nothing but more Constitutionally repugnant laws and legal decisions made in line with bad law. Does that about sum up your entire position Roscoe?
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.