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
The usual question begging.
The assertion that having city gun control laws violates the New York state constitution is false.
"The City claims its authority to adopt this law resides in its police power, the power of local governments to adopt laws for the preservation of the health, safety and welfare of their citizens as well as for their protection and the maintenance of order. Such power is granted to the City by Article 9, section 2(c) (ii) (10) of the New York State Constitution, Municipal Home Rule Law, section 10, subdivision I(ii) (a) (11) and General City Law, section 20, subdivision 13. This power is limited only by the requirements that such local laws not be in conflict with the State Constitution nor inconsistent with the general laws of the State. These limitations are recognized by the City Charter, section 27(a), which empowers the Council to adopt this legislation. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Gun Control Law in any way encroaches upon these limitations." -- Grimm v. City of New York, 56 Misc.2d 525 (Sup.Ct. 1968)
The contention that having city laws regulating firearms violates the Second Amendment is also unsupported nonsense.
"Plaintiffs not only seek to have this court declare the Gun Control Law unconstitutional without the requisite showing, but urge as a ground that the Gun Control Law violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The short answer to this contention is supplied in plaintiffs' own brief. As plaintiffs concede, it has been held that the Second Amendment is not a limitation upon the states. (Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S.Ct. 580, 29 L.Ed. 615 [1886].) Further, the United States Supreme Court has declined to hold that the first ten amendments of the Constitution were all made applicable to the states through the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Adamson v. People of State of California, 332 U.S. 46, 67 S.Ct. 1672, 91 L.Ed. 1903 [1947].) In the conceded absence of any contrary authority, the court rejects plaintiffs' claim that the Gun Control Law violates the Second Amendment." -- Grimm v. City of New York, 56 Misc.2d 525 (Sup.Ct. 1968)
"This power is limited only by the requirements that such local laws not be in conflict with the State Constitution nor inconsistent with the general laws of the State."
And, of course, the State is limited by the requirements that such state & local laws must not conflict with those of our U.S. Constitution. [see Art. VI]
"The contention that having city laws regulating firearms violates the Second Amendment is also unsupported nonsense."
Whereupon roscoe rolls out the 'Presser/Adamson/Grimm decisions', well refuted pieces of unsupported judicial nonsense.
Rave on roscoe.
In NYC, it is essentially impossible to legally register a handgun.
The SCOTUS determined in U.S. vs. Miller that they didn't know whether a sawed-off shot gun was used by the military.
This is from before the SCOTUS decided that the 14th Amendment "incorporates" the other Amendments. It also, rather than what is cited here, says that at that time, they should have gone through the state courts first.
Further, the United States Supreme Court has declined to hold that the first ten amendments of the Constitution were all made applicable to the states through the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment
...But it did hold that "the people" means the same in the first, second, and various other Amendments. As you note: it has declined to hold, not held that it does not.
Palm Beach and Broward Counties in SE Florida are effectively colonies of New York and New Jersey. Since CCW is STATEWIDE in Florida and localities are FORBIDDEN from passing their own gun laws, even in those liberal hellholes you are allowed to carry a firearm, unless you are a convicted felon. Of course, property taxes and the cost of living are high in those counties than other parts of the state.
Sad to say, Hynes is my DA. If Colorado passes shall-issue, I think I may relocate there soon.
Incorporation has always been limited and selective. If you have a Supreme Court decision "incorporating" the 2nd into the 14th, please cite it.
"The reasoning that leads to those conclusions starts with the unquestioned premise that the Bill of Rights, when adopted, was for the protection of the individual against the federal government and its provisions were inapplicable to similar actions done by the states." -- U.S. Supreme Court, ADAMSON V. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA , 332 U.S. 46 (1947)
Politicians are the same all over. 98% of them believe that what you earn is theirs to spend, and that you are lucky and should be eternally grateful that they don't take it all as is their right. There are a few who believe that the purpose of government is to protect your property, but damned few. The only really good one in the whole Kongress is Ron Paul for TX. Look how the governor of TN practically had a tantrum when the legislature wouldn't enact an income tax, and the Republican (like that makes a difference) governor of GA called the legislators members of the Taliban (or something like that) because they wouldn't pass his massive tax increases so far this year.
The law of competing harms has already been used in the past in similar cases to acquit people who did not have a permit while exercising self defense (can you believe that you need a permit for that according to some, but the absurdity of it all has already been argued successfuly and approved in common law, gun laws are only meant for intimidation).
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.