Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dad who pluggedprowler spurns deal
New York Daily News ^ | 4/08/03 | NANCIE L. KATZ

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


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 1,141-1,149 next last
To: Jonez712
Your father is an eminently sensible fellow with a good heart and NO INTEREST in paying fines to get your ass out of jail.

I, too, am a daddy.

But: you'll turn 21, move out, and THEN build a hairspray-propelled tatertosser.
641 posted on 04/10/2003 12:09:10 PM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"A similar provision [to the Second Amendment] in favour of protestants (for to them it is confined) is to be found in the bill of rights of 1688, it being declared, 'that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law.' But under various pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nominal than real, as a defensive privilege." Joseph Story

The actual quote:

How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

A similar provision in favour of protestants (for to them it is confined) is to be found in the bill of rights of 1688, it being declared, "that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law." But under various pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nominal than real, as a defensive privilege.

-- Joseph Story


642 posted on 04/10/2003 12:12:14 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,... in the several kingdoms of Europe,... the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison, The Federalist Papers # 46.

The actual quote, as opposed to the heavily altered version:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers # 46


643 posted on 04/10/2003 12:21:20 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: Iron Eagle
I still contend you need a course in remedial reading. The Government has NO rights; it has certain ENUMERATED powers and authority and that is ALL. "...[S}hall not be infringed" means exactly that. ANY legislation in this area which goes one step beyond punishing improper USE of a firearm or other weapon is an infringement, no matter HOW you try to spin it. We have well over 20,000 victim disarmament "laws" on various books in this country and each and every one is contrary to the Second Amendment. The courts have established that there can be no such thing as "Prior Restraint" when it comes to the FIRST Amendment, yet victim disarmament is Unconstitutionally the same thing... Prior Restraint, just because someone MAY commit a crime with a firearm.

Further, if you look at the history of firearms legislation, most or all of the original laws passed were to prevent minorities from bearing arms. The National Firearms Act of '34 was passed to keep the Revenuers employed after Prohibition I was repealed. Purportedly, it was in response to gangsters using automatic weapons, but by the time it was introduced, it was moot, because the gangsters, like Joe Kennedy, were now "respectable" businessmen. And the famous Miller case was decided on a FedGov lie... when they told the Court that the sawed-off shotgun confiscated from Miller was not used for military purposes. In the strictest sense, that PARTICULAR weapon was not used militarily, but sawed-off weapons were routinely used in the armed forces. I saw them used in Vietnam and I would not doubt that someone in the desert now has something akin to a sawed-off shotgun. For close quarters, there's nothing better! Thus, Miller was decided based on the NON-MILITARY application of the weapon. However, since ALL Americans are part of the unorganized militia, by custom and law, it stands to reason that disarming us is CLEARLY unconstitutional on the face of it. So my advice stands: either learn what the Founders meant by including the Second Amendment (which, BTW, only requires the various Governments to recognize a PRE-EXISTING Right; it is NOT a grant of anything) or find a line of work where you are not dangerous to someone's freedom by your attitude toward the clear language of the Constitution and the meaning of the Founding Dads.
644 posted on 04/10/2003 1:30:33 PM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 607 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Your pathetic Roscoe. Even trying to shift the emphasis of each of those, they all affirm an individual Right to Keep and bear Arms that cannot be tampered with by the Federal Government or the State/local governments.

The plain reading is that we all have the Right to be Armed, we just do not have a Right to disobay other laws (like theft and robbery) because we are armed. With arms, we are no more justified in depriving another of their Rights than we would be without Arms. No government can take that Right away and still lay a claim to Constitutional legitamacy.

Period.

Once again, you completely miss the point.

645 posted on 04/10/2003 1:38:58 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
The Government has NO rights

No source for the false assertion, naturally.

"Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men." --Thomas Jefferson

"That every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign, and includes, by force of the term, a right to employ all the means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power, and which are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution, or not immoral, or not contrary to the essential ends of political society." -- Alexander Hamilton

"But the constitution of the United States has not left the right of Congress to employ the necessary means, for the execution of the powers conferred on the government, to general reasoning. To its enumeration of powers is added that of making 'all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States, or in any department thereof.' " -- United States Supreme Court, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)


646 posted on 04/10/2003 1:42:52 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Even trying to shift the emphasis of each of those

Removing the added language, restoring the omissions.

they all affirm an individual Right to Keep and bear Arms

None of them state, even in the altered forms you presented, that the states are barred by the 2nd Amendment from regulating fireams. They don't even state that there is such a limitation existing within a general right lying outside of the 2nd Amendment.

Keep trying though. (Honest, unaltered quotes, please.)

647 posted on 04/10/2003 1:48:35 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe & precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wilson Cary Nicholas, Sept. 7, 1803.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot, Debates at 45 (Virginia Convention, June 5, 1788).

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." Joseph Story, Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833), Book III at 746, § 1858.

"This [Second Amendment] may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty." Saint George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), Volume 1, Appendix, Note D

"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature." Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting, Nov. 20, 1772.

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them …" Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775. I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894).

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction.
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.

"It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?" James Madison, Federalist Papers # 62.

"What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear--and long-lost--proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms." Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." - United States Senate, Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Committee Print I-IX, 1-23 (1982).

"The second amendment to the federal constitution, as well as the constitutions of many of the states, guaranty to the people the right to bear arms. This is a natural right, not created or granted by the constitutions." Henry Campbell Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law, 1895.

"Believing that the amendment does not authorize an individual's right to keep and bear arms is wrong. The right to bear arms is an individual right. The military connotation of bearing arms does not necessarily determine the meaning of a right to bear arms. If all it meant was the right to be a soldier or serve in the military, whether in the militia or the army, it would hardly be a cherished right and would never have reached constitutional status in the Bill of Rights." Leonard W. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights, Paperback 1999 edition, Chapter 6, Pages 134-135.

Sometimes I even doubt if you are in fact a US citizen.

648 posted on 04/10/2003 1:58:51 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Nice collection of quotes.

Unfortunately, none of them contend that the states are barred by the 2nd Amendment from regulating fireams or that there is such a limitation existing within a general right lying outside of the 2nd Amendment.

Did you think that if you posted enough unsupportive quotes that it would suffice?

649 posted on 04/10/2003 2:25:34 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Crazy roscoe insists yet again that the RKBA's can be infringed.

Roscoe, you are clearly 'spamming' FR for divisive purposes...
650 posted on 04/10/2003 2:36:11 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
It would help your reading skills tremendously if you open your eyes Roscoe.

Moron.

651 posted on 04/10/2003 2:55:50 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Too bad the Admin Mod doesn't seem to agree.
652 posted on 04/10/2003 3:00:33 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Two bits if I reposted that message every time roscoe reposted his agit-prop on the RKBA's; --
-- that I would be suspended for 'spamming', not roscoe.
653 posted on 04/10/2003 3:13:43 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 652 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Sorry. No takers. ;-)

Not all is golden in the Garden?

654 posted on 04/10/2003 3:19:03 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 653 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Right now, the garden grows, flush with new green.

-- The pruning always follows, if you know what I mean & I bet you do. ;)
655 posted on 04/10/2003 3:26:54 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Sorry, Roscoe... RIGHTS, being a grant from the Creator, can, by their very nature, ONLY accrue to individuals. Period. "Bodies of Men" have no more RIGHTS than the least individual. Governments have power and authority which are granted by, in our case, a Constitution. That governments regularly overstep their bounds is a given, but one which need not and MUST NOT be long tolerated or we will have the likes of you, whose delusions tell them that RIGHTS flow from government and that these rights may be abridged or recinded at the whim of any legislator or bureaucrap who has a brain-fart one fine morning. So glad I was able to correct you. So sad you are incapable of learning anything. But so ROSCOE of you!
656 posted on 04/10/2003 6:39:42 PM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Again, if you ever find even a single authority in support of your assertions, feel free to post it.
657 posted on 04/10/2003 6:42:18 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
RIGHTS, being a grant from the Creator, can, by their very nature, ONLY accrue to individuals.

The Founding Father's didn't subscribe to the cults of libertarianism or anarchism.

Their posted statements stand unaddressed and unrefuted.

Whatta surprise.

658 posted on 04/10/2003 6:45:30 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Source

659 posted on 04/10/2003 6:53:23 PM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Oh, and, roscoe, bite me. You are refuted a thousand times over... go crawl back under your rock!
660 posted on 04/10/2003 6:54:39 PM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 621-640641-660661-680 ... 1,141-1,149 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson