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

[Roscoe]

Presser dumbass. They used it as certiori.

Certiorari?

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 (1968)

And you still haven't found a single decision or authority to support the assertion that state firearms regulations violate the 2nd Amendment.

How long do you need?

[Dead Corpse]

And you still haven't found a single decision or authority to support the assertion that state firearms regulations violate the 2nd Amendment.
How long do you need?

The Constitution pretty much speaks for itself. All you have to do is take your fingers out of your ears.

[Roscoe]

The Constitution pretty much speaks for itself.

Begging the question pretty much speaks for itself.

[Dead Corpse]

It isn't begging when the answer to the same inane questions you posit are already in the body of the thread. Posting them repeatively doesn't seem to be able to dent that Brady Bunch Brainwashing you recieved.

[FSPress]

BTTT

[tpaine]

Or our silly roscoe could take the blinders off his eyes and recognise Justice Harlan as an 'authority':

           In its discussion of the scope of "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment the Court stated:

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of the States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects.
See U.S. Const., Amend. 9.

As the second Justice Harlan recognized:
     "[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion;

> the right to keep and bear arms;<

the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.  It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."

Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 543, 81 S.Ct., at 1777

[Dead Corpse]

But... those blinder he wears are SUCH a fashion statement!

[tpaine]

Blue rims, perhaps?
His hero wore blue, if rumor is correct.

[Dead Corpse]

All right. You lost me there. Entirely too many referents attatched to the color blue. We've got blue dresses, powder blue polyester pant suits, G-Man blue, the Boys in Blue, Blue Hawaiin, the Thin Blue Line.

To be perfectly honest, the first thing that popped into my mind was Rosce strutting around the office after hours in sky blue pumps. Damn near scared me out of a full days worth of growth.

[tpaine]

A long gone freep creep wore blue framed glasses to the DC March. He was a hero to many still here.

[Roscoe]

He gave you a fake citation. In addition to being unsupportive for the false and ignorant assertion that the 2nd Amendment restricts state regulations, the sentence fragment is from a dissent.

Sorry if he got your hopes up.

[gdc61]

prove it

[gdc61]

no sources as usual

[Jonez712]

Yeah, I'll make one as soon as I'm out of college, and then shoot fire out of it when it's not loaded. ;)

But yes, my dad is right, especially since we don't want to (a) start a fire in my backyard, or (b) blow one of my limbs off.

[Roscoe]

Again?

"Besides this, citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage." -- United States Supreme Court, MINOR v. HAPPERSETT 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

[Roscoe]

no sources as usual

This is too easy.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/poe.html

[gdc61]

only because your like a monkey smearing poo on himself ........your source is as follows? to.......... "prohibit the use of contraceptive devices and the giving of medical advice in the use of such devices"............... the ease is in your disability of keeping track of the subject.

[Dead Corpse]

He gave you a fake citation. In addition to being unsupportive for the false and ignorant assertion that the 2nd Amendment restricts state regulations, the sentence fragment is from a dissent.

What is unsupportive Roscoe? Direct language from the Constitution? Court cases that don't mean what you are trying to get them to mean? Direct qoutations from some of the Founding Fathers that RKBA is an individual Right that no governing body in the US has the legal power to restrict?

The part where your argument falls apart is that you are trying to apply the Constitutional provision for government control, namely at the State level, of the ACTIVE militia, to all of us floating around out here as members of the INACTIVE militia. Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way.

And none of your quotations from racist judges trying to keep minorities in their place will change that.

[Dead Corpse]

999

[Dead Corpse]

1000