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 ... 1,021-1,0401,041-1,0601,061-1,080 ... 1,141-1,149 next last
To: Roscoe
No, that was tpaine's alleged source, which was shown to be a mis-citation. Try to keep up.

Still slipping Roscoe. You posted a link in #996. I qouted from it in #1001. You came back that the source was faulty.

You are in error. Big suprize.

1,041 posted on 04/18/2003 6:19:12 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1036 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Stunning ignorance.

Yes. And yet you continue to be able to post here. How remarkable.

How about posting the part of Presser where the former ruling, using the logic in the qoute you have selectively nabbed, is over-turned?

Oops. Chalk another one up for Roscoe's piss poor attempt at cogent thought.

1,042 posted on 04/18/2003 6:21:47 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1037 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Exactly so. The federal government has an explicit right to call forth the militia.

Hey!!! Looky here! Roscoe got one right!!! The government also has the right to give the militia their marching orders and to discipline them. This, however, only pertains to the ACTIVE militia. Not the bulk of us sitting out here in the INACTIVE militia.

In the inactive militia, we have a Right to Keep and Bear Arms for our own defense and that of our property. If we are ever called up to be an active militia, then we are expected to bring those arms with us. No state or federal government has a Constitutionally legal standing to restrict or regulate a militiamens carrying and owning of arms UNTIL they are called up actively.

It's all very clear in the writings of the Founders and in the Constitution itself. If you would have us be "regulated" as "active militia", then where is my paycheck, retro-active to my 18th birthday, and where the heck is the rest of my unit?

1,043 posted on 04/18/2003 6:28:36 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1040 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
I qouted from it in #1001.

A misquotation, taken from the dissent. You've posted a lot of those in this thread.

1,044 posted on 04/18/2003 9:00:45 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1041 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
How about posting the part of Presser where the former ruling, using the logic in the qoute you have selectively nabbed, is over-turned?

The historical facts noted in Presser regarding the 2nd Amendment have never been "overturned" and the amendment has never been "incorporated." That's why your attempts to produce even a single authority asserting that the 2nd Amendment bars state regulations of firearms have been such a complete failure. Zero sources to date.

1,045 posted on 04/18/2003 9:06:10 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1042 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
This, however, only pertains to the ACTIVE militia.

And as noted in Presser, if a state were to disarm its entire population, the federal goverment would be denied its "rightful resource for maintaining the public security". Again, nothing about state regulation of firearms.

Another swing and a miss.

1,046 posted on 04/18/2003 9:11:23 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1043 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
"The historical facts " in Presses as presented by the prosecution who the Judge ruled to be in error and overturned it.

You can say that the moon was made of green cheese up until 1962. That will not make it a "fact". You cannot disprove the Founders own words on RKBA. Nor can you disprove the clear language of the Constitution.

All you can do is spin and lie.

1,047 posted on 04/18/2003 11:33:18 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1045 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
From post #1033 above... straight from a government webpage: A bill of rights had been barely mentioned in the Philadelphia convention, most delegates holding that the fundamental rights of individuals had been secured in the state constitutions. James Wilson maintained that a bill of rights was superfluous because all power not expressly delegated to the new government was reserved to the people. It was clear, however, that in this argument the anti-Federalists held the upper hand. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new government, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was "what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."

Sorry Roscoe, the BOR restricts the States as well despite your whining and that of racist Klansmen judges.

1,048 posted on 04/18/2003 11:36:55 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1046 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
[The historical facts noted in Presser regarding the 2nd Amendment have never been "overturned"]

The historical facts " in Presses as presented by the prosecution who the Judge ruled to be in error and overturned it.

The historical facts noted in Presser regarding the 2nd Amendment have never been "overturned", question beggar.

1,049 posted on 04/18/2003 1:59:52 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1047 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new government, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was "what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."

And Madison's proposal to the 1st Congress to include provisions in the proposed Bill of Rights that would be applicable to the states was voted down.

1,050 posted on 04/18/2003 2:08:18 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1048 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
While we're waiting for you to produce even one authority contending that the 2nd Amendment bars state firearms regulation:
"The first ten amendments are intended to protect the individual against tyrannical action on the part of the national government." -- Thomas M. Cooley, The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/tmc/pcl.htm


1,051 posted on 04/18/2003 2:17:14 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1048 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
The historical facts noted in Presser regarding the 2nd Amendment have never been "overturned", question beggar.

The prosecution lied. Regurgitating those lies will not make you any more correct Roscoe. The judge overturned the previous ruling. Get over it.

1,052 posted on 04/18/2003 2:37:27 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1049 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
And Madison's proposal to the 1st Congress to include provisions in the proposed Bill of Rights that would be applicable to the states was voted down.

I'l ignore the fact that you didn't bother to post a source begger-boy to say this:

...and at first it was deemed by one side the FedGov would be a tyrant while the other side worried that individual Rights would be trampled at the State level. that is why they applied the BOR to the States... to prevent assholes like you from advocating EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!!

Read a f%cking book will you? Something NOT published by Bellisilles would be good.

1,053 posted on 04/18/2003 2:40:29 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1050 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Moron. From the same page...

They constitute limitations, therefore, upon the power of the Federal government only. The exceptions to this general statement are only of those few cases in which the States are named, and the exercise of certain powers by them expressly prohibited. For example, when the Constitution, in Art. I. § 9, declares that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed," it is still necessary, in order to extend the prohibition to the States, to provide, as is done in the next section, that "no State" shall pass such a bill or law. To state the rule of construction concisely, it is this. The restrictions imposed upon government by the Constitution and its amendments are to be understood as restrictions only upon the government of the Union, except where the States are expressly mentioned.[18:1]

Also...

Constitution. — The term constitution may be defined as the body of rules and maxims in accordance with which the powers of sovereignty are habitually exercised.[3] A constitution is valuable in proportion as it is suited to the circumstances, desires, and aspirations of the people, and as it contains within itself the elements of stability, permanence, and security against disorder and revolution. Although every state may be said in some sense to have a constitution, the term constitutional government is only applied to those whose fundamental rules or maxims not only define how those shall be chosen or designated to whom the exercise of sovereign powers shall be confided, but also impose efficient restraints on the exercise for the purpose of protecting individual rights and privileges, and shielding them against any assumption of arbitrary power.[4] The number of such governments is not as yet great, but is increasing.

"Supreme Law of the Land" starting to sink in for you? Not like a communist like you gives a sh!t. One of these days you may put together an argument that even you will find as stupid as we do these others of yours.

1,054 posted on 04/18/2003 3:52:11 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1051 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
you didn't bother to post a source

False, of course. From post #621 in this thread:

Madison also proposed three restrictions on the states: "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." It is interesting to speculate that Madison may have considered these three the most critical rights. These restrictions were not approved by Congress, and thus the Bill of Rights in its original intent was to restrict only the federal government.

http://www.jmu.edu/madison/madprobll.htm

Poor you.

1,055 posted on 04/18/2003 6:46:49 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1053 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
[The historical facts noted in Presser regarding the 2nd Amendment have never been "overturned", question beggar.]

The prosecution lied. Regurgitating those lies will not make you any more correct Roscoe. The judge overturned the previous ruling.

The historical facts noted in Presser regarding the 2nd Amendment have never been "overturned", your quoteless, sourceless question begging notwithstanding.

1,056 posted on 04/18/2003 6:49:14 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1052 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
The exceptions to this general statement are only of those few cases in which the States are named, and the exercise of certain powers by them expressly prohibited.

Blam! Shot yourself in the foot again.

1,057 posted on 04/18/2003 6:50:40 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1054 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
That was a direct copy/paste from the link you provided in post #996.
The link provided to establish that tpaine's miscited quote came from a dissent, not the Poe decision.
Naturally, you ran right to the dissent, found a misquotation and embraced it as something you agreed with. You're a magnet for false quotes.

1,014 -roscoe- outright lies yet again.

The quote was not 'miscited'.
The quote was not 'misquoted' as a dissent.
It is not 'false'.
Roscoe is proven as a raving looney.
1,058 posted on 04/18/2003 9:04:13 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1014 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
The historical facts noted in Presser regarding the 2nd Amendment have never been "overturned"

No need. They are not constitutional, & never were.

and the amendment has never been "incorporated."

No need. Incorporation is a judical fiction. See the supremacy clause.

That's why your attempts to produce even a single authority asserting that the 2nd Amendment bars state regulations of firearms --- bla bla --.

No one here has so asserted. - States can reasonably 'regulate' firearms within constitutional bounds.

Give it up roscoe. You are fighting your own constitutional rights, and acting like a fool in the process

1,059 posted on 04/18/2003 9:25:20 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1045 | View Replies]

APPENDIX.
The legislative origin of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment seems to have been in the Joint Committee on Reconstruction.
When, on February 26, the proposed amendment came up for debate, Mr. Bingham stated that "by order . . . of the committee . . . I propose the adoption of this amendment." In support of it he said:
". . . the amendment proposed stands in the very words of the Constitution of the United States as it came to us from the hands of its illustrious framers. Every word of the proposed amendment is to-day in the Constitution of our country, save the words conferring the express grant of power upon the Congress of the United States. The residue of the resolution, as the House will see by a reference to the Constitution, is the language of the second section of the fourth article, and of a portion of the fifth amendment adopted by the First Congress in 1789, and made part of the Constitution of the country. . . .
Opposition speakers emphasized that the Amendment would destroy state's rights and empower Congress to legislate on matters of purely local concern. Some took the position that the Amendment was unnecessary because the Bill of Rights were already secured against state violation.  Mr. Bingham joined issue on this contention:
"The gentleman seemed to think that all persons could have remedies for all violations of their rights of 'life, liberty, and property' in the Federal courts.
"I ventured to ask him yesterday when any action of that sort was ever maintained in any of the Federal courts of the United States to redress the great wrong which has been practiced, and which is being practiced now in more States than one of the Union under the authority of State laws, denying to citizens therein equal protection or any protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property.. . . .
". . . A gentleman on the other side interrupted me and wanted to know if I could cite a decision showing that the power of the Federal Government to enforce in the United States courts the bill of rights under the articles of amendment to the Constitution had been denied. I answered that I was prepared to introduce such decisions; and that is exactly what makes plain the necessity of adopting this amendment.
"Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that this very provision of the bill of rights brought in question this day, upon this trial before the House, more than any other provision of the Constitution, makes that unity of government which constitutes us one people, by which and through which American nationality came to be, and only by the enforcement of which can American nationality continue to be..."What more could have been added to that instrument to secure the enforcement of these provisions of the bill of rights in every State, other than the additional grant of power which we ask this day? . . .
As one important writer on the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment has observed, "Bingham's speech in defense and advocacy of his amendment comprehends practically everything that was said in the press or on the floor of the House in favor of the resolution . . . ."
In introducing the proposed Amendment to the House on May 8, 1866, Mr. Stevens speaking for the Committee said:
"The first section [of the proposed amendment] prohibits the States from abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or unlawfully depriving them of life, liberty, or property, or of denying to any person within their jurisdiction the 'equal' protection of the laws.
"I can hardly believe that any person can be found who will not admit that every one of these provisions is just. They are all asserted, in some form or other, in our DECLARATION or organic law. But the Constitution limits only the action of Congress, and is not a limitation on the States. This amendment supplies that defect, and allows Congress to correct the unjust legislation of the States, so far that the law which operates upon one man shall operate equally upon all."
[Additional remarks by Rep. Bingham:]
"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be -- for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature -- to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.
"Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizens solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or prohibition upon State legislation. States are not affected by them, and it has been repeatedly held that the restriction contained in the Constitution against the taking of private property for public use without just compensation is not a restriction upon State legislation, but applies only to the legislation of Congress.
"Now, sir, there is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guarantees. They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress, and of course do not come within the sweeping clause of the Constitution authorizing Congress to pass all laws necessary and proper for carrying out the foregoing or granted powers, but they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress to give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them except by their own local constitutions,  which may be altered from year to year. The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.

From Adamson v California
1947
__________________________________


Great explanation of how the 14th needs no 'incorporation'.

Thanks roscoe.
1,060 posted on 04/18/2003 10:17:27 PM PDT by tpaine (Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1059 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,021-1,0401,041-1,0601,061-1,080 ... 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