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
Another miscitation. That isn't from the decision, that's from a dissent.
Whatever that means.
Harlan, in his dissent, misquoting Mr. Justice Jackson:
"There are limits to the extent to which a legislatively represented majority may conduct . . . experiments at the expense of the dignity and personality" of the individual.
Mr. Justice Jackson's actual words:
There are limits to the extent to which a legislatively represented majority may conduct biological experiments at the expense of the dignity and personality and natural powers of a minority -- even those who have been guilty of what the majority define as crimes.You guys love misquotes.
You skipped a paragraph jackass...
In what was to become the second amendment, the right to bear arms, Madison proposed a recognition of the rights of what we would call conscientious objectors: "no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." Today, we recognize the rights of conscientious objectors, but they have not received the explicit Constitutional protection that Madison desired.
Sorry. Sounds like even Conscientious objectors havea Right to Be Armed.
Blam! Right between your eyes!
Hands off my "natural powers", or to put it another way... RIGHTS, you gun-grabbing scumbucket.
Blam! Right between the eyes.
Those boundries of course being the active militia. We out here in the inactive militia are under no such arms restrictions so far as the usage is for personal defense and enjoyment.
Another proposal that failed to pass. See your Constitution, patch the holes in your feet.
And federal infringement would take away the ability of the towns, counties or districts of a state to determine how arms were to be regulated, directed and commanded by their laws, and for the support of their laws, so as not to demolish every state constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty could be enjoyed by no man.
"The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." -- US Supreme Court, U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
Of course, the invitation still stands to produce even a single cite or authority contending that state regulation of firearms is barred by the 2nd Amendment.
Are you Dead Corpse?
Who is supposedly performing "biological experiments" on gun owners? Is this some brand new crackpot theory?
Neither said anything about state regulations of firearms being barred by the 2nd Amendment.
BTW, I noticed that you finally correctly noted that Harlan's remarks came from a dissent. Congratutlations on the step, albeit a small one, in the direction of honesty.
He's the one who embraced Harlan's misquotion of Justice Jackson.
Protected against what? Supreme Court hasn't even said that abortion can't be regulated or that abortionists may commit their acts unlicensed.
Life, liberty, and property [firearms are fundamentaly guaranteed property] are protected by the 14th, as Bingham noted:
And he did NOT say that state regulation of firearms violated such 14th Amendment "protections."
Begging ain't sources.
Protected against what?
Being violated by states, of course.
-----------------------------
Life, liberty, and property [firearms are fundamentaly guaranteed property] are protected by the 14th, as Bingham noted:
"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."
And he did NOT say that state regulation of firearms violated such 14th Amendment "protections."
Southern states at the time were violating the RKBA's of ex-slaves.
- Now, all states [except Vermont?], are violating our RKBA's, in one 'regulation' or another, as you well know.
And he doesn't say anything about state regulation of firearms doing that, your tail chasing notwithstanding.
Southern states at the time were violating the RKBA's of ex-slaves.
By an unequal application of the law on the basis of race. Your non sequitur fell flat, went splat.
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.