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
None supportive of their outlandish claims.
Due to it being to close to being a religious test that is expressly forbidden. Once that was dropped, it passed.
Check your history. Read a book.
Only in regards to the militia you f%cking moron. How many times does it have to be stated that the Founders believed it to be an inalienable Right that NO GOVERNMENT could touch. Go back and re-read the thread for sources.
You are unbelievable...
No. I am Dead Corpse.
If you can't even keep that straight, you have REALLY got some problems and are beyond help.
If a misqoute it was, it was from YOUR source. As stated before, if you are going to quibble over your own sources.... you should find better sources. Also, stop qouting Presser as it does not support your contention.
Infringement from idiot tyrant wanna-be's like you who feel that some freedoms are not good for the little people to have.
You are so like Clinton in that regard. "Radical amount of Freedom" and all that. You also seem to feel no shame over your lies and attempted deceptions.
And you could only wish you had either. Go away gun-grabbing racist pig.
You mean your outlandish claims.
Sticking your fingers in yours ears and chanting the Brady Mantra won't make your lame attempts at argumentation any more valid Roscoe.
Even ONE statement from a decision or authority holding that the 2nd Amendment was intended to bar state regulation would be a start.
Poor you.
Another question begging falsehood. Naturally.
Go back and re-read the last thousand posts moron. Qoutes from the Founders, the Constitution, State Constitutions, and even some of the court decisions you have tried to use. They all point out an individual Right. Only the Active Militia being subject to regulation.
How many more times do we have to PROVE it Roscoe? Even in your advanced state of exclusive denial some of this should be sinking in for you. The only other way you could NOT see it is if you really are just another Troll with an anti-US agenda. If the later, you really are over-due for a good solid BANNING as what you are doing violates the terms of use Mr. Robinson has set forth for his website.
So you advocate religious tests as well? You really do have a screw loose.
I read all of your failures the first time.
My failures? They were not my words. But those of the people who wrote the Constitution by which our nation is designed to run.
You "collective Rights" types would make it so that NO ONE has any Rights left to claim. You are despicable.
We conclude that the phrase "bear arms" refers generally to the carrying or wearing of arms. It is certainly proper to use the phrase in reference to the carrying or wearing of arms by a soldier or militiaman; thus, the context in which "bear arms" appears may indicate that it refers to a military situation, e.g. the conscientious objector clauses cited by amici supporting the government. However, amici's argument that "bear arms" was exclusively, or even usually, used to only refer to the carrying or wearing of arms by a soldier or militiaman must be rejected.(30) The appearance of "bear Arms" in the Second Amendment accords fully with the plain meaning of the subject of the substantive guarantee, "the people," and offers no support for the proposition that the Second Amendment applies only during periods of actual military service or only to those who are members of a select militia. Finally, our view of "bear arms" as used in the Second Amendment appears to be the same as that expressed in the dissenting opinion of Justice Ginsburg (joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Souter) in Muscarello v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 1921 (1998); viz:
Run away little boy.
Federalist Tench Coxe, in a widely republished article, described what would become the Second Amendment this way:
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people, duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which shall be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Nothing about a seperation of federal and state legislative powers there. Only assertion of an individual Right.
Take your "collective Rights" view and shove it.
Poor you, still looking for your first supporting citation.
False. You are a troll and a liar.
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.