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 ... 1,081-1,1001,101-1,1201,121-1,1401,141-1,149 next last
To: Dead Corpse
Federalist Tench Coxe, in a widely republished article, described what would become the Second Amendment this way:

Tench Coxe is commenting on the language and meaning of 2nd Amendment that hadn't been written? A remarkable conclusion from your uncited quote.

Nothing about a seperation of federal and state legislative powers there.

Our Constitution which created the federal government didn't even exist yet.

And of course, there's nothing in the quote to suggest that state regulations of firearms would be barred by the yet to be written or ratified 2nd Amendment.

Another shot directly into your foot.

1,101 posted on 04/21/2003 9:49:39 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1098 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
False.

Wrong. Too busy spewing to actually read your own "cites"?

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)

Muscarello v. United States involved a violation of Section 924(c)(1) of Title 18, United States Code; NOT a state law.

Poor you.

1,102 posted on 04/21/2003 9:57:15 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1100 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Tench Coxe is commenting on the language and meaning of 2nd Amendment that hadn't been written? A remarkable conclusion from your uncited quote.

You are right Roscoe. What was I thinking posting a qoute from a Founder on the reasoning behind having a Second Amendment and it's scope! Why, that would be like logic and facts and other stuff you don't want to hear.

1,103 posted on 04/21/2003 10:19:47 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1101 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Gotta get ALL the pertinent bits in there jackass...

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.

What a desperate idiot you are. You must like getting bitch slapped around like this.

1,104 posted on 04/21/2003 10:21:49 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1102 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Gotta get ALL the pertinent bits in there jackass... "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."

Nothing there "pertinent" to the assertion that state regulation of firearms is barred by the 2nd Amendment.

Beg on, brother!

1,105 posted on 04/21/2003 10:32:14 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1104 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
qoute from a Founder on the reasoning behind having a Second Amendment

The 2nd Amendment hadn't even been written when the comment was made, and it doesn't say anything about state regulation of firearms being barred.

Two swings, two misses, too predictable.

1,106 posted on 04/21/2003 10:35:06 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1103 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Beg on, brother!

Asserts individual Right jackass. If you are my brother, then Mom shoulda kept her legs crossed.

1,107 posted on 04/21/2003 10:37:28 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1105 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
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."
From the Emerson decision.

Sorry Roscoe. You lose again. Are you having trouble with the whole definition of inviolatable, unalienable, uninfringable Rights? How many f%cking ways does it need to be stated? State, Federal, even a King would not be able to take such an inherent Right away.

Of course, you have to admit that only if you are NOT a little Hitler tyrant wanna-be like yourself. Go away Nazi.

1,108 posted on 04/21/2003 10:44:31 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1106 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Are you having trouble with the whole definition of inviolatable, unalienable, uninfringable Rights?

Beg, beg, beg. Those terms aren't "defined" by Coxe as barring state regulations of firearms, and the terms don't even appear in the quote you posted.

Poor you.

1,109 posted on 04/21/2003 12:19:06 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1108 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Beg it yourself boy. You are the one who doesn't like direct quotations from those who argued and wrote into existance the very document our government runs by.

Go tell it DU where they will actually fall for your lies.

1,110 posted on 04/21/2003 12:37:07 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1109 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
direct quotations

None on point.

1,111 posted on 04/21/2003 12:47:18 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1110 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
None on point.

How you got that out of all the "unalienable Right" and "no free man shall be debarred the use of arms" is something only a Tibetan monk has the patience to contemplate.

You have still, after more than 1100 posts, not even come close to pointing out anything that gives any government the power to charge a person like in the lead article with a firearms possession crime.

Home owner.

In his home.

Openly carrying a firearm.

Legally purchased.

No criminal record on the home owners part.

The real criminal was INSIDE the mans house in his daughters room.

Not actively part of a State militia and therefore not subject to active militia regulation, even by your own sources and admission.

You remain sourceless, clueless, and brainless. Beg your idiot responses elsewhere.

1,112 posted on 04/21/2003 1:13:24 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1111 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
"no free man shall be debarred the use of arms"

He begged. Nothing about states, nothing about state regulation.

Poor you.

1,113 posted on 04/21/2003 2:28:45 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1112 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Plaintiffs not only seek to have this court declare the Gun Control Law unconstitutional without the requisite showing, but urge as a ground that the Gun Control Law violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. 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)

Poor, poor you.

1,114 posted on 04/21/2003 2:33:17 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1112 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Already refuted on numerous occassions Roscoe. Too bad you can't do better.
1,115 posted on 04/21/2003 3:18:50 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1114 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
You don't WANT to get it. You would rather play the petty tyrant and give your support to legislating from the bench. The Grimm decision you just posted CREATED authority to ban guns where it ADMITS there was no Constitutional authority to do so. More "penumbras" and "emanations" crap. The general welfare clause does not extend to negate other Rights secured to the people, boy. This is exactly the kind of bullsh!t being foisted on us by actvist judges that "We the People" are getting awefully damn tired of.

Don't be on the wrong side of that line when we finally have enough of your BS and break out the tar and feathers

1,116 posted on 04/21/2003 3:30:12 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1114 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Your reading assignment for tonight. You'll probably flunk anyway, but you may as well try.
1,117 posted on 04/21/2003 3:41:02 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1114 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Already refuted

Crying is refuting.

1,118 posted on 04/21/2003 6:37:13 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1115 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Similarly, New Hampshire ratified the Constitution but stated:

It is the Opinion of this Convention that certain amendments & alteration in the said Constitution would remove the fears and quiet the apprehensions of many of the good people of this State & more effectually guard against an undue Administration of the Federal Government--The Convention do therefore recommend that the (p.1030)following alterations & provisions be introduced into the said Constitution.

Twelfth Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.

Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot again. You should have read it first.
1,119 posted on 04/21/2003 6:41:41 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1117 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
States ratify the Amendments. Your much lauded "incorperation". Suck on the barrel before you pull the trigger next time.
1,120 posted on 04/21/2003 7:42:18 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,081-1,1001,101-1,1201,121-1,1401,141-1,149 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