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
See definition of subordinate govenment. Grow a brain.
The pro-gun group was the lead party in the challenge against City of Rochester's gun laws.
Poor, poor ignorant you.
How does that hot lead taste?
Back to begging the question already?
The City claims its authority to adopt this law resides in its police power, the power of local governments to adopt laws for the preservation of the health, safety and welfare of their citizens as well as for their protection and the maintenance of order. Such power is granted to the City by Article 9, section 2(c) (ii) (10) of the New York State Constitution, Municipal Home Rule Law, section 10, subdivision I(ii) (a) (11) and General City Law, section 20, subdivision 13. This power is limited only by the requirements that such local laws not be in conflict with the State Constitution nor inconsistent with the general laws of the State. These limitations are recognized by the City Charter, section 27(a), which empowers the Council to adopt this legislation. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the Gun Control Law in any way encroaches upon these limitations.It is true that where the State has evidenced any desire or design to occupy an entire field to the exclusion of local law, the City Is powerless to act. (Wholesale Laundry Board of Trade, Inc. v. City of New York, 17 A.D.2d 327, 330, 234 N.Y.S.2d 862, affd. 12 N.Y.2d 998, 239 N.Y.S.2d 128, 189 N.E.2d 623.) However, the fact that a local law may deal with some of the same matters covered by State law does not render the local law invalid. (People v. Lewis, 295 N.Y. 42, 64 N.E.2d 702.) Article 265 of the Penal Law, while it touches upon the possession of rifles or shotguns by persons under the age of sixteen years, aliens, convicted felons and adjudicated incompetents, does not treat so extensively with the subject of the control of such weapons as to evidence any design or intention by the State to preempt the entire field. The sole authority offered by plaintiffs in support of their contention of preemption (People on Complaint of Main v. Klufus, 1 Misc.2d 828, 149 N.Y.S.2d 821, affd. 2 A.D.2d 958, 157 N.Y.S.2d 903) does not support that proposition.
Grimm v. City of New York, 56 Misc.2d 525 (Sup.Ct. 1968)
Poor, poor you.
Despite their trying to twist the general welfare provision...
New York Civ. Rights Law Art. 2, § 4 provides: "[a] well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed."
Not being able to OWN a firearm, much less getting approval to carry one is an infringement via judicial activism. Both you and this judge must be using the same abbreviated dictionary for your definition of "infringed".
Jackass.
Nothing but pathetic question begging.
The regulations in question, which for all your shrieking you haven't even been able to quote, weren't judicial in origin and don't ban firearms ownership.
Poor you.
OK. Now try and go buy and register a gun in New York and see how far you get. The requirements to own a firearm impose a complete restriction as none accept those connected to power are allowed as the case which is at the beginning of this whole thing proves out. The judge upheld the law and expanded it beyond the legislatures delegated authority as pre the Constitutions of both New York State and the US Constitution both.
Spin it any way you like it. You are still wrong.
You obviously never get tired of being a moral degenerate. You would rather play infinite word games than allow a person to protect themselves by the most expedient means.
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.