Dad who pluggedprowler spurns deal

New York Daily News ^ | 4/08/03 | NANCIE L. KATZ

[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

[sandym1313]

Just out of curiousity, what was he to do with the gun he already had while NY was processing the paperwork????

[Cachelot]

The consensus of opinion here is that if an individual doesn't like the law

Actually, a law violating the Constitution really is no law, as others on this thread have pointed out. And the NY gun law would seem to be not only in violation of 2A, but in blatant violation. 2A is so crystal clear that there's really no "interpretation" necessary or even possible. It's an unspinnable object, although I have no doubt you'll try your best.

So, who is violating the law? The gunowners? Or the State of NY?

[sauropod]

Sorry. It was DtE that asked you to buy him a ticket.

Other than that, my post stands.

[demosthenes the elder]

sure he does - he can get off the plane and take Amtrak < /sarcasm >

As a serious reply:
Does such a person have a "right" to insist (that IS what you meant, isn't it?) that *I* not be allowed to exercise my 2ndAm rights while we are both in the checkout line at a supermarket? Yes. Get his whimsy enforced by government mandate? No.

Does such a person have a "right" to insist that *I* not be allowed to exercise my 2ndAm rights while we are both on a bus stuck in traffic on the 285 loop around Atlanta? Yes. Get his whimsy enforced by government mandate? No.

Does such a person have a "right" to insist that *I* not be allowed to exercise my 2ndAm rights while we are both sitting at the counter at a Waffle House? Yes. Get his whimsy enforced by government mandate? No.

That someone has butter for guts is insufficient cause to unleash the government upon my legal exercise of my Constitutional Rights as a citizen of this Republic.

Does this help to clarify the issue for you?

[hattend]

Doesn't the 14th Amendment protect the people from the States?

Amendment 14, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Why, yes it does! But then it'll be interpreted as a relic of the civil war and since there are no more slaves the 14th is irrelevent. The Constitution is a living and breathing document, don'cha know. < /sarcasm>

[Centurion2000]

injustice *IS* the law of the land

Bears repeating.

[Zon]

What is a JBT?

Jack booted thug. (It's embarrassing to be telling that to a five year veteran Freeper.)

[stuartcr]

Actually, I don't know the guy, as he is fictitious. I'm just thinking that in his mind, he may not know that you are a fine, upstanding freeper. He may think that you got all your papers from the same guy that gave the terrorists their papers. He may even think that you are a terrorist!! Oh, and I forgot to mention that he may have lost an arm and a leg in VietNam, and can't protect himself, or he could be an 85yr old granny.

[demosthenes the elder]

Thanks for the support, 'Pod, but there is no need.
The Sergeant and I have come to an understanding of sorts, and the issue can be considered a dead one.

[stuartcr]

But he already bought a ticket, which can't be returned.

[Centurion2000]

He knew what NYS gun laws were and he chose to violate them by bringing a handgun into the state without a permit

Common citizens can figure out that the 2nd Amendment trumps state law. We're jsut waiting for the Supreme Court to figure that one out.

[sauropod]

Well, i was having a senior moment ;-).

[stuartcr]

It doesn't really clarify the issue, but it does help in my understanding of you. Thanks.

[SgtofMarines]

I have no need for your slack. Let me have it - so long as it's rational and has bearing on the subject at hand.

I did not dare anyone to "break" an unconstitutional law. I did point out that I personally would not consider any such arguments unless the claimant had had already done so. I indicated that I would accept his offer, provided that I felt he was serious in this regard. At this point in time, I do not. That may change in the future.

[sauropod]

De nada.

[sauropod]

All those "emanations and penumbras" tend to result in more and more unconstitutional laws. Man, talk about equal protection.....

[JimRed]

But he had illegal possession of a handgun. That is the true basis of the charge as I see it. If he had used a registered hand gun, this argument would likely be academic.

He had taken the legal steps to register the gun as required. Is it his fault that the bureaucrats took their sweet time processing his paperwork?

[Zon]

Whew! I knew there must have been a logical reason ;-)

[SgtofMarines]

I admire your good sense. Please do not think that I doubt your sincerity of intent. If all the proper channels were in place, I would certainly reconsider my retraction of the offer.

[demosthenes the elder]

...but it does help in my understanding of you

As that is something ever to be lauded, you are abundantly welcome :)