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

[Dan from Michigan]

I have always had a hard time understanding the mindset of Yankees when it comes to self-defense

Hey! Not all Yankess are like Brooklyn on Self-Defense!

[mil-vet]

Your are, of course, technically and in actuality, dead-on accurate - it sure is frustrating, though, especially in the context of some of the posts regarding "Stupid laws should be disregarded. Unconstitutional laws should be broken."

This last, with which I viscerally agree, would seem to be an open invitation to the authorities to arrest those who actively follow this line of thought, but as another post noted, carrying a gun is an "inalienable" right, constitutionally guaranteed, which "shall not be infringed" - OK, then, now what?

I'm not meaning to argue!! I'm simply confused - one of the reasons I live in Texas is that I don't have to BE confused about this issue here! IT seems "obvious to the most casual observer" (as some of my most heinous college textbooks used to tell me "back in the day" - LOL) that NY is unconstitutional. So what is the "law of the land" vs the "law of the state"? The "state" isn't the "land"?

Clearly, I could never be a lawyer - ROTFLOL!

Regarding "ways to own a gun legally" in NY, if I understand correctly(??), he had just moved up from Florida and had started the legal ownership process, paid the money, etc., but was waiting on NY to get the paperwork done. OK, so while he's waiting, he's not allowed to defend his family or himself? I'm back to "Makes perfect sense to me!" - LOL

[mil-vet]

It is inalienable

Right (pun intended)! This is one of the reasons I live in Texas, a state where I don't have to be confused about being "allowed" to exercise that "right"!

Meanwhile, it would seem clear that NY is unconstitutional if it, as a state in this union supposedly UNDER said constitution, does not allow one, or infringes one's right, to use a gun for familial or personal defense (or to simply own a gun)! Right? (that pun again - LOL). "Infinge" would seem to me to include having to have ANY kind of license to own anything which is constitutionally guaranteed.....

Besides, had the man in question not started the (unconstitutional?) state-mandated process to make his gun "legal" in NY? So, one is not allowed to protect one's family "until the paperwork comes through"? That's sadly FAR worse than waiting on a 911 operator (DUH)! I guess I'll NEVER understand - it seems like such simple common sense!

[Roscoe]

You don't like the US Constitution as a source?

It isn't a source for the baseless assertion that state and local firearms regulations violate the 2nd Amendment, regardless of how many times you beg the question.

To review:

"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), Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

The invitation still stands though. If you ever manage to find even one source or authority for your opinion, please post it.

[Roscoe]

Fake cite, actually.

[ninenot]

It WAS simple and commonsense until 1) we allowed lawyers into the country; and 2) the lawyers went into politics.

More seriously, (and apparently with fellows like Roscoe in mind) Wisconsin recently approved a Wisconsin constitutional amendment allowing possession of weapons 'for any legal purpose.' With this amendment handy, there are two items now on the table: 1) a "shall-issue" law is about to be introduced in our Legislature, with the probability of passage. Our Governor will veto it, but he will most likely be overriden. Thus we shall have concealed carry in Wisconsin about a year from now. 2)There is an interesting case making its way through appeals in WIsconsin. An individual was tagged for carrying a concealed weapon. Said individual was a small-time crook. But his lawyer argues that the arrest for 'concealed' violated the defendant's rights under the WIsconsin amendment cited above.

It is possible that the Wisconsin Supremes will void the law under which the defendant was charged, thus "by fiat" allowing concealed carry.

If there are any jobs in Texas, you can expect a fair amount of migration from here to there, soon.

[tpaine]

The invitation still stands though. If you ever manage to find even one source or authority for your opinion, please post it
-roscoe- lies

      --- the question of whether citizens of the United States have an immunity to state firearms laws, produce even one authority for your position.
-roscoe-


   "In its discussion of the scope of "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment the Court stated:
Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of the States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S. Const., Amend. 9.
As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

     "[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion;

>the right to keep and bear arms;<
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.  It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."
Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 543, 81 S.Ct., at 1777

[Walnut]

they should give him a medal

[dcwusmc]

If you really are a Non-Commissioned Officer in MY Marine Corps, I suggest you go back and READ the Constitution to which you swore an oath to protect and defend. You are WAY out of line here. Not so much as AllA$$hole or Hodar, but a Marine should KNOW better than that! Get your head out of your butt and get with the program!

SF
DC Wright
SSgt Retired

[dcwusmc]

If the Constitution is mute on a topic, it means that whatever the topic is, is OFF LIMITS TO FEDGOV. Read the 10th Amendment with comprehension. Some things, such as victim disarmament or ANY other violation of the equal rights of ALL, are equally off limits to the States, as well.

[dcwusmc]

See post 590. There never was a need for FEDERAL intrusion into aviation except for the lure of more power and control. Nor is there REALLY any Constitutional underpinning for it, ICC notwithstanding... but you'll never sell it to control freaks who seem to say that if the Constitution does not FORBID FedGov from doing something, then it's open season... sadly for you and yours the OPPOSITE is true... If a power is NOT SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED, then FedGov MAY NOT assume it. Often the States may not, either...

[dcwusmc]

I may have been hasty in my previous reply to you. If so, as determined by your sole opinion, I extend my apologies... and a BIGGER Semper Fi!

[toothless]

"Read the 10th Amendment with comprehension."

The 9th and 10th amendments dont mean anything. They were only put in place to make it a round 10.

Please cite your authority that they actually mean what they say.

[/roscoe i.e. liberal voice]

[gdc61]

if your trying to say a state regulation on firearms doesn't infringe on the federal restriction on itself to regulate firearms you are wrong and your statement is refuted.

[gdc61]

and the 2nd statement says nothing about weapons, only groups not authorized by the state . your just a nazi in drag, what did they call saddams jack booted thugs?...... fedayeen sounds like your kinda people Al roscoe.

[gdc61]

"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), Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 1886) .......... is this the first case of a LIBERAL court writing new law instead of ajudicating, as is THEIR constitutional duty? and do you approve of a court writing law instead of implementing it? did you stand by the florida supreme courts rulings during the elections of 2000? go crawl back in your paramilitary sleeping bag and suffocate.

[dcwusmc]

Figures you're a liar lawyer. I'm a simple old mud Marine who knows how to read. The first clause is subordinate, which means that the Amendment does not need it to stand alone. So why include it? My guess is it was meant as a WARNING to Government as well as a boon. But no matter... the part which says "...[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is fully capable of standing on its own.

Another factoid... the militia is, by custom and LAW, the whole body of the people. Broken down by age, but look it up. The unorganized Militia was called to duty on 9-11, when Todd Beamer said, "Let's roll."

With respect to the last part of your argument, to the State, of COURSE there's a compelling arguement for restricting and denying someone's INHERENT, GOD-GiVEN (and not GRANTED by the CONSTITUTION, merely RECOGNIZED by it) RIGHT to self defense: The STATE is part of the GROWTH INDUSTRY OF GOVERNMENT and anything which would slow it down is to be avoided like the plague... However, there are ZERO LEGITIMATE reasons for infringement of the right to keep and bear arms... And the SOLE reason for any government flunky to know what firearms I have is if I were ISSUED ONE by that flunky... and that is the ONLY ONE he has any business knowing about. Whether or not I carry, openly or concealed, is MY business... where I carry is my business... for I would not patronize any business which wanted me disarmed. I would respect their property rights and keep my dirty money in MY wallet.

Oh... and you should RUN, not walk, to a different profession. You do your clients a grave disservice, even a malpractice, with such an attitude.

[TEXASPROUD]

Dan you're so right, and you are the last person in the world that I would imply that against. I should have said Liberal. I got some good guy gun toting friends in Michigan that would take offense, so I concur wholeheartedly with your statement.

[Roscoe]

writing new law

Backwards. Following old, well established and universally understood law.

But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the constitution of the United States, was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments.

." -- U.S. Supreme Court, Barron v. Baltimore 7 Pet. 243 918330

[Roscoe]

if your trying to say a state regulation on firearms doesn't infringe on the federal restriction on itself to regulate firearms you are wrong and your statement is refuted.

Sans refutation.