Dad who pluggedprowler spurns deal

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

[sauropod]

I would think that a law requiring "registration" of firearms would be unconstitutional.

The DA needs to be removed. 'Pod

[RogueIsland]

The burgler was just tying to make a living

You laugh, but the basis of a suit against Tony Martin in England is that one of the thugs he shot can "no longer earn a living". Of course, he earned a living as a criminal thug, but that's no matter.

[eno_]

Welcome to FR.

We don't care much for unconstitutional laws here.

Bet then again, if you think the direction of our IP laws actually is to the benefit of the useful arts, you might take a little time to get "shall not be infringed."

[sauropod]

I assure you. Its not even worth that.

Go back and read the 2nd Amendment. And take your Pharasaical attitude with you when you do.

[Zon]

Exactly. It is that which needs to be exposed far and wide. That there are criminals in government hiding behind the laws they created wherein a couple thousand politicians and bureaucrats cause far more harm and suffering to people and their property than all petty criminals combined. Causing that pin and suffering while feigning compassion to protect the people. They are the most despicable criminal fraudsters walking Earth.

[NYFriend]

Not exactly. The DA's been looking to deal. That fell through, so he's been talking about reducing the charges to a level that no longer warrants a jury trial under the law. He's afraif a jury will let Dixon walk, but thinks a judge will sentence him.

In regards to breaking a law that's unjust, everyone today (+/-), agrees that Rosa Parks did the right thing by violating the give up your bus seat law. Never mind that she was a plant, and Dixon was actually protecing his family. Sometimes someone has to break an unjust law. (In some cases, I wish I had the certainty and courage to do so.) Then it's up to our courts to decide if the law is right or the individula is right. Sometimes the court can't make that call and they flip it back to the legislature. The point is, someone has to test it. If they are wrong, they are stuck.

[sauropod]

Precisely.

[Wonder Warthog]

"He could, for example, declare that ALL New York State drivers' licences are invalid within the borders of the State of Florida until such a time as the State of New York decides to honor Florida gun licenses."

Boy that WOULD get New Yorks attention. The "snow-bird" contingent is exactly the one with money and clout. I LIKE IT!!!

[Iron Eagle]

TWELVE POSTS BEFORE SOMEONE MAKES SENSE! I love the anti-lawyer people who take no note that the gentleman is represented by counsel that would not let him take the deal.

You intelligent reply, I fear, will not be met with all smiles.

[RogueIsland]

If I remember correctly he did have a license for the gun in Florida

You don't need any license to own a gun in Florida. You need a CCW if you want to carry concealed, that's all.

[toothless]

Lick that jackboot.

[eno_]

For enforcing the law? Are you asking me why the DA and his family shouldn't be run out of town because he enforced the law?

Yes. Exactly. It's an unconstitutional law. The DA is violating his oath of office. Government thugs that hold the letter of the law above their oaths deserve far worse. But my point is that civil disobedience that makes JBTs lives unlivable is a GOOD THING because it shows that unconstitutional laws can be defeated without resorting to insurrection.

[Zon]

But what we are talking about is the homeowner having been caught with a handgun that he owned in violation of the law. Care to explain?

Had Ronald Dixon abided the unconstitutional law his home would have been burglarized and possibly his family harmed. The government violated the constitution. Just becasue

When a person gets a piece of paper saying they are employed by the government that doesn't magically give the person a right to initiate force, threat of force or fraud against people. In common sense and natural law it is a crime to initiate force, threat of force or fraud against any person. 48

I think you're way over your head.

You have made it known that you don't deny you're a proponent of government initiating harm and suffering against persons that are minding their own business.

[mywholebodyisaweapon]

But is the judiciary the just arbiter of the constitution? The Supreme Court itself established judicial review. Is it possible that we are seeing a new jurisprudence in which this power is being extended to other constituencies?

Please don't take this as a cheap shot, but what about the American Colonists? George III was the constituted authority when they revolted, after all. In my rather narrow view, the second amendment exists primarily to perpetuate the threat of another revolution to discourage tyranny. If that is the case, then the courts have greatly erred in their interpretations of the constitution.

[demosthenes the elder]

Please feel free to contact the "snow bird" contingent (who are they?) and let them know of this proposition. I have been thinking of this for a long while... after a little trouble the State of Massachussetts caused me on a business trip.
I was summoned to Mass. on business. A good friend from college lived in Boston, and we were planning to go to the (only public-access) gunrange (I was able to find in the whole State) while I was there. Naturally, I would have preferred to bring my own weapons. I managed to clear this with Delta (this was pre-9/11) by making a deal: I would be permitted to carry them in carry-on baggage so long as they were FULLY disassembled with components in labelled clear plastic bags and I carried no assembly tools nor ammunition in my carry-on bags, and LE on both sides of the flight were given advanced notice. Seemed a reasonable compromise, one I happily accepted. However, I was informed by the State of Mass. that I would be arrested on arrival at the Logan Airport if I did this.
This hassle annoyed me, and I have been pondering license reciprocity ever since.

[demosthenes the elder]

In my rather narrow view, the second amendment exists primarily to perpetuate the threat of another revolution to discourage tyranny. If that is the case, then the courts have greatly erred in their interpretations of the constitution.

agreed!

[sauropod]

Oh I see. I guess I should get a lawyer to interpret the Bill of Rights for me so AllSmiles should be happy?

I have an even better Idea. Let's nominate AllSmiles to the federal bench. Then, he could be right up there with those paragons of jurisprudence, L. Higgenbotham, Brennan, and R.B. Ginsberg. < /sarcasm>

If you can't run with the big dogs then stay on the porch.

[VMI70]

bump