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
Well stop crying then 'cause you haven't refuted jack sh!t.
Another Antifederalist, George Mason, spoke on the relationship between (p.1025)arms and liberty. Mason asserted that history had demonstrated that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them.[140] Mason suggested that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense, clearly including the right to defend one's political liberty within that term.[141]
Patrick Henry argued against ratification of the Constitution by Virginia, in part because the Constitution permitted a standing army and gave the federal government some control over the militia.[142] Henry objected to the lack of any clause forbidding disarmament of individual citizens; "the great object is that every man be armed .... Everyone who is able may have a gun."[143] The Antifederalists believed that governmental tyranny was the primary evil against which the people had to defend in creating a new Constitution. To preserve individual rights against such tyranny, the Antifederalists argued for the addition of a Bill of Rights which included, among other rights, the right to keep and bear arms.[144]
You are such a pathetic excuse for a slime mold.
On the Federalists side... they wanted everyone armed as well...
Similarly, James Madison made clear that, although the proposed Constitution offered sufficient guarantees against despotism by its checks and balances, the real deterrent to governmental abuse was the armed population.[149] To the Antifederalist criticism of the standing army as a threat to liberty, Madison replied: To these [the standing army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from amongst themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by government possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops .... Besides the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are (p.1027)attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.[150]
State governments have been "subordinate" to the Federal one since the Constitution was ratified by the 2/3s of the Legislatures of the States. The BOR is a bulwark preventing ANY government action.
The sooner you get your head out of your a$$ the better your outlook on things will become.
Actually, Jack, you've been refuted at every turn.
You really should read your cut and pastes. :)
Besides the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are (p.1027)attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Thanks again. Appparently you didn't have the wit to realize that state and local governments are the "subordinate governments to which the people are attached."
You might want to crack a dictionary once in a while...
Main Entry: 1sub·or·di·nate
Pronunciation: s&-'bor-d&n-&t, -'bord-n&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English subordinat, from Medieval Latin subordinatus, past participle of subordinare to subordinate, from Latin sub- + ordinare to order -- more at ORDAIN
Date: 15th century
1 : placed in or occupying a lower class, rank, or position : INFERIOR
2 : submissive to or controlled by authority
3 a : of, relating to, or constituting a clause that functions as a noun, adjective, or adverb b : SUBORDINATING
- sub·or·di·nate·ly adverb
- sub·or·di·nate·ness noun
Subordinate to the US Constitution.
You are not only a idiot, you are a hypocrite as well.
I'll admit that you have TRIED to refute the facts, but that old Truth Pendulum just keeps on swinging back and thumping you in that twisted little gourd of yours.
Which contains a restriction on federal power in the 2nd Amendment.
Poor you.
Which contains a restriction on federal power in the 2nd Amendment.
Funny, it says "right of the people". Also the Preamble to the BOR and the Tenth Amendment mention these applying to the several States. Later the 14th Amendment adds it AGAIN because of munch-heads exactly like you trying to put forth arguments just like yours on States undercutting our basic human Rights.
Just as you cannot own another human, you cannot take away their Right to self defense. Period. Anyone, like you, trying to convince the public otherwise is on the same side as those slave owners and Klan members, not to mention Nazis trying to keep firearms out of the hands of Jews... and every other petty tyrant wanna-be throughout history.
The Founders knew better than that even if you and half the court justices out there with an agenda don't.
And protects that right against federal infringement. You have utterly failed to produce even a single decision or authority contending that state regulation of firearms is barred by the 2nd Amendment.
Poor you.
Completely false, naturally.
Liar. Go back and re-read the thread.
Sourceless living in denial. Go away bugger-boy. In your world words moust not mean what they say plainly.
Don't let your tears ruin your keyboard.
The Second Amendment limits only the power of Congress to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms necessary for the Militia. It creates no bar to State or local action. "We note that the Second Amendment has not yet been held applicable to the States. The Amendment has not been absorbed either directly, or through selective incorporation in the Fourteenth Amendment". (Arnold v. Cleveland, supra at 41, 616 N.E.2d 163, citing Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1489, 12 L.Ed.2d 653 [1964]). (See also, Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723 [9th Cir.1992]; Sklar v. Byrne, 727 F.2d 633 at 639 [7th Cir.1984]; Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 [1st Cir.1942] cert. den'd 319 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718 [1943]; United States v. Kozerski, 518 F.Supp. 1082, 1090 [D.N.H.1981] aff'd 740 F.2d 952 [1st Cir. 1984] cert. den'd 469 U.S. 842, 105 S.Ct. 147, 83 L.Ed.2d 86 [1984]; United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 [8th Cir.1992] cert. den'd - U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1614, 123 L.Ed.2d 174 [1993]); People v. Morrill, 101 A.D.2d 927, 475 N.Y.S.2d 648 [3d Dept.1984]; Moore v. Gallup, 267 A.D. 64, 45 N.Y.S.2d 63.[3d Dept.1943].)Citizens for a Safer Community v. City of Rochester, 627 N.Y.S.2d 193
HAhahahhaaaaaa!!!!! You HAVE GOT to be kidding? You are reduced to citing VPC sponsored lawsuites to back up your claims? Are you out of your mind?
You are done....
I bet you were a big fan of Clintons "no controlling legal authority" argument.
CITIZENS FOR A SAFER COMMUNITY; The Genesee Conservation League, Inc.; The Monroe County Conservation Council; The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc.; The Shooters Committee on Political Education, Inc. (Monroe County Chapter); Leadloader Arms, Inc. d/b/a American Sportsman; Frederick Calcagno; Stephen C. DeMallie; and Kurt Thomann, Plaintiffs
Citizens for a Safer Community was a group that was challenging the City of Rochester's gun laws in court.
Poor, poor ignorant you.
Which don't act to bar state and local regulations. Another swing and another miss.
It is too well established to require elaboration that a State statute reasonably regulating the right to bear arms does not violate the second amendment to the United States Constitution which is not a grant of a right, but "a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National Government...." Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886); see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir. 1974); Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847, 850 (Mass. 1976).State v. Sanne, 116 N.H. 583 (1976)
The group "Citizens for a Safer Community" does not exist. Do a google search. The group only exists in this one lawsuit that I can find. Also, the Judge was wrong using even your own logic....
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."
Now look over here, for just about every legal case used to build the judicial fairy-tale upholding all of New Yorks gun bans. It's all bullshit Roscoe and you damn well know it. Bye-bye gun grabber...
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.