Guns' Legality Key in 4 Cases (Not disputing right to shoot assailant, but no right to have gun)

Newsday ^ | 2-20-03 | Sean Gardiner

[SJackson]

The concept of "a man's home is his castle" dates back to English common law. But modern law dictates you can't protect that castle with an illegal gun.

In the past two months, four intruders have been shot in the city during burglaries and armed robberies. Three of those would-be thieves were killed.

In all but one of those cases, the men protecting their homes or business used unlicensed guns, potentially landing themselves in legal hot water.

......Snip.....

In a statement released through his spokesman yesterday, Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes said: "We're not disputing that Mr. Dixon had a right to shoot the person who broke into his house. But he had no right to have that gun."

The case is pending.

[SJackson]

"We're not disputing that Mr. Dixon had a right to shoot the person who broke into his house. But he had no right to have that gun."
Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes

[Alberta's Child]

What's most interesting about that quote is that it is exactly what the jury determined in the Bernhard Goetz case back in the 1980s after he had been charged with attempted murder for shooting four mutants on the New York City subway.

[Emile]

In other words, he had a right to shoot the intruder, only not with the gun. Guess he should have used his finger.

What the DA is implying here is that the desired outcome under the law is that the intruder be the one that survives, unless the homeowner has a "legal" gun. Makes you wonder what side prosecutors are really on.

[Maelstrom]

bump

[Agent Smith]

Obviously, DA Hynes would prefer it, if law abiding New Yorkers slashed these criminals to death with steak knives, so that they don't "break the law".

Here is a radical idea...perhaps the law should be changed.

[hchutch]

I think I recall Massad Ayoob writing a little bit about the case. Don't recall where, though...

[Vic3O3]

RKBA ping!

[Blood of Tyrants]

Prosecutors offered Dixon a plea deal, which he rejected.

The first story I read seemed to indicate that Dixon was wanting to accept the plea bargain. From what I have heard, he has been offered legal counsel from the NRA even though he wasn't an NRA member.

[Teacher317]

The idea that the Brooklyn prosecutor's office has nothing better to do than go after someone who has defended themselves, in an admittedly legal exercise of their Constitutional rights, merely shows what their true priorities are. Go after the law-abiding, because they are easier to find, will obey court orders, and will help the prosecutor's office increase their convictin percentages. Go after all guns to assure re-election and greater safety for abusive cops and criminals. Go after a few of the innocent, so that the rest will be terrified into total sheeply compliance, and will be content to complain softly at home, but not enough to trouble the executive branch and their enforcers.

[doberville]

Still better to be 'tried by twelve than carried by six.'

[OldCorps]

still better to live anywhere in the us outside of the People's Socialist Republic of New York or the Northeast in general.

Here in the South for instance the homeowner would be a hero. Just another reason for the great migrations from the NE.

[FreeTally]

"We're not disputing that Mr. Dixon had a right to shoot the person who broke into his house. But he had no right to have that gun."

The DA is a dangerous man who has no place in a free society. No place.

[boris]

"In other words, he had a right to shoot the intruder, only not with the gun. Guess he should have used his finger."

How about a blowgun, a bow-and-arrow, or a hand grenade?

--Boris

[AngryJawa]

"We're not disputing that Mr. Dixon had a right to shoot the person who broke into his house. But he had no right to have that gun."

The Framers disagree. This statement is the very definition of insanity.

[The Toad]

Only in legal circles would it be logical to allow someone to shoot someone but make it illegal for the person to have the gun with which to do it. LOL.

Frankly, I don't care what any court says. People have the right to defend themselves when their life is threatened. A court simply does not have any right or the moral authority in this situation.

[stevio]

Unbelievable!

[Alberta's Child]

In retrospect, Bernhard Goetz could have claimed that he took the gun away from one of the four mutants and nobody would have disputed him.

There were several dozen people on that subway car when the incident occurred, and afterwards all except four or five of them reported to the police that they "didn't see anything."

[Travis McGee]

One of these "no right to have a gun" cases has GOT to make it to the SCOTUS sooner or later!