20/20 Friday (WARNING: Gun Control thread!)

[shanek]

I just received this press release via EMail, about John Stossel's segment in 20/20 this Friday. Here's the relevant parts of it:

This Friday's "Give Me a Break" is about a man who is in trouble because he shot a burglar....There was a stranger in [Ron Dixon's] house. When Dixon saw the intruder enter his young son's room, he grabbed his 9 mm pistol, and said to the man, "What are you doing in my house?"

Dixon says the burglar then moved toward him, and so he shot him twice.

The intruder survived. He's a career criminal who's been arrested 19 times. He's now being held in New York's Rikers Island jail.

Dixon has also been arrested and charged with "criminal possession of a weapon."...Prosecutors want to put him in Riker's Island—the same jail where the burglar was sent.

What's wrong with this picture?

 

[Guest]

I'm slow today. What's the connection with gun control?

 

[Aoidoi]

I suppose my response depends on whether the 9mm was legally owned. If it was (and there's no evidence that the homeowner is lying (i.e. burglar shot in the back near a window)) then I see no reason to charge the homeowner. If he owns the gun illegally (not sure of the laws in NY) then I suppose he should be charged under the appropriate statutes.

Doesn't seem particularly controversial if the latter is accurate.

 

[Segnosaur]

Ok, I do believe that people should have the right to own firearms, and to defend their property and family.

But, my question...

Did he possess the firearm legally? (What it purchased and stored, in accordance with the laws of the state he was in?)

 

[corplinx]

Being in prison for illegally owning the firearm is what he should expect and demand. If you are going to be civilly disobedient that is.

Maybe his story will help get him some legal help for challenging the gun laws in New York.

 

[Guest]

Ok, I do believe that people should have the right to own firearms, and to defend their property and family.

But, my question...

Did he possess the firearm legally? (What it purchased and stored, in accordance with the laws of the state he was in?)

Nope.

The gun owner, Ronald Dixon, a U.S. Navy veteran and computer analyst, told police he bought the gun legally in Florida, but he was charged with criminal possession of a weapon because the gun is not registered in New York.

 

[subgenius]

Not knowing anything about the facts (when did that ever stop me?) I comment thusly:
Too bad he didn't kill the son of a bitch.
When will prosecutors ever give a sucker an even break instead of racking up convictions? (Its called "prosecutorial discretion.")

In a community near me the local fascist prosecutor charged with assault a father who found someone hiding in the closet of his 14 year old daughter at 4 am and smacked him around a little. It was only after the media shone the light that the high executioner decided to drop the charges. The prosecutor (they're elected and always looking for higher office) claimed that if the father had contacted his office the matter probably would have been dropped. He's a liar. He is notorious for never giving in to anything (except that which may detract from re-election), and over charging everyone.
These nuckers are futz.

 

[corplinx]

Too bad he didn't kill the son of a bitch.

Or as I was told by self defense instructors:
"Dead men don't testify"

I do think this man who is currently in jail should demand to stay there to prove a point. This man broke a law that probably conflicts with his federal right to privacy and (dependent on interpretation) his second amendment rights. If he is civilly disobedient he will accept his sentence.

 

[subgenius]

corplinx: "I do think this man who is currently in jail should demand to stay there to prove a point."
Easy to say.
That's like committing suicide in self-defense.
Ever been in the can?

 

[Guest]

Or as I was told by self defense instructors:
"Dead men don't testify"

I was told, "Make sure he's dead. That way he can't tell his side of the story."

 

[Bentspoon]

Legality

Shanek,

You know how I feel about gun ownership. Too many cowboys around.

However, I would defend this man's right to defend his home in this manner. I don't think guns should be banned!!!

The issue is legality of ownership and apparently he didn't pay attention to the laws. He is only being charged with criminal possession as far as I can tell.

This is an example of an irresponsible gun owner - a cowboy.

You have made a mistake - you prop this story up to support your opinion on gun control and all you have done is shown us another irresponsible gun owner. I don't need another example. I have tales from my own personal experience of many irresponsible cowboy gun owners. Some from this board citing examples of what they would do in certain public situations. I still contend, albeit without statistical back up, that the majority of gun owners are irresponsible cowboys - untrained, illegal and not caring to be responsible. They hunt poorly, they shoot poorly, they don't pay attention, they mix alcohol with gun sport and/or they do not conform to established laws.

This is another example of the reasons we need to toughen up on gun control.

I have seen articles and treatises from gun owners that seem responsible. I know they are out there and I assume that you, Shanek, are one of them.

Can you see my issue with this gentleman. I think the repsonsinle ones are few and far between.

And he should suffer the consequences of his actions.

Bentspoon

 

[Richard G]

The gun was legal, bought in Florida, which has no registration. What Mr. Dixon is being charged with is having an unregistered gun in the city of New York. New York is only one of maybe 4 places I can think of in the entire country that requires "permision" from the local goverment just to own a gun...something not required. The U.S. Constitution gives all law abiding citizens the right to own a gun. New Yorks registration laws are unconstitutional, and this is the perfect oportunity to challenge them in a state superior court. Gun registration laws aqccomplish nothing, other than being a burdon upon the law abiding.

Mr. Dixon is a law abiding citizen, and an innocent man.

One more thing, New Yorks registration laws are arbitrary. If they dont like your look, smell, or political affiliation, your registration application will be denied, violating your Constitutional rights.

Mr. Dixon was in the process of registration when this incident happened.

 

[no one in particular]

Being that I live in the Empire State I recall hearing this case on the local news. I later saw the gentleman in question on “The O’Reilly Factor”. It seem that being new to NY he was in the process of acquiring a New York state “possession license” (not the same as a carrying license) for his previously legal (in Florida) firearm.

(quoting from memory and noting some differences in the law from county to county) In order to acquire a possession license in NYS you must, among other things, fees and such, have three notarized signatories vouch for your good moral character. The signatories must be residence of the county the applicant is living and they may not be related to the applicant. Note that having just moved into the state this is very difficult to achieve. Therefore, simply moving to New York state in the ownership of a legal (granted, as determined by another state) firearm is against New York law.

 

[shanek]

I'm slow today. What's the connection with gun control?

Because Dixon was arrested for using a gun to defend his home and family, under the insanely stupid gun control laws.

 

[Guest]

One more thing, New Yorks registration laws are arbitrary. If they dont like your look, smell, or political affiliation, your registration application will be denied, violating your Constitutional rights.

If you smell funny they won't let you have a gun? Really?

I can believe prior institutionalizaton in a mental hospital, a felony conviction, even a domestic abuse conviction, but funny looking?

 

[shanek]

I suppose my response depends on whether the 9mm was legally owned.

This is the point: The second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Hence, all guns are legally owned because any restrictions on ownership are unconstitutional.

 

[shanek]

Did he possess the firearm legally? (What it purchased and stored, in accordance with the laws of the state he was in?)

Since he was charged with "criminal possession of a weapon," then obviously not.

 

[Richard G]

Bentspoon, your an idiot. A man that has fought to protect the life of his wife and child from a prior felon , and you label him as irresponsible. It would be a much better story if it ended as another case of murder or rape. Then you could say too many guns were the cause of the home invasion/ murder.

I forgot, the proper thing to do is lay down and beg for your life right?

Idiot.

 

[shanek]

Nope.

Thanks. I went Googling for a link to a news story but couldn't find one.

Edited to add: Probably the most important bit of info from the article: "No one in Dixon's family was hurt."

Oh, and for further consideration, one other paragraph from the Stossel release:

At the same time that New York Gov. George Pataki, to save money, plans to let criminals out of jail, prosecutors are trying to put Ron Dixon in? When the career criminal, who was in Dixon's house, got his first conviction, he got probation, no jail time. But Dixon has to go to jail?

 

[corplinx]

corplinx: "I do think this man who is currently in jail should demand to stay there to prove a point."
Easy to say.
That's like committing suicide in self-defense.
Ever been in the can?

Of course you are right. Its easy to be preachy when you aren't the one tossing salads.