StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Brooklyn Dad Facing Jail for Shooting Intruder

Just to summarize, a man with no criminal record buys a 9mm to defend himself and his family. He had before in his life been robbed a gunpoint. He tries to get a license to own the gun as required by local law, but is unable. He still keeps the gun anyway. One night, a robber breaks into his house, and goes rumaging through his young son's room while she sleeps. The man confronts the robber, and in the process shoots him twice. The robber, who has a multi page rap sheet, survives, is arrested, and is sent to jail. The armed homeowner, who by all means is a hero, is also arrested for owning an unlicensed firearm. The sentence can be up to one year in jail. The DA offers him a deal, four weekends in jail. That's right, jail time for a man defending his family. What the fuck is going on here?

Now I'm all for reasonable gun control, but this is bullshit. This guy has no criminal record, and yet the DA wants to throw him behind bars for shooting a criminal in his own son's room. Why not just give him his damn license and send this hero back home to his family?

Because that would be PRACTICLE! Shit don't work that way. But your right, why wasn't he given a liscense in the first place? Far be it that we allow moral upstanding citizens to obtain a LEGAL firearm to defend one's home and family from threat. Yet we have gangstas and hooligans performing drive bys and shooting up work places.

Make him attend four weekends of marksmanship and gun safety classes. That will serve a two-fold purpose, teaching gun safety, always a good thing. It will also save the state money on jails the next time around when he kills the intruder.

If we are to be perfectly technical about it, he should not have bought the gun without first acquiring a liscence.

But, yeah, he's a hero in this case.

Do you hear that rumbling sound? That's the gun controllers stampeding over here. I'll evacuate this thread now. These debates get tedious fast.

This proves what we've been saying about gun registration all along. As soon as it exists and you try to register your gun like a good, upstanding citizen - You'll find out the State won't let you.

NEVER let federal gun registration pass, because they'll come for our guns right after that. NYC is evidence of what would happen on a federal level if that were implemented, and cases like this.

Hopefully this man will manage to get off somehow, but for now let this be a grim warning of the dangers of what could happen on a national level, and what has happened in numerous other countries.

The morality and/or heroism of his actions in shooting the intruder have no relevance to the fact that he did break the law. If he had confronted the intruder with a rifle, the outcome probably would have been the same without the criminal charge. As it is, they obviously didn't throw the book at him so it's not that bad.

Let's put it this way: suppose the police are chasing some lunatic and a third-party driver risks his own safety to run the bastard off the road? He's a hero, right? Then they discover he's driving without a license; does he get charged for driving without a license? Probably.

I Texas the problem comes up more often of shooting them before they are all the way into the house. As gruesome as this might sound, if you ever shoot someone entering your house, drag the body inside.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:This proves what we've been saying about gun registration all along ...

You've been saying all along that gun licensing and federal gun registration are identical concepts? Interesting. Because if you haven't, then you just introduced a complete red herring in a shameless attempt to hijack this thread, Marina.

Darth Wong wrote:The morality and/or heroism of his actions in shooting the intruder have no relevance to the fact that he did break the law. If he had confronted the intruder with a rifle, the outcome probably would have been the same without the criminal charge. As it is, they obviously didn't throw the book at him so it's not that bad.

Let's put it this way: suppose the police are chasing some lunatic and a third-party driver risks his own safety to run the bastard off the road? He's a hero, right? Then they discover he's driving without a license; does he get charged for driving without a license? Probably.

Why didn't they give him a license for the gun, though? That's the frightening thing.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Why didn't they give him a license for the gun, though? That's the frightening thing.

Given our paltry information, we can't say. For all we know, he had some criminal offense on his record.

Darth Wong wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:This proves what we've been saying about gun registration all along ...

You've been saying all along that gun licensing and federal gun registration are identical concepts? Interesting. Because if you haven't, then you just introduced a complete red herring in a shameless attempt to hijack this thread, Marina.

Not personally, but identifying myself with the gun lobby. Essentially, requiring a license for guns has been used as a method of registration before (Primarily in the UK) and so it is a viable concern.

Darth Wong wrote: Given our paltry information, we can't say. For all we know, he had some criminal offense on his record.

The article implies otherwise, and I've never known ABC to be kind towards gun ownership - Though in this case it is oddly more supportive than I'd expect out of them.

Darth Wong wrote:

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: Why didn't they give him a license for the gun, though? That's the frightening thing.

Given our paltry information, we can't say. For all we know, he had some criminal offense on his record.

I doubt that. If he had a charge which would block him from getting a license it's unlikely he be offered such a deal. Its far more likely it was because of foot dragging and possibly intentional under funding of the department responsible.

For all we know, he had some criminal offense on his record.

Pilot noted that his slate was clean.

I think it was likely to be some sort of bueacratic quagmire that prevented his license from going through.

HemlockGrey wrote:

For all we know, he had some criminal offense on his record.

Pilot noted that his slate was clean.

I think it was likely to be some sort of bueacratic quagmire that prevented his license from going through.

Indeed. Forgot my earlier post

ABCNEWS wrote: The local paper called Dixon a hero. He is a Navy veteran, a father of two, and had never been in trouble with the law.

A Navy Vet and they wouldn't give him a FUCKING LISCENSE!!! What utter bullshit. Whatever the hell is wrong there.

WTF?
They would not give a Navy Vet a Licesene? Hell I have an ASB(Air, Sea, Base) licesene which lets me carry my service pistol onto anything from Fedural Office Buildings to Civilian Air-lines if my job demands I use that Transportation(Never got a chance to test it out however )


The infomation we need in this case is why they would not give him a liscense

Send the man home please

Darth Wong wrote:Let's put it this way: suppose the police are chasing some lunatic and a third-party driver risks his own safety to run the bastard off the road? He's a hero, right? Then they discover he's driving without a license; does he get charged for driving without a license? Probably.

Of course he was in the wrong owning the unlicensed firearm, but the DA does have descretion regarding what to and what not to charge him with, and what sentence that shall be sought. Considering that this man has no criminal record, and he did make an attempt to aquire the license legally, an offer of probation instead of jail time would have been more reasonable. After all, the intruder who was shot was given probation on his first conviction. It's not the licensing law that pisses me off, it's the way the DA is handling this particular case.

For those who don't want to do all the tedious work of READING the ariticle, the reason he didn't have a licdnce was

The Article wrote:Dixon said he had bought the gun because he had been robbed at gunpoint in Florida. Dixon said he paid a gun law consultant $500 to help him with the paperwork to get a license, but the consultant took his money and went out of business.

Yogi wrote:For those who don't want to do all the tedious work of READING the ariticle, the reason he didn't have a licdnce was

The Article wrote:Dixon said he had bought the gun because he had been robbed at gunpoint in Florida. Dixon said he paid a gun law consultant $500 to help him with the paperwork to get a license, but the consultant took his money and went out of business.

That does beg the question of how hard is it to get a gun license. Does everybody that lives there need to get a consultant to get one?

This is a classic case of "backdoor banning via registration."The goal of the registration process, is to be so difficult, and or expencive, as to be defacto impossible.Thus acomplishing one way, what the courts have said can't be done with a blatant prohibition.
A variant of "zoning " the porno shops out of buisness.(We can't stop you, as you are legaly entittled to have sell a legal product, but, we will make NO real estate in the city zoned for your TYPE of buisiness.)
This man already owned the gun, legaly, in an other state. He then moved, and atempted to comply with the new rules.

The mistake this man made was, not killing him, planting a knife on him, and lying to the police. (He was comin' right at me!)
It is then your word against nobodies. The police don't seem to "see' the evidence that contradicts this, and it isn't entered into the report.

There is still the possibility of public pressure, (Sean Hannity and Bill Oriley have made this a cause to fight for) and or jury nullification.(the OJ verdict, or the Buford T. Puesser{Walking tall} solution.)

Yogi wrote:For those who don't want to do all the tedious work of READING the ariticle, the reason he didn't have a licdnce was

The Article wrote:Dixon said he had bought the gun because he had been robbed at gunpoint in Florida. Dixon said he paid a gun law consultant $500 to help him with the paperwork to get a license, but the consultant took his money and went out of business.

I think he should sue the fuck out of that consultant then. Stupid fuckhead...

Mr Bean wrote:WTF?
They would not give a Navy Vet a Licesene? Hell I have an ASB(Air, Sea, Base) licesene which lets me carry my service pistol onto anything from Fedural Office Buildings to Civilian Air-lines if my job demands I use that Transportation(Never got a chance to test it out however )


The infomation we need in this case is why they would not give him a liscense

how do you get an asb?