A man who hunted deer on his own property will spend 15 years in federal prison

AP via Boston Glob ^ | 4/30/03 | staff

[CFW]

PITTSBURGH (AP) A man who hunted deer on his own property will spend 15 years in federal prison because he was a convicted felon, and therefore not allowed to possess a gun.

Jack C. Altsman, 43, of Beaver Falls, received the mandatory sentence Friday from U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry.

[hopespringseternal]

You ought to retitle the article as "ex con stupidly in possession of weapon gets the sentence he deserves".

Oh, sure. And exactly what does that accomplish? How many plea deals went down, letting people accused of violent crimes out on the street years earlier, while our Captain Ahab justice system went after this technical violation?

Maybe this sort of thing gives you a rush, but I would just as soon have prosecutors chasing real crime.

[sparkomatic]

nor is the law that prevents feenagers from driving 120 miles an hour past your house

Is it against the law for me to drive 120mph past my house? I do it on a regular basis. The kids love it. Oh and the dog can't keep up at that speed.

[Freebird Forever]

The gov't primary job is to protect the population.

This guy was dumb enough to break the law and get convicted on several occasions. IMO, he deserves what he received.

Having said that, there is a federal mechanism by which a felon may appeal his inability to possess firearms. Currently this appeal process is nonfunctional due to (among other things) a lack of funding by congress.

You appear to hold well thought opinions. Are you aware of this lack of redress, and if so, what's your take on it?

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

The 2d Ammendment does not give you, (or the Al Quida terroist down the block,) the right to possess nuclear weapons.

Well you can't "bare" a nuclear weapon. Well OK maybe the suitcase ones are legal.

[HairOfTheDog]

There should be room in our system for reformed people to restore both their right to be armed and their right to vote. Not sure if this guy meets the bar or not.

Is there a process, short of an official pardon, for felons to regain their right to be armed?

Anyone?

[Hodar]

With actions come consequences. If I start a life of embezzlement, it would likely limit my ability to work in the financial world later on in life. If I start a life of drug use, my career as a Pharmacist is in jeopardy. If I commit a Felony, the consequences are a combination of temporary and permanent lost rights. People need to take responsiblity for their actions. Bottom line, if you really like hunting, committing felony burglary (ie. burglary of a house, not a car) is not a good thing to do.

The law also used to include those who served in the military and received a dishonorable discharge. Now that we have a voluntary army, this has been dropped as it is a penalty that only applies to those who serve and discharged dishonorably, not those who do not serve and may commit the same offence.

[Rifleman]

Is he a career criminal? The article sure doesn't convince me of that. And in any case, once you serve your time, you should get your rights back, all of them. If a criminal is too dangerous to live as a free man, keep him inside or kill him. And in a just society, punishments should be proportional and fair for any given act, which this is not.

Making a large class of subcitizens seems to me to be really stupid public policy.

[Freebird Forever]

Is there a process, short of an official pardon, for felons to regain their right to be armed?

You may want to read this thread form last year. Some of the posts address the question you've raised (and the impediments to any remedy).

Supreme Court Rules Against Texas Gun Dealer

[HairOfTheDog]

Thanks! - I have marked that to read through. I haven't given it a lot of thought before.

[Billy_bob_bob]

Yes, ignorance of the law is no excuse. After all, there are only about 520,000 laws on the book in America today, filling something like 160 feet of shelf space in a law library. Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Better get reading!

[TheDon]

I have to agree. Once you've done your time, full citizenship rights should be restored, voting and fire arm possession included.

[Poohbah]

That screen name indicates that he's the greatest constamatushinal scholar that ever lived :o)

[HairOfTheDog]

I have to agree. Once you've done your time, full citizenship rights should be restored, voting and fire arm possession included.

Our prisons are full of people who have done their time, over and over and over and over again. There are many for whom "doing time" is only a resting period between crimes. There is no reformation that automatically occurs in prison, it is a punishment, not a cure.

For that reason, I do believe there should be permanent penalties for serious crimes.

But there is probably also room for a process through which restoration of some of these rights can happen when reformation is proved.

[headsonpikes]

"The love of mass imprisonment is a sign of democracy educated on Jerry Springer shows."

I'm astonished when I see folks boasting about the 2,000,000+ American men in prison. It's not as if there are more bad people in the US than elsewhere. And it's not as if there are more criminals in jail than outside.

Violent monsters are released to prey again, but clumsy rule-breakers who've pissed off the IRS, DEA, or whatever, are sentenced to what amounts to death in prison.

Once, the principle was 'Rule by law, not by men'; now it is 'Rule by lawyers, not by men'.

There's a difference.

[ctdonath2]

I don't remember any document defining possession of guns to be an inalienable right. While the 2nd Amendment uses the phrase "shall not be infringed", I don't see how that figures into the distinction you make between two kinds of rights.

Your first sentence is contradicted by your second sentence.

Right to bear arms: "...shall not be infringed." Period. That is made per the BoR "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [government] powers". The Constitution made that recognition & protection when it went into effect.

Right to vote: interestingly, the right to vote was not even part of the Constitution originally (only vague references to the people choosing certain representatives). That was first added in 1870, prohibiting voting restrictions based on race, color or prior servitude (prohibitions on sex-based restrictions were banned in 1920). Note that the right to vote is Constitutionally only expressed in terms of what restrictions are impermissible.

The distinction between the right to arms and the right to vote is downright dramatic: one was embodied and protected in the original Constitution with "shall not be infringed", while the other was not even recognized at the federal level originally and was only added later.

[GreatOne]

I'm a county prosecutor and have a convicted sex offender in the same position (consensual sex with a vulnerable adult 8 years ago). Instead of shipping him back to prison for 5 years, we're having him plead to a lesser offense and do some county jail time.

That's the problem with federal laws - the judges cannot deviate from them, and the prosecutors don't look at the cases on a case-by-case basis. Can't work as if every situation fits into one hole.

[dirtboy]

He received due process. Therefore, it is Constitutional to forbid him from owning a gun, and to jail him if he takes possession of one.

I disagree. Due process entails a hearing and a judgement. If someone is convicted of a felony in state court of a state crime, where does the federal government have standing to impose their own sentence on the person without due process of their own?

[ctdonath2]

You simply do not commit felonies.

Have you read ALL the felony laws that apply to you? Are you SURE you NEVER commit a felony? Go read the law some time - you'll be surprised.

[dirtboy]

Felons should not possess firearms, unless there is a procedure that allows the restoration of their rights. That's just my opinion, but it's also the law.

Here's the problem I have - where does the federal government get the authority to deprive someone of the 2nd Amendment Rights for a STATE level felony conviction just by passing a law and not providing anything resembling due process of their own? You may agree with the end result, but don't you think there is something wrong with the process? BTW, the feds have starting creeping down into the misdemeanor column with their bans of gun ownership - for misdemeanor domestic violence convictions.

[Protagoras]

Would the New York cops start arresting anyone from Wallstreet who goes hunting?

It really does point out the moronic nature of these laws. Someone who commits a non-violent crime is punished in various ways for the rest of their lives, unable to defend themselves or open certain kinds of businesses. Punishment should fit the crime, and debts paid should be sufficent at some point.