Posted on 04/30/2003 5:45:41 AM PDT by CFW
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:09:42 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Hm. From our favorite document, regarding the House of Representatives:
Article I
Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
Looks pretty specific to me. Electors are persons who have the right to vote, and their specific identity is defined by the states. Let's not forget that the Federal Constitution was not written in a vacumn; when it was written, all the States had constitutions, and they all had franchised large segments of their populations with a vote. The writers of the Federal Constitution knew this, and therefore intended and knew very well that this clause thus granted the right to vote (which is equivalent to defining someone as an elector) for HoR members, anyway, to large groups of people. I wouldn't call this vague.
I therefore contest your premise:
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.
In fact, the right to vote is recognized in the above clause of the Constitution.
And as far as "shall not be infringed" goes; that statement does not equal "inalienable rights". The concept of the latter was that certain rights, specifically those of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were rights granted by the Creator, and not by Government. It is a proper government's job to help citizens preserve those rights from infringment, not to grant them. Nowhere is it stated or implied that the right to bear arms is a right granted by the Creator; what it states is that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed". But, since the right to life and liberty, which unlike the right to bear arms were called "inalienable rights" earlier in the American lexicon, are in fact able to be legitimately denied by the government using due process (via the 5th amendment), certainly the right to bear arms, inferior to the right to life itself, can also be denied by due process.
The due process is the felony conviction. The one that limits their "Life liberty and pursuit of happiness" by putting them in prison. Other pursuits are also limited in that process, including their right to bear arms, and their right to participate in government.
Ya beat me to it!
The headline is misleading. It should have read "Convicted Felon Sent to Prison for Firearm Possession." What he was doing with the gun is irrelevant.
Why, yes. Let's all bring back the leftist theory of "let's throw money at the problem" and it'll all go away. After all, you know the problems of criminals are environmental, sociological and psychological, so let's improve their environment and flood them with social workers and psychologists. Yeah, that'll fix it--and nobody will rob, pillage, etc. Uh huh.
Once again, the feds are depriving someone of their rights upon a STATE conviction - and, in some cases, by passing a law YEARS after that person was convicted and released, which is in effect an ex post facto situation.
Let's look at it another way - let's say the feds pass a law that allows the FBI to come and tow away your car after you've been convicted of a DUI or of speeding in excess of 30 mph over the speed limit by a state or local court - or even if you were convicted of a DUI years before the law was passed. No due process, no hearing, the tow truck just shows up in your driveway one morning and your car is gone. Would you be so supportive of such a law? Because that is exactly what is happening here.
Would it be legal for the state to change his sentence after he was convicted? No. So why is it legal for the feds to ban firearm ownership to someone who was convicted of a relevant offense BEFORE the legislation was passed? You are trying to disconnect the ban on gun ownership as a penalty - whereas that is a penalty, a denial of 2nd Amendment rights.
Seems to me that his punishment for past crimes wasn't concluded. His punishment apparently was that he'd be locked up for a specfic period of time, plus have his right to a gun and a vote taken away for life. I propose that thinking that his punishment is limited to the term of incarceration is a mistake.
By the way, what's disputed about the law? Has someone filed a lawsuit disputing it's Constitutionality?
Actually, you make good points, and I'd like to see it argued by someone knowledgeable about the history of what ex post facto means.
Perhaps we can also remove someone's right to a fair trial after they've been convicted of a fellony once. That way we can free up the courts that are being tied up with repeated offenders. Just throw'em in jail at the slightest accusation and be done with it. /sarcasm
The recently concluded two-week firearms deer season (Dec. 2-14) proved to be an educational season for many hunters as they adjusted to hunting with new antler restrictions....
Shouldn't that be imposed at the time of sentencing by the court hearing the case, as in due process?
By the way, what's disputed about the law? Has someone filed a lawsuit disputing it's Constitutionality?
Considering that the court has never upheld gun ownership as a right, I think we need to get over that hurdle first. And, considering that the court allowed ex post facto imposition of notification requirements under the guise that they were not a penalty, I doubt they'd have much trouble carrying out the legal gymnastics to uphold this law as well.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
See my post 192 - in the end, ex post facto means whatever five or more justices on the Supreme Court decides it means. Therefore, someone can be convicted of a sexual offense, a state legislature can subsequently require after their conviction that they be required to register upon release, and SCOTUS upholds that because they decree that it isn't a punishment - blithely ignoring that imposition of a punishment is not a requirement of the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws - it also applies to concepts such as zoning.
The counstitution is the basis of the rights all people are born with. By virtue of their actions, followed by due process in a court of law; they have proven themselves unfit to enjoy the full benefits that the bill of rights extends. If they murder, they also lose some more rights, as they are in jail, and may be executed. Or are you suggesting that we just ignore criminals and let them legally obtain weapons just like the rest of us?
That, quite frankly, is a load of crap. We have watched time and time again as programs and laws clearly outside the original intent of the Constitution (and its amendments) are implemented by the feds because it would be too difficult to follow the Constitutional process of amendment. So that's how we get nonsense such as Social Security, where the government collects a surplus and spends it while claiming it is investing it for us - actions that would send a private company into oblivion and its prinicipals to jail. And that's how we get a man hunting subject to a mandatory 15 year sentence - because if the government can operate outide the boundarys of the Constitution, why should it bother staying within the boundaries of common sense?
Beware applauding the end without scrutinizing the means - because the means can be used against YOU someday as well.
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.