Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A man who hunted deer on his own property will spend 15 years in federal prison
AP via Boston Glob ^ | 4/30/03 | staff

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Front Page News
KEYWORDS: banglist; guncontrol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 301-316 next last
To: ctdonath2
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).

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.

181 posted on 04/30/2003 9:22:44 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
If we allow the feds to deny the right to own firearms without due process, then every other right can be denied without 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.

182 posted on 04/30/2003 9:23:33 AM PDT by HairOfTheDog (Not all those who wander are lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: verity
He should have tried bow hunting!;~)

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.

183 posted on 04/30/2003 9:24:14 AM PDT by Redcloak (All work and no FReep makes Jack a dull boy. All work and no FReep make s Jack a dul boy. Allwork an)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Has an idiot been reported missing again?

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.

184 posted on 04/30/2003 9:25:48 AM PDT by Catspaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
Ex post facto? I'm not sure that applies. While the initial felony convictions occurred before the passage of the Federal law, the act for which he was convicted by the Feds (owning the gun as a convicted felon) occurred after it's passage.
185 posted on 04/30/2003 9:26:44 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
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.

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.

186 posted on 04/30/2003 9:28:07 AM PDT by dirtboy (PaleoNeoCon - a neocon who was neocon before neocon was cool...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: RonF
I'm not sure that applies. While the initial felony convictions occurred before the passage of the Federal law, the act for which he was convicted by the Feds (owning the gun as a convicted felon) occurred after it's passage.

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.

187 posted on 04/30/2003 9:30:46 AM PDT by dirtboy (PaleoNeoCon - a neocon who was neocon before neocon was cool...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
"It seems that this guy whose punishment for past crimes was concluded, WAS behaving lawfully, aside from the techinical violation of the disputed law."

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?

188 posted on 04/30/2003 9:31:24 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
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.

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.

189 posted on 04/30/2003 9:33:54 AM PDT by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

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

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

190 posted on 04/30/2003 9:34:28 AM PDT by rmmcdaniell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw; Poohbah
It gets better - it looks like he might have been poaching out of season, depending on whether PA allows out of season hunting on your own land.

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....

Link

191 posted on 04/30/2003 9:34:54 AM PDT by Chancellor Palpatine (and the award for the most gratuitous use of the word "Belgium" in a screenplay goes to.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: RonF
I propose that thinking that his punishment is limited to the term of incarceration is a mistake.

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.

192 posted on 04/30/2003 9:35:48 AM PDT by dirtboy (PaleoNeoCon - a neocon who was neocon before neocon was cool...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
But there is a little matter of the united states constitution wich is suppose to trump all federal and state laws that states

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.

193 posted on 04/30/2003 9:39:32 AM PDT by freepatriot32 (Heaven is weary, of the hollow words Which States and Kingdoms utter when they talk of justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RonF
I'd like to see it argued by someone knowledgeable about the history of what ex post facto means.

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.

194 posted on 04/30/2003 9:40:21 AM PDT by dirtboy (PaleoNeoCon - a neocon who was neocon before neocon was cool...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: Chancellor Palpatine
He was convicted for hunting in 2001, not last year. Deer season in Pennsylvania starts the Saturday after Thanksgiving, which in 2001 was the 25th...
195 posted on 04/30/2003 9:42:01 AM PDT by dirtboy (PaleoNeoCon - a neocon who was neocon before neocon was cool...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
No, I wouldn't support such a law.

I know the law of the land has long been that felons can't bear arms. There isn't much point in debating whether it should have been... it *is* the law, and not one it would be popular for conservatives to fight against. I would fight first for better recognition of the rights of the law-abiding to be armed without unreasonable restrictions, which is a real fight that needs our attention. The right to bear arms *needs* to be fought smart, and *smart* is fighting from the position of rights for the law-abiding.

I would not automatically repeal that law for all, but I would support a process for the reformed felon to regain those rights.
196 posted on 04/30/2003 9:42:37 AM PDT by HairOfTheDog (Not all those who wander are lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32
Why, you are so correct. Hey, let's give all the drug lords, gangbangers, hitmen, theives, muggers, kidnappers, burglars, rapists and the street thugs fully automatic weapons. Let's not let something like, ... oh, ... they shot into crowds, fired on policemen, maybe some armed robbery prevent them from exercising their right to bear arms. < /sarcasm>

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?

197 posted on 04/30/2003 9:45:14 AM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"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."

Yes, I'm quite certain I have not committed a felony. Thanks for asking. I do not break laws. I do not fudge on my taxes. I do not even speed in my car. If I think a law is wrong, I work to change it, but obey it in the meantime.

No felony convictions for me. What felonies do you suppose I might have unknowingly commiteed? Give me an example of one of these laws.
198 posted on 04/30/2003 9:45:15 AM PDT by MineralMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog
I know the law of the land has long been that felons can't bear arms. There isn't much point in debating whether it should have been... it *is* the law, and not one it would be popular for conservatives to fight against.

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.

199 posted on 04/30/2003 9:46:32 AM PDT by dirtboy (PaleoNeoCon - a neocon who was neocon before neocon was cool...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: schmelvin
Yep. In Ohio, if you are convicted of ANY OFFENSE with a potential penalty of one year in prison, you can't ever own a gun. If you have a restraining order, or are convicted of domestic violence, no gun. Many cops bit the dust on this one, here in the people's republic of ohio...
200 posted on 04/30/2003 9:47:11 AM PDT by GhostofWCooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 301-316 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson