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.

[ColdSteelTalon]

Of course I aggree when it comes to violent crime, such as murder, forcible rape, child molestation etc. people who commit those kind of crimes should be punished severely. But those kind of people should get the death penalty anyway.

But non-violent felonies should be expunged after good conduct is assurred over time. And all rights should be restored.

A person who cashed a bad check 20 years ago should not be deprived of rights for life.

I like the restitutional method of punishement for non violent crime. The criminal would pay the person offened a sum of money to compensate for the the loss plus damages. Less people would end up in prison unless of course they refuse to pay the restituion.

[Continental Op]

"Nonsense. You're not going to jail, as long as you have a prescription for that medication. Your pharmacist can supply a copy, and you can even carry it with you if you wish. This one's bogus."

Why do you have to have a prescription for the medication? I can't buy anti-biotics at a drugstore with out a prescription from my physician because the Government says so.

"I don't fill out any such forms for the EPA. Can you supply a single instance where someone is in prison for accidentally making a mistake on such a form?"

Do you own property inhabited by an "indangered species?"

"I don't dig dinosaur bones, and don't know anyone who does. Not a serious deal, really. If it's against the law, don't do it. What is your loss?"

Why is it against the law? If I dig up some dinosaur bones on my property they are mine.

"Naked ladies on wine bottles? I don't make or bottle wine. If I did, I wouldn't put naked women on the bottles. Everything about the labels on alcoholic beverages is subject to ATF regulations, if I remember correctly. Why would anyone flout them?"

The BATF has the right to right to say what labels a man puts on bottles of wine? And you wonder why anyone would flout them?
Do you call yourself a conservative republican? or perhaps a bushbot? or perhaps a democract undergrounder?

[MineralMan]

"Why do you have to have a prescription for the medication? I can't buy anti-biotics at a drugstore with out a prescription from my physician because the Government says so.
"

Get the law changed, then. I didn't make that law. It makes sense, though. Overuse of antibiotics has caused a lot of problems, and that's with the controls that are in place. However, check your state laws. In California, I can buy any medication I wish to by without a prescription for use on my livestock. Check it out.

"Do you own property inhabited by an "indangered species?"
"

No, but I can spell it. If you do own such property, then you'll either have to obey the laws regarding development of that property or work to get the law changed.

"Why is it against the law? If I dig up some dinosaur bones on my property they are mine."

You're right. They are. The law you're talking about applies to public lands. Check it out. However, unless you own the mineral rights to your property, you may be wrong. Someone else could own your dinosaur bones...assuming, of course that there are actually any on your property and assuming that you actually own some property.

"The BATF has the right to right to say what labels a man puts on bottles of wine? And you wonder why anyone would flout them? "

No, they don't have the "right" to do that. There is a duly-passed law that gives them the power to do that. Don't like it? Get it changed. You are aware that we can do that in this country, right?

"Do you call yourself a conservative republican? or perhaps a bushbot? or perhaps a democract undergrounder?"

I don't call myself any of those things. I dislike labels of that kind. I call myself an American Citizen, but that's about the only label I'd use. What do you call yourself?

[Travis McGee]

Ya can't be too careful...

[Continental Op]

How many really conservative freepers are there I'd like to know?
A citizen of the U.S. when convicted of a felony should serve his/her time in prison and when set free should be given all his/her constitutional rights back. If the citizen is convicted of a violent crime: murder, rape ect, he should face the death penalty. Citizens who committed minor feloniesand have been good citizens for years preceding the crime should not be denied their natural rights. President Bush is a fine example of this point.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/Bush_Arrest001102.html

George W. Bush addresses his 1976 DUI arrest in Maine.

After rallying voters Thursday night in West Allis, Wis., Bush told reporters he’s “not proud” that he was arrested for driving under the influence in Kennebunkport, Maine, after drinking several beers at a bar.
“I regret that it happened, but it did,” Bush said.
The Bush campaign acknowledged earlier Thursday night, after it was reported by a Maine television station, that he was taken into custody by police near his family home in Kennebunkport on Labor Day weekend in 1976.
“I’m the first to say that what I did was wrong and I’ve corrected that,” Bush said. “And I think the people — the people of America will understand that.”

[wardaddy]

Indeed....I'd like to see some more on this case...typically the guidelines federally for "felon with simple firearm" are 5 years mandatory minimum.....not that 5 years is a cakewalk.

Maybe this poor fellow was still on parole or something.

[MineralMan]

"Bush told reporters he’s “not proud” that he was arrested for driving under the influence in Kennebunkport, Maine, after drinking several beers at a bar.
"

Not a felony. Had he had an accident and killed somebody while driving drunk, he would not be President today. He committed a misdemeanor. There is a difference.

[wardaddy]

Back in 2000, I'd venture FR was probably 80-90% culturally conservative/libertarian.

Now, I'd say the social moderate to liberals have at least a sizable plurality here.

[Continental Op]

"Bush, who was 30 at the time, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of driving under the influence, was fined $150 and his driving privileges were suspended."

So if a man burglurizes a house and gets arrested before he has time to steal something that doesn't make a crime?

misdemeanor= crime

felony=crime

[wardaddy]

Some misdemeanors preclude gun rights as well and can result in felonious possesion charges by the State....which granted unless it's a Project Exile state will not be as draconian as the Feds but punitive nonetheless.

Bush's charge did not rise to that at the time...however now in some states...multiple DUIs can result in firearms rights revocation.

It's a minefield between overlapping Fed and State statutes.

[Continental Op]

the terrible thing is they dont realize they are moderates. They think they are conservatives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MineralMan]

""Bush, who was 30 at the time, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of driving under the influence, was fined $150 and his driving privileges were suspended."

So if a man burglurizes a house and gets arrested before he has time to steal something that doesn't make a crime?

misdemeanor= crime

felony=crime"

The law says that convicted felons may not own firearms. It does not say that misdemeanor convictions rise to the same level, except in some cases involving violence. In any case, if you think the law is incorrect, you have the means to work for its change.

However, if you're going to tie your support for RKBA to include RKBA for convicted felons, you're going to further marginalize your position. Is that what you really want to do?

Don't confuse me with the gun-grabbers. I am not in that camp in any way. I am in the camp that believes that saying "from my cold dead hands" does no good whatever in getting rid of bad firearms regulations. It only reinforces the opinions of those who don't want any firearms at all. It's a stupid position. So is fighting for the rights of convicted felons to own firearms. Take a losing position, and you'll lose. Perhaps that's what you want. Not me.

[yarddog]

There are a bunch of people on this thread who I regularly see who claim to be pro gun but can be counted on the attack those who really are.

This is a false argument btw. Not a single person in this discussion is trying to say the guy should not be punished for his original crimes. In fact I would bet money that those who are pro gun would be the ones wanting the most severe punishment.

What we don't like is the constant erosion of not just gun rights but all human rights.

There are those of us who believe in redemption of the individutal. Some people are simply lying and saying there is no chance of an ordinary person being convicted of a felony. As I said earlier and others have pointed out, almost everyone has committed a felony at some time in their life.

The fact that they are very unlikely to be prosecuted does not change the fact that if someone with the power decides to go after a particular person, they can do so and do it completely by the book, giving the person total due process.

[MineralMan]

"Some misdemeanors preclude gun rights as well and can result in felonious possesion charges by the State....which granted unless it's a Project Exile state will not be as draconian as the Feds but punitive nonetheless.

Bush's charge did not rise to that at the time...however now in some states...multiple DUIs can result in firearms rights revocation.
"

No, it did not. However, I'm of the opinion that anyone stupid enough to get busted multiple times for DUI shouldn't be trusted with firearms anyhow. Supporting drunks with guns is not a big plus in getting rid of bad firearms regulations.

Of course, if you believe that poor judgment in driving while intoxicated doesn't necessarily mean poor judgment in general, then I suppose you can continue to use that argument.

I remember a guy who went on a hunt with me and a couple of other guys. He drank too darn much, and was really sloppy with his handling of his rifle. He never was asked to go again. In fact, if it had been in my power, I'd have taken his rifle away for the duration of the trip. He was an idiot. Incidentally, he ended up killing himself and his family in a drunken car accident. Pretty predictable.

[wardaddy]

As usual you just wish to argue and assume a lot.

Have fun.

[CFW]

In Georgia a simple marijuana possession, even 20 years ago, with a sentence completed under the first offender act, prevents you from getting a Concealed Weapon Permit.

[MineralMan]

"As usual you just wish to argue and assume a lot.
"

So, do you think that someone with multiple DUIs is a great case for gun rights? I don't, and trying to make that case does the cause a lot of harm.

Somewhere, there's a line.

[MineralMan]

"In Georgia a simple marijuana possession, even 20 years ago, with a sentence completed under the first offender act, prevents you from getting a Concealed Weapon Permit."

Does Georgia have a method for citizens to put proposed laws on the ballot? If so, why not get rid of this situation? If not, then it's time to contact your legislators and get to work on changing this situation.

Do something about the laws you object to. Otherwise, it's all just words.

[CFW]

Oh, it's been brought up before, but it gets no where. Maybe next time.