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 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-316 last
To: editor-surveyor
"The consstitution specifically forbids the enactment of all gun laws. No Exceptions. - Due process requires the nullification of all gun statutes. Anything less is short of Due process.
"

Silliness. We have thousands of laws regulating firearms. Since they stand and have not been overturned by the courts, you are incorrect regarding their consitutionality.
301 posted on 05/01/2003 7:24:20 AM PDT by MineralMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 295 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
I'm quite certain I have not committed a felony. ... I do not break laws.

You're evading the question: how do you KNOW?
How many laws have you actually read?

I have read sections of the NY penal code - it's downright scary how easy it is for the average "law abiding" citizen to commit crimes (including felonies) without knowing.

302 posted on 05/01/2003 9:53:29 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Haven't been following what's going through the courts recently, eh? Gun laws are starting to fall, and high-level courts are asking SCOTUS to review the 2nd Amendment with the obvious implication that they believe "...shall not be infringed" will be affirmed and the gun laws will fall en masse (kinda like how abortion was illegal until Roe v. Wade, then all abortion prohibitions fell overnight).
303 posted on 05/01/2003 9:57:57 AM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
"Like it or not, as a civilized society, we routinely give up certain rights.

For example, the freedom of speech dooes not give us the right to cry "fire" in a crowded theater, to make jokes about bombs on aircraft, to make fraudulent statements in the pursuit of profit, etc."

That is correct, we have no "freedom of speech rights" on private property and yes there are civil punishments for fraudulent statements.

But, your government cannot deny or restrict your "freedom of speech rights" on such same property.

It is stated umambiguously, absolutely, and with complete clarity:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech,"

Since the 14th amendment establishes jurisdiction of the constitution within the boundaries of a state, "Congress" becomes all government entities.

As I like to say to the gun control freaks, "what part of NO do you not understand?"

It is the owner of the theatre and the owner of the airline that can have you physically removed from their property or denied entrance and ultimately, sued for the damages that you cause by acting irresponsibly against the wishes of the owner.

It is part of the socialist/communist fraud that has undermined the presumption of liberty established by our founding fathers, that government control and regulation has been so easily implemented by corrupt judges and politicans who bark out phrases such as "compelling state interest" and "for public safety" to appeal to those citizens not courages enought to live in a free society.

304 posted on 05/01/2003 7:29:32 PM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
"As far as I know their only one right which can be denied on the ground of crime - it is right to be free from the servitute and slavery - according to the Thirteenth Amendment :"

A very good point.

And since this denial of a right is a "constitutional amendment," not an act from Congress, the denial of this ONE right is constitutional.

Denial of all other rights by an act of Congress, is then, not constitutional.

305 posted on 05/01/2003 7:39:10 PM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Thank you for the correction
306 posted on 05/01/2003 7:49:35 PM PDT by tahiti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Is the actual punishment of physically being in prison the only way the government can deprive convicts of their rights?

No. A person can lose his gun rights even his he only received a slap on the wrist for his crime. All that matters is that the crime be punishable by more than a year in jail. Punishable, not punished.

307 posted on 05/02/2003 3:41:07 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Is the actual punishment of physically being in prison the only way the government can deprive convicts of their rights?

No. A person can lose his gun rights even his if he only received a slap on the wrist for his crime. All that matters is that the crime be punishable by more than a year in jail. Punishable, not punished.

308 posted on 05/02/2003 3:47:12 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
What I'm saying is that deprivation of gun rights is just another form of punishment that can be used by the state against criminals.

Just like every other right, including even our most basic freedoms, this right can be taken away as a punishment for crime, as long as it is by due process of law and the punishment is not considered cruel and unusual by the courts. This idea is very solidly grounded in English commonlaw and our own traditions.

309 posted on 05/02/2003 4:03:29 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
My bad. I completely misunderstood your question (I thought you were asking whether jail time was a prerequisite for loss of rkba). Never mind.
310 posted on 05/02/2003 4:33:23 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
"We have thousands of laws regulating firearms."

No argument, but not one of them is constitutionally defensible. Look up the word infringe, and then apply it.

311 posted on 05/04/2003 6:11:32 PM PDT by editor-surveyor ( . Best policy RE: Environmentalists, - ZERO TOLERANCE !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
"What I'm saying is that deprivation of gun rights is just another form of punishment that can be used by the state against criminals."

There is a strong tradition in law that the punishment must fit the crime. That tradition has it's roots in the laws of ancient Israel (read Leviticus?). Gun prohibition cannot be logically defended for non-violent actions.

Most importantly, if the government can take one gun from one individual, then they can take all guns from all persons. It's only logical. That is why the founders prohibited all gun laws, not to protect the rights of criminals; violent people can be kept in prison for life in a functional republic.

312 posted on 05/04/2003 6:19:56 PM PDT by editor-surveyor ( . Best policy RE: Environmentalists, - ZERO TOLERANCE !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
You wrote:

"That will be next, right after they do away with juries."

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

IMO, the sad thing is...for all intents and purposes the trial lawyers have basically already done that. I generally think that...juries are massaged, manipulated, and prefabricated...in the so-called jury selection process. Not in order to get a decent, fair, prudent...result. But to get the most malleable morons they can find.

BWDIK?

FRegards,

313 posted on 05/04/2003 6:27:55 PM PDT by Osage Orange (Hillary Clinton took to N.Y. like a hog to persimmons.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Most importantly, if the government can take one gun from one individual, then they can take all guns from all persons. It's only logical.

Pretty dumb thing to say. If the government can put one person in prison, can it put all people there?

314 posted on 05/04/2003 7:23:13 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 312 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Get a clue, blind man. Look at Cuba, Iraq, N.Korea, Red China, etc.
315 posted on 05/05/2003 4:05:56 PM PDT by editor-surveyor ( . Best policy RE: Environmentalists, - ZERO TOLERANCE !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 314 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Well, before we slide into despotism, try answering my objection to your stupid argument first.
316 posted on 05/05/2003 9:57:23 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 315 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-316 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