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.

[bluecollarman]

What I would like to know...did the state sell him a Hunting License?

[A. Pole]

So what? He's a convicted felon.

Yeah, "so what". The public will support him for 15 years which will be wasted for him (and his family) for harming nobody (with the exception of deer). Excellent way to run the society.

Prison industry is the fastest growing sector of economy - number one in the world.

[Hodar]

Then there's just a little matter of the law, which states:

being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of title 18, United States Code, section 922(g)(1).

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html

[Dane]

Interesting that the local coverage from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review in reply #54 says nothing about him hunting on his own property as the AP story states, and he was hunting a good 75 miles from where he was residing.

Also the local paper says that he has 3 felony convictions.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Oops - make that three. "Criminal Attempt" something or other, according to the article Dane posted.

[tahiti]

"Those rights innure to us as long as we follow a set of civil codes, called laws. Break them, and you lose rights reserved for the lawful."

I could not find innure in the dictionary. I did find inure.

The definition of "inure" is,

"To habituate to someting undesirable..."

I think you are trying to say, that our "rights" are only applicable to us as individuals "as long as we follow a ser of civil codes, called laws."

I hope not.

This would mean your 4th (unlawful search and seizure), 5th (no self-incrimination), 6th (speedy trial), and 8th (no excessive, cruel and unusual punishment) would not apply if you are prior convicted felon or for that matter if you have been accused of violating "civil codes, called laws."

I suggest you rethink your position and get back to me.

Rights are inalienable, read the preamble.

Laws cannot trump rights. Rights are not negotiable, subject to political whims, or not absolute.

If you believe otherwise, the socialist/communist over the years have gotten to you.

The closes constitutional justification for losing a "right" is in the 5th amendment:

"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

But it is inconsistent and intellectually feeble to state that only one enumerated right is denied (2nd amendment) after a felony conviction but all of the other enumerated rights, in particular 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th, which are all individual rights, are not denied as well.

[Eagle Eye]

One says that the government "grants" rights and the other says that they are "inalienable" rights granted by the Creator. Which side you come down on has a big influence on how you view these issues.

Nobody can make a credible case to me that the government grants rights. Even the Constitution denies that it grants rights.

Why one right is singled out is apparently an attempt to disarm as many people as possible by any means possible. A felon's family is also essentially denied the possession of firearms as well.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Maybe a tract he held on a land contract or hunting lease.

[GhostofWCooper]

Not really. He lost his gun rights after conviction number one, and they are never regained.

[SquirrelKing]

Speaking as a hunter and southern gentleman this is completely justified. Nothing against this man's character or ex-cons in general (he's paid his debt) but rules are rules and this one's got merit. I have had too many experiences of encountering irresponsible or nut-ball individuals with firearms to play loose with this idea. Just talk to any game warden and ask his or her opinion on the subject and you'll find out why they always have their hand on the butt of their pistol when they meet you in the woods.

[templar]

the man has a right to bear arms, for hunting and for self defense, if he was still a threat to the public, he'd still be in prison...

He does not, unless he has followed the required procedures and had his rights restored. If he was still a threat? Well, he is a two time covicted burglar already. Meaning he is quite possibly a career burglar and just in between convictions. We don't (usually) lock people up for life after their first or second conviction for burglary. He obviously has no respect for the law since he was in posession of the firearm and aparently has a "the law doesn't apply to me" attitude. He got what he asked for and can't say no one ever told him you end up in jail for ignoring the laws. He's no victim of an unjust law, he's a three time felon.

If that is not a match, I don't know what would be. Perhaps you're just pro crime?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I know that. My point (obtusely chased, I admit) is that this guy is a very poor poster child. Of course, the "guns uber alles" crowd here is incapable of seeing that.

[seamas]

The problem with the ACC statute is that there is no time limit on the priors. In other words the two prior burglaries could have been when this man was a juvenile and still be the basis for the minimum mandatory 15 years.

[Hodar]

Great point. I can't think of anyone other than felons who should be running around with gun. I mean, what harm can it do? Burglars with guns are on equal footing with farmers with guns, right? I mean, must because a man has been running crack cocain and shooting at police, doesn't mean he should be prohibited from owning firearms. All this man did was commit two felony burglaries. It sure would be silly to object to a man breaking into your home and stealing from you, from later on owning a gun? < /sarcasm>

[templar]

And yes, if those are the standards that apply to all those felons in the 'hood of a variety that many FReepers don't like, then they are the standards that should apply to gun fanatics, whether they be Liddy, some white collar guy, or some toothless camo-clad trailer dweller.

I agree. Just as I believe the right to keep and bear should apply to all these same people if law abiding (in practice, sometimes it doesn't).

[HEY4QDEMS]

Do you understand how easy it is to become a felon? How downright PETTY some of the felony-level transgresions are?

Yes I do, but let's be fair here, we are talking about 2 burglary convictions.

If you view that to be "petty", then I hope you are not sitting on a jury when I or anyone else who happened to shoot and kill an intruder in my home because they were doing something "petty" and is now on trial for murder.

[Eagle Eye]

Voting is not part of the Bill Of Rights. Big difference.

But it is in some of the other amendments.

[Dog Gone]

He either paid his debt to society or he didn't. If he did, then he should have all the rights of a free man. If not, he should still be in jail.

Then you wouldn't support anyone being released on probation or parole, I assume.

[A. Pole]

Well, that's some sort of justice, I suppose. Just not the kind one associates with a free country.

In some sense it is a sign of freedom - most of the dictators and totalitarian regimes are to smart to bother with prosecuting people who hunt for deer on their own property to shelter them for 15 years at the government expense.

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

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

the man has a right to bear arms, for hunting and for self defense, if he was still a threat to the public, he'd still be in prison...

The Constitution also says that felons do not have this right! To many gun control laws have been put in effect because this one has not been properly enforce. We need this kind of strict enforcement and lock up even more felons hunting deer!