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.

[tictoc]

Thousands of years ago... in a distant land... there was a city built on seven hills, one of which was called the Palpatine.

The people who lived there had a ready wit and a dry sense of humor.

For someone like you, it would have taken them all of four words to skewer you like a bloated pig's bladder.

Fiat justitia, pereat mundus.

[RonF]

I disagree. Due process entails a hearing and a judgement.

He had a hearing. It was in federal court, but he had a hearing and a judgement.If someone is convicted of a felony in state court of a state crime, where does the federal government have standing to impose their own sentence on the person without due process of their own?

I'll admit that it is interesting that the federal sentence was imposed based upon his having initially been convicted of a state crime and then committing a further offense, but I don't see where this would be a violation of the Constitution. Again, he did have due process. The law was passed by duly elected representatives, he violated it, he was haled before duly appointed authorities, had a hearing, had a lawyer, and received a judgement. How is this not due process?

[dirtboy]

He had a hearing. It was in federal court, but he had a hearing and a judgement.

I'm talking about the initial imposition by law of a ban on owning firearms, not hearing, of denying him the right to own firearms, not the violation of that condition.

I'll admit that it is interesting that the federal sentence was imposed based upon his having initially been convicted of a state crime and then committing a further offense, but I don't see where this would be a violation of the Constitution. Again, he did have due process. The law was passed by duly elected representatives, he violated it, he was haled before duly appointed authorities, had a hearing, had a lawyer, and received a judgement. How is this not due process?

The fact that he was denied the right to own firearms by a FEDERAL court for a STATE offense without a trial in federal court - this is the main problem I have with this federal law - even more so since Congress cut off funding for an appeals process.

The feds reserve the right to persecute someone for a federal offense when they have been acquitted in state court - the Rodney King officers being the classic example. But they should in turn be required to try ANYONE who they wish to deny gun ownership for a state felony conviction, or else there is no due process. But, then again, they get around this by declaring that gun ownership is a priviledge, not a right.

[Catspaw]

Oh, yeah, I'd just love to see the convicted felon who robbed a jewelry store that I witnessed a couple months ago (and have been subpoenaed six times & it ain't over) have the right to carry a firearm. Just think: instead of the snatch & grab of $15k of diamonds, he could've just capped the clerk and stole a whole lot more.

[dirtboy]

For that reason, I do believe there should be permanent penalties for serious crimes.

I don't think, however, that the feds should be allowed to piggyback on a state's due process and sentencing by imposing a sentence without trial, namely denying the right to own firearms for a state felony conviction.

[MindBender26]

It's also great because the photoradar can't get a good picture at that speed either, and if (when) you have an accident, the screaching of the tires drowns out the screams of the pedestrians! :~)

In the same vein, wouuld love to get a photoradar ticket, (NOT) demand to meet my accuser, and argue that a machine can not be a witness, no machine operator can be witness as they were not there, etc.

Routine radar tickets work because cop testifies that he has been trained to estimate your speed, does so on a regular basis and radar only confirmed his estimation. If he not there, how can they claim same in such a case!

There is also the case of the disapearing evidence. "Peace" protestors here in Orlando were on sidewalk near major intersection. People were going by, and throwing an ice cube out window of 60 mpg car. Hurt like hell, then disolved, evaportated!

[monday]

"So what? He's a convicted felon."

Perhaps we should just execute all convicted felons? You would like that wouldn't you?

[dirtboy]

Perhaps we should just execute all convicted felons? You would like that wouldn't you?

I like how the federal government can pass a law in the 1990s that takes away the right to own firearms for felons convicted prior to the passage of that law. Ex post facto? Who cares, we're the feds!

[Travis McGee]

ping.

[HairOfTheDog]

But that is their only real recourse. Prosecutions are very local events. Federal government add-ons to local sentences gives the country consistency from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.... The delicate balance is in how much.

[Fraulein]

ping

[cinFLA]

Is he a career criminal?

Yes. He was convicted under the Armed Career Criminal Statute. He is lucky to be in PA. In CA it would be his third strike.

[schmelvin]

In the past the idea was you did a crime, paid for it, and were given another chance. If you are convicted today, you lose your right to defend yourself (or hunt) forever.

To me, it's just another little angle in the campaign to disarm all of us... One by one.

You don't even have to be a felon to lose your 2nd Amendment rights, in some states all you have to do is be indicted for a felony.

I've also heard of people losing their right to possess firearms, because they've had a restraining order filed against them. Nowadays in divorce cases, I've heard that wives are encouraged by their attorneys to file restraining orders against their husbands, even if they are perfectly innocent and decent men, because it makes the husbands look bad, allowing the wives to get better "deals" out of the divorce settlements. These innocent men could then lose their 2nd Amendment rights.

[dirtboy]

But that is their only real recourse.

No, it is not. Read this section of the 5th Amendment again:

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

I think 99 percent of the posters here agree that firearms ownership is a key bulwhark of liberty. And I see no exemption in the 5th for situations where it's inconvenient for the feds to issue a mandate without millions of hearings to provide due process to those it wishes to deprive of 2nd Amendment rights.

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. It's that simple. There should be a process with a hearing to deny gun ownership and an appeals process. Otherwise, due process is a joke.

Prosecutions are very local events. Federal government add-ons to local sentences gives the country consistency from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.... The delicate balance is in how much.

Uh, last I checked, there was nothing delicate about it, just the application of the federal hammer-fist to the 2nd Amendment. I don't entirely disagree with the end, but I disagree with the means.

[MosesKnows]

Where is it written that an ex-convict loses his constitutional rights?

Right where it says that he can't vote, either.

That was a curious response. Where does the Constitution say a convicted felon can't vote, or run for office for that matter?

[Catspaw]

the black dude in the ghetto? very high probability he is stealing out of necessity.... drugs, poverty etc etc. he is there cause he has not been able to elevate himself for a host of many reasons; the bulk being manageable.

It takes a village....

[Poohbah]

It takes a village....

Has an idiot been reported missing again?

[Atlas Sneezed]

"I support the right to bear arms, but only for the lawful citizenry."

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

[Rifleman]

I didn't ask what he was convicted under, I asked "is he a career criminal?" The two are not the same. I would like to know if this guy's convictions were youthful folly. In any case, this guy may be scum but if so, why not charge him with something that is actually wrong? His punishment for this violation of this law (created by "look how much I hate crime" legislators whose concern was reelection rather than good government.) is totally out of proportion to the seriousness of the act.

I am not much impressed with the "It was wrong because it was against the rules" argument. It quit working on me when I was about 8 years old. Laws should be just, rational and proportional. This meets none of those criteria.