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 next last
To: MineralMan
Do you understand how easy it is to _avoid_ becoming a felon? You simply do not commit felonies. Be a law-abiding citizen and you will not become a felon.

The laws are so numerous, so complex and so inconsistent that YOU surely commited some felony also, even if you were to be saint. But I doubt that you are saint.

261 posted on 04/30/2003 2:48:23 PM PDT by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
"The laws are so numerous, so complex and so inconsistent that YOU surely commited some felony also, even if you were to be saint. But I doubt that you are saint."

You'd be wrong about that. I'm not a saint, but I don't commit felonies. Suppose you tell me some law I might have broken unwittingly? I doubt that I've even committed any misdemeanors in the past few years. I don't do things that are against the law.

But, if you know of some law you think I might have broken, just let me know what it is, and I'll tell you if I've done that.
262 posted on 04/30/2003 2:51:07 PM PDT by MineralMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: tahiti
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.

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 :

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

263 posted on 04/30/2003 2:55:22 PM PDT by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
You'd be wrong about that. I'm not a saint, but I don't commit felonies. Suppose you tell me some law I might have broken unwittingly? I doubt that I've even committed any misdemeanors in the past few years. I don't do things that are against the law.

Hehe. Do you want to bet? I am sure there are people in you state from FR you would love to find some dirt to win a lucrative bet.

264 posted on 04/30/2003 3:02:40 PM PDT by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Felons have demonstrated the ability to break the law.

Winner of the "duh" comment of the day award.

In case you hadn't noticed, every human has the ability to break the law. If you're advocating punishing those who show that ability, you might as well strap every infant down from birth and rescind the entire Bill of Rights. That is not the benchmark to use in determining who should and should not be punished, mainly because it does not do anything to differentiate. In point of fact, it merely classifies every human as criminal, and frees the state to mete put punishment at will. What's your definition of a police state? Your standard surely makes a rather powerful one, as police states go.

265 posted on 04/30/2003 3:06:05 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Rocky Mountain High
Actually, felons can own Blackpowder rifles and revolvers. The law applies only to modern firearms. Blackpowder weapons can still be purchased by mailorder with no paperwork necessary.

A Marine
266 posted on 04/30/2003 3:10:03 PM PDT by A Marine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Please learn what you are talking about before you go spouting nonsense. This is the LAW

Please learn to read a history book before you go spouting nonsense. The LAW has violated the Constitution innumerable times.

Remember checks and balances? The courts have found many, many laws to be oppressive, unfair, unConstitutional, and just plain stupid.

267 posted on 04/30/2003 3:14:52 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
Felons have demonstrated the ability to break the law

I should have proofread better. I should have said that Felons have demonstrated thier intent, ability, and flagerant disregard of the law. We all have the ability to break the law, but most of us have the sense not to. Those who decide not to exercise good judgement are punished, and should be punished. In the case of a felony, the punishment is jail time, a criminal record and that they are prohibited from voting, and owning a firearm for life.

This particular loser decided that stealing things from people's homes (Felony Burglary) was a good thing for him to do, regardless how his victims may have suffered. He has demonstrated that he is a theif, and will intrude upon innocent people's property to take what is not his; not once, but at a minimum of twice (assuming he was caught 100% of the time). Now, we have people arguing that this person is being punished because he can't legally obtain a firearm, a right enjoyed by someone who actually obeys the laws. Yes, that's just what this country needs, legally armed criminals.

But, besides bashing my origional sentence, do you have any point to make? Or is sniping 'your thing'?

268 posted on 04/30/2003 3:17:11 PM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317
The LAW has violated the Constitution innumerable times.

And how is taking guns away from legally convicted felons uncounstitutional? Historically speaking, who is more likely to shoot someone, a person with a history of armed assault, or a farmer? How about a person who's only crime is robbing a bank, you would actually defend his right to go out and buy another gun?

I suppose you would be offended if a drunk driver who has had 2+ DUI convictions loses his drivers license? If you demonstrate the ability to misuse your freedoms, the freedoms will be taken away. And that is hardly uncounstitiutional.

269 posted on 04/30/2003 3:21:20 PM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Chemist_Geek
You just don't get it.
No, sir, you don't. Any right may be deprived by due process of law.

Volley right back atchya... no, you don't. ;^)

True, rights can be deprived after due process, but his punishment here exceeds all bounds of reason. This unfairness violates that due process. He would get about 6 years for another burglary, but he got 15 years for simply having a gun in his possession. (Note that he would get no punishment for committing the same act with a bow, an equally deadly weapon.) Mandatory sentencing guidelines give us unConstitutionally harsh, improper, contradictory, and unusual penalties.

270 posted on 04/30/2003 3:22:04 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: CFW
He needs to contact NRA's legal department ASAP to appeal and file countersuit.
271 posted on 04/30/2003 3:27:01 PM PDT by Publicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Read post 122. The system for a perpetual and unConstitutionally unappealable process for denying any hope of restoration is already in place. Restoration of your 2A rights goes through the BATF, and the BATF is no longer funded to do so. Therefore, your request gets received, but never gets a fair hearing. SCOTUS has refused to hear the appeal, so the Appellate Court's decision, that this eternal limbo is proper yet also unappealable since no decision has yet been given by the BATF, is now their avenue. Make every right subject to revocation, block the attempts to restore the right by defunding the overseeing agency, and the judiciary will close their eyes and say that you've been given a fair shake because you haven't been refused yet. Nice, isn't it?
272 posted on 04/30/2003 3:27:37 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: A Marine
Sorry, sir; you are mistaken

Sec. 922. - Unlawful acts

and maybe found here
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922.html

(d)
It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person -
(1)
is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2)
is a fugitive from justice;
(3)
is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4)
has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
273 posted on 04/30/2003 3:30:45 PM PDT by Hodar (With Rights, comes Responsibilities. Don't assume one, without assuming the other.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
EXCELLENT POINT!

THAT'S the way the system is SUPPOSED to work.
274 posted on 04/30/2003 3:30:55 PM PDT by Publicus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Sir;
Just ask the "Branch Dividians"[sorry about the spelling!!]
They were acused of selling "illegal" firearms. After the friendly ATF agents came for a visit, alot of them ended up DEAD! Were they commiting a crime? Well ask the county sheriff. he was out there several times a week visting & shooting with them, and he saw no crime being commited!

The feds make and break the laws whenever it suits their desires! It is up to US to keep them srtight. Why let a few peskey laws or people get in to way of a great dictatorship.
SIC SEMPER TRANYIS!!!
275 posted on 04/30/2003 3:48:14 PM PDT by Knightsofswing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: sparkomatic
As far as I know is that when you are a convicted felon you do lost your second amendment rights.
276 posted on 04/30/2003 3:52:25 PM PDT by mlmr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
What felonies do you suppose I might have unknowingly commiteed? Give me an example of one of these laws.

Currently, the statutes in Indiana for Attempt has an improperly phrased mental element, and you can easily be prosecuted for a felony violation for mere misdemeanor acts. For example, if you get behind the wheel after having a few drinks and swerve around, you can be convicted of attempted reckless homocide, a felony (rather than the typical reckless driving misdemeanor), even if you drive two blocks on an empty road, then get out and call a cab.

Assume you're a gas station attendant. Sell gasoline to someone who goes on to rob a bank, and you're guilty of aiding him. You are now subject to the same penalties as he is if he mentioned the robbery and you failed to stop it. (Trying to stop it is not enough... you must succeed in Indiana.)

Assume you're getting a tow, and the driver asks to be paid in cash. If you do, you can be liable for his tax evasion, because you should have known that the request was meant to help him avoid paying business taxes. You're guilty of conspiracy, as well as the tax evasion.

Welcome to felony-land. Leave your rights at the door (especially to self-defense and to vote).

These loopholes and hidden mistakes exist in every state's Codes. They are not used often, if at all, but they exist and can be used to make you a felon at any time.

277 posted on 04/30/2003 4:23:24 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Do you carry a firearm concealed?
278 posted on 04/30/2003 4:28:15 PM PDT by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Catspaw
Why, yes. Let's all bring back the leftist theory of "let's throw money at the problem" and it'll all go away.

Locking this guy up on the public dime for 15 years isn't "throwing money at it"?

279 posted on 04/30/2003 4:38:48 PM PDT by jmc813 (The average citizen in Baghdad,right now, has more firearm rights than anyone in our country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
And how is taking guns away from legally convicted felons uncounstitutional?

The punishment here is the unConstitutional part. 15 years mandatory sentencing for owning an inanimate object. There is nothing in his history that demonstrates that he is unsafe with guns, nothing to indicate that he assaults others or is violent in any way. He is being punished for something that you cowards fear he might do. Once you allow government to prosecute unpopular members of society in this way (it was blacks a few decades back, Jews and Chinese before that... are you proud of the company you keep?), you invite some real governmental abuse. How many times do you need to learn this lesson?

Historically speaking, who is more likely to shoot someone, a person with a history of armed assault, or a farmer?

Exactly proving my point. You are looking, eagerly, to punish someone you think is a lesser citizen than yourself. You support unequal treatment in the law, and you support punishing those based on crimes that you feel they are likely to commit. In short, you're an elitist who delights in using the power of the state to hurt others who have done nothing to warrant it. You're just as much of a thug as you think he is, but you use your "moral superiority" to use the power of the state, whereas all he ever hurt was a lock on a door (burglary is forcible entry to commit larceny inside... no violence necessary).

How about a person who's only crime is robbing a bank, you would actually defend his right to go out and buy another gun?

Yes. Say he was 18 when he made that mistake, is 74 now, and is being threatened by a gang of drug-dealing punks around the corner? His infirm wife is terrified and bed-ridden, and you can't move out of the subsidized housing you live in because there are no other homes available. You would mirthfully stand by and applaud his murder (after watching his wife get raped and bludgeoned, of course), all because he made a mistake, paid his debt to society, and you want to look down your nose at him. Truly, you're a prince among men.

Exactly what public purpose is served by prosecuting this man so harshly, other than putting the populace on notice that guns are evil, and the state will assume that if you own one, you are a threat. The purposes of confining someone are to deter others, deter the individual, incapacitate him (for public safety for the term of his incarceration), punish him, rehabilitate him, or to condemn the act. Plainly, he would have been deterred by far lesser sentences (hell, a $1000 fine would have done that), he does not need to be removed from society because he has never physically harmed another human being, his desire to own a gun can't be "rehabilitated"... that leaves punishing him (and again, 15 years easily violates the 8th Amendment since a third burglary or even a physical assault on another would carry far lesser sentences than he got for injuring no one!), or condemning him so that the public gets the message that if you have ever committed a crime, you're rights are rescinded forever, and that you no longer have the right to self-defense, even though you are no longer a threat to society (if you were, you'd still be in jail). So, please, tell us which purpose is being properly served by 15 years in a federal penitentiary for owning an inanimate object and never physically injuring another human being?

I suppose you would be offended if a drunk driver who has had 2+ DUI convictions loses his drivers license? If you demonstrate the ability to misuse your freedoms, the freedoms will be taken away. And that is hardly uncounstitiutional.

Duh. The Bill of Rights explicitly mentions ONE product... and it ain't modes of transportation. You can think this is a comparable argument?

280 posted on 04/30/2003 4:43:52 PM PDT by Teacher317
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]


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