[Moonmad27]

Ditto - the headline is seriously misleading. I'd think freepers or conservatives would support this guy's sentence if he was an ordinary felon on the city street who had that weapon and wasn't supposed to (even if he wasn't bothering anyone or robbing a bank). No one should let their bias toward hunting or gun ownership affect his or her judgement in this.

[SamAdams76]

I agree, the headline is misleading. When I first saw the headline, my blood started to boil. I thought a law-abiding citizen was imprisoned for hunting deer on his own property. Then I read the article and find out deer hunting has nothing to do with it. It would be as if the following headline was applied to the Scott Peterson case: MAN WHO WAS ON FISHING TRIP ARRESTED FOR MURDER.

Not that I don't think it's ridiculous putting a man behind bars for 15 years for carrying a gun on his own property - felon or no felon.

[DeuceTraveler]

True, he should answer to the law for breaking the rules after two prior convictions of burglary. Maybe up to a couple years in prison. 15 years is ridiculous.

[Hodar]

From article:

Prosecutors said Altsman had two felony burglary convictions

Felons are not allowed to own firearms. I don't care if they use them for hammers and crowbars; Felons have demonstrated the ability to break the law. Part of the punishment is that they may never own a weapon again. This Felon chose to ignore the law again (3rd time, darn this a stupid one), and with that comes a consequence.

[jjm2111]

I'd think freepers or conservatives would support this guy's sentence if he was an ordinary felon on the city street who had that weapon and wasn't supposed to (even if he wasn't bothering anyone or robbing a bank).

Hell no! Fifteen years for weapons possesion is ridiculous, esp. when armed robbery get you 6. Also, felons should get their rights back after they've served their time. Maybe they should have to wait another 10 years before owning weapons, but they shouldn't lose their rights forever.