[Drizzt]

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.

McVerry said he had ''great difficulty'' in imposing the mandatory sentence after Altsman said he didn't realize hunting was illegal for him.

''I wasn't in a bank with an automatic weapon. I wasn't carjacking someone ... I wasn't in a bar with a gun,'' Altsman said. ''I was hunting.''

Prosecutors said Altsman had two felony burglary convictions before he was seen by deputy state game commissioners hunting on property he owned in Hovey Township on Nov. 26, 2001.

Altsman had pleaded guilty in November to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He said he didn't challenge the charges for fear that he would spend more time in prison if he was convicted at trial.

Under the guidelines, a sentence of at least 15 years was mandatory.

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/120/nation/Odds_and_Ends_:.shtml

[Marko Kloos]

But the country is a safer place now.... :rolleyes:

[TarpleyG]

Let me ask this. Would not allowing felons to own/use firearms if they were convicted of a crime involving a firearm be fair enough? This is a prime example of where a zero tolerance policy just doesn't make any since.

GT

[Double Naught Spy]

Drizzt, your thread title is greatly sensationalized. The goober did NOT get 15 years for hunting deer on his own property. The property and the deer are not even relevant to his sentence except they were what drew the attention of law enforcement. The title should have been "Convicted {Two Time Loser} Felon Gets 15 Years for Gun Possession."

You gotta wonder how this guy thought it was that he wasn't allowed to hunt. Felons learn quickly that they have lost rights. No doubt he knew he should not have been in possession of a gun. The old, "I didn't know" crap simply does not work. If he actually did not know, then he was too ignorant to be allowed to have a gun anyway.

As for the country being safer, I feel better. I prefer felons not to have firearms. Part of the territory that comes with attaining the title of felon means you have been found by society to be a threat to it and hence have lost rights. He knew that before getting convicted and he knew it afterwards.

Don't pity the felons. They sure as hell won't pity you.

[Marko Kloos]

I prefer felons not to have firearms.

And you think that gun control accomplishes that goal?

Felons who want firearms will have firearms, regardlessof your or my preference. That's why *I* have firearms. I just don't see why someone should lose their civil right to self-protection for life just because they have a felony on their record. Remember, in California you could be a felon for having the wrong bits on your rifle.

The whole "no gun rights for felons" legislation is just feel-good crap, right in line with the worst "wishful thinking" laws being pushed on us by the Liberals. It disarms only those ex-felons willing to obey the law, those you don't have to worry about anyway.

[COHIBA]

he should have played it safe and used a muzzleloader.
it would have been arguable that if the ATF didnt define a frontstuffer as a firearm by making its sale go through an FFL then his owning of it would not be considered illegal.
were i a felon i would hunt w/ a ML and have a 44 cal blackpowder in the car and a SXS blackpowder as a housegun.

[CZ-75]

:rolleyes:



:barf:

[Kinsman]

I know I've seen this type of thing debated here and other places.....but it seems to me that if a felon has paid his debt, then he should revert to being a free man. I guess I would make certain allowances for a guy who shoots up a McDonalds or whatever though.

[TheeBadOne]

If you pay your dues (time) long enough you get rights back.

[CMichael]

A convicted felon loses some of his rights.

I have no problem with a convicted felon losing his right to own a gun.

As was previously stated the issue has nothing to do with hunting. It has to do with a convicted felon who was caught having a gun illegally.

[444]

If this guy was such a threat to society, he should have never been let out of prison in the first place. Once he has paid his debt to society, he should be a free man again. I personally don't believe that someone should be punished forever for something they once did unless that punishment merits the death penelty or life inprisonment. As was mentioned, this has been cussed and discussed many times over the years on the various gun forums. And has been mentioned before and in this thread, some pretty minor things can be felonies depending on where the crime occured. For example a friend of mine was a convicted felon for possession of less than an ounce of marijuna when he was 18 years old. He has paid for that the rest of his life. I believe that here in Nevada, you can be convicted of a felony and sentenced to time in a maximum security prison for cheating at gambling. I am not sure of the kalifornia laws in regard to firearms, but I was regularly shooting my AR15s with 30 round mags in kalifornia and I didn't even realize I was in kalifornia; I live right on the border and was just shooting out in the desert not far from where I live, I didn't realize that I had crossed over the border until someone told me. This might have been a felony.
As usual, we don't know the whole story behind this. On the one hand, this guy might have been convicted of burglary when he was 18 and is now 45 years old and has spent the last 27 years as an honest, otherwise law abiding citizen. On the other hand, he may be a total jerk who belongs in prison; who knows based on what information we have ?

[cordex]

I prefer felons not to have firearms.
I think it really depends on the felony. If the only crimes considered felonies were true serious violent crimes (murders, rapes and the like) then I'd agree. But since there are all manner of silly felonies that have nothing to do with tendency toward violence, I cannot agree with this broad generalization. And as Lendringser pointed out ... if they want 'em, they'll get their guns regardless of how you or I or Joe Law feels about it. If they're willing to murder someone (slightly against the law as well, you know) why would we think that they would follow the "felons cant own guns" bit of the law?

As for this particular individual ... two times convicted of burglary ... hrm ...

Here's what gets me:
Prosecutors said Altsman had two felony burglary convictions before he was seen by deputy state game commissioners hunting on property he owned in Hovey Township on Nov. 26, 2001.
Were the game commissioners really out for this guy or what? I admit, I'm relatively new to hunting and have only gone the past few years but - except for when I was checking in a deer - I've never even been asked for my deer tags. Much less been stopped and had a background check run by DNR officers. In fact, I've never actually seen a DNR officer on the prowl during deer season. Nor was I aware that they were in the habit of running around on private property without consent of the owner - but this might be part of their authority, I don't know.

I must be missing something.

[CZ-75]

A convicted felon loses some of his rights.

Why? He's served his time, after all.

If he is still in need of punishment, then his sentence should've been longer to start with. If he can even find a decent job with a conviction, then he'll be paying for all the services the govt. provides with his taxes, but with no say, since he lost his suffrage. Neither will he be able to defend himself.

For the time being, though 15 years is a ridiculously long sentence for this. One year or less + probation, etc. would be more sensible and fitting.

[Logistar]

Ok... a convicted felon wants to hunt on his land... ok.... seems ok. What if he wanders onto the neighbors land by accident. Hey, that's alright.

As long as he hunts and has, say a shotgun, then he may as well keep if for self-defense at home - in fact it might make a nice truck-gun.

So eventually the convicted felon takes a gun (of some kind) just about anywhere so what good is the law?

If you don't like the law then try to change it but I guess I just don't have much sympathy for BGs. You play, you pay.

I realize that BGs are gonna have weapons anyway but I'd prefer that the police HAVE the ability to arrest the felon carrying a weapon before he does something bad with it. When he demonstrated he shouldn't be trusted then HE SHOULDN'T BE TRUSTED.

Then again, maybe I am wrong... maybe he has been RE-HABILITATED! :rolleyes:

Logistar

[TheeBadOne]

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime

[Marko Kloos]

A convicted felon loses some of his rights.

Let's tackle this assertion by the horns.

Says who?

The Bill of Rights has no footnote that says "...except for persons convicted of a felony". If your copy of the Constitution has one, I'd like to see it.

The fact that a majority got together and unilaterally declared that some articles of the Bill of Rights no longer apply to felons does not change the fact that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are inalienable. They are not subject to majority vote, so any law that infringes upon them is unconstitutional, no matter what the nine black-robed Gladys Kravitzes on the USSC say.

Furthermore, once you go down that road of reasoning, you might as well flush the Bill of Rights down the toilet. If you can declare the Second Amendment null and void for felons, someone else can do the same with all the other amendments of the Bill fo Rights. Once the "felon exception" for the Bill of Rights is commonly accepted, then all you have to do to abolish the BoR altogether is to make damn near everything a felony...like putting a freaking flash hider on a rifle, for example. Be careful what you wish for, or you may wake up and find yourself on the receiving end of such logic.

I think that if someone is fit to walk the streets, they ought to be considered fit to defend their own lives and their families'. If they're not trustworthy with a gun, keep them locked up or kill them outright, because there is no law in the world that will keep a gun out of the hands of someone who wants one bad enough, felon or not. All you are doing is make yourself feel good by denying a constitutional right to those felons who are now actually willing to obey the law.

[TheeBadOne]

I think that you'll find that the Constitution sets up provissions for passing laws. People always point and say, "It's not in the Constitution". Simplistic, at best.

[cordex]

I think that you'll find that the Constitution sets up provissions for passing laws. People always point and say, "It's not in the Constitution". Simplistic, at best.
And just what happens when one of these laws is repugnant to the constitution, sir?

[TheeBadOne]

It gets challenged and brought before the Supreme Court.

[Marko Kloos]

Always remember that the Supreme Court at one point judged that it was legal to own people, as long as they had the right hue.

Some folks on this board strenuously object to the USSCs decision on Roe V. Wade, too. Is the pro-choice position constitutional? Or does it cease to be so when a future USSC reverses it?

Could that mean that the USSC is a political instrument and not the infallible interpreter of the Constitution?

[Ebbtide]

The fact that a majority got together and unilaterally declared that some articles of the Bill of Rights no longer apply to felons does not change the fact that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are inalienable.

So should Charles Manson be allowed a gun in his cell, it is a "right" afterall? :D

[TheeBadOne]

Some people feel drugs should be legal, some think murder is ok. What's your point? Our government was set up with a set of rules. These rules allow for vigorous debate. Our system is adversarial. This allows people to fight for or contest rules, laws, procedures, etc. It is what makes our country what it is. Will everyone be happy? No. Some will hunker down in bunkers fearful of "Big Brother", and our country lets them. Some will run for office, good for them. Some will work and play, ok too. Some will spend they entire life trying to tear the government down, and you know what, with very few limitations, that's ok too.

[Elmer Snerd]

But since there are all manner of silly felonies that have nothing to do with tendency toward violence, I cannot agree with this broad generalization.

I want more information before forming a firm opinion about Altsman, but I agree that the increasing encroachment of administrative felonies is worrisome. I wonder if this is a deliberate anti ploy.

"Hand 'em over and come along quietly. (Your name here), we've got you cold on pro-gun hate speech, failure to maintain a neatly mowed lawn, and possession of more than one kilogram of ammunition. Also, your emails to your representatives have been classified as Felony Spam (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=20627). The DA has authorized me to inform you that if you cooperate fully, he will allow you to plea bargain the charge of 'Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction' down to breaking wind in public."

[Zander]

I think that if someone is fit to walk the streets, they ought to be considered fit to defend their own lives and their families'.I think your are precisely correct.

The Constitution serves two primary functions [or should]; limit government and guarantee citizens' inherent Rights.

No one should be deprived of the Right to use a self-defense tool of his choice if he has paid his debt to society.

[cordex]

Could that mean that the USSC is a political instrument and not the infallible interpreter of the Constitution?
HERETIC!

[mercedesrules]

This is what's wrong with, "enforce the laws already on the books". Exactly when will a law be too unjust for some of you to follow?

Smash all gun control!

MR

[Byron Quick]

If he actually did not know, then he was too ignorant to be allowed to have a gun anyway.

Hmmm. Just read the 2nd Amendment again...just to be sure. Yep, I was right...no mention of ignorance or the lack of ignorance. No mention of "allow." I did read "shall not be infringed." Now there's a word that a heap of folk are ignorant of its meaning: infringed.

So should Charles Manson be allowed a gun in his cell, it is a "right" afterall?

Charles Manson should have been executed, thus his rights should be moot.

On the other hand, this republic made it through 192 years without the provisions of the 1968 Gun Control Act. This republic has now lived under those provisions for 35 years. Does anyone here propose that we have less killings, robberies, rapes etc. by convicted felons today than we did pre 1968?

There are many felonies today...many relating to your hobby of firearms...that did not exist within living memory...and society was getting along just fine. One of the biggest dangers of representative democracy is that the darned representatives feel compelled to continue making laws.

Exactly how many laws do you think can co-exist with freedom?

[mohican]

If I go one county over, and spank my kid in public I could end up in front of the wrong judge and be found guilty of domestic violence, which even as a misdemeanor cost me my legal ability (but not my right) to own fire arms. Another judge in the same county wouldn't construe spanking as child abuse, and it wouldn't be an issue. You can do a Jackie Gleason imitation (verbally threaten your spouse, without doing it) and a judge can place you under a restraining order, which can end your legal gun owner ship. I'm not necessarily saying you should threaten your wife, either, but saying "Honey, it you don't straighten up, I'm going to turn you over my knee" should not put you in purgatory, either.

There are a lot of shades of gray to this. I know of "felons" that have had judges "restore their full rights" and that now possess fire arms. I doubt if this would get them through Insant Check to purchase a new gun, but they are left alone, at least locally.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if felons legally had guns. That would mean the legal climate would be such that "ordinary citizens" would have less legislated restrictions on their ability to carry.

Let a previous felon have a gun. Let me have a gun. That way the field is level.

Who has the guns in Great Britain now? Not the police usually, not the law abiding, but Felons. And it's not legal for the limey felons either! Hmmmm

When will people realize the people with a penchant for violence will be violent, and have guns regardless of laws or restrictions?

Notice that I haven't said anything about the 2nd amendment in this rant. It's because it already gives People (and I haven't seen any exclusions for felons) the right to keep and bear arms.

End of t:banghead: :banghead:

[HankB]

I personally don't believe that someone should be punished forever for something they once did...
...Altsman had two felony burglary convictions... Burglary is IMHO a serious crime, with a real victim, a real injured party. Burglary is not some sort of bureaucratic paperwork violation or a victimless technicality like having 5 instead of the required 6 domestic parts on a FAL rifle.

And with two convictions, the guy was already a repeat offender.

I have little sympathy for this guy. . . but I WOULD like to know how much time (if any) this repeat offender had already spent behind bars.

[HerbG]

Am I supposed to feel sorry for some guy who already has two felony convictions and who is caught committing a THIRD felony! Give me a break!

[Byron Quick]

Am I supposed to feel sorry for some guy who already has two felony convictions and who is caught committing a THIRD felony!

Feeling sorry for felons is not the point.

Personally, I believe the optimal solution to this issue would have been his demise during his first burglary. I believe that is the optimal solution for all violent felons.

However, our state and federal legislators have gotten mighty free with the felony label in the past decades.

Take my home state of Georgia: First offense for carrying a pistol without permission is a misdemeanour...second offense is a felony. No more firearms. No self defense. No hunting with firearms. Just? Constitutional? Moral?

Say you've got a shotgun with an 18 inch barrel that with the stock is 26 1/4 overall. You're at the range with it and pack up to go home. Unbeknownst to you, the one inch recoil pad has become detached. The overall length of the shotgun is now 251/4 inches. Guess what, buddy? You are now a FELON if stopped by an officer of the law who discovers your dastardly plot.

What about the gun show promoter who was convicted of a felony in Mexico: possessing ammunition. The act was legal in the US but he is barred from firearms possession and his livelihood because he is now a FELON.:barf:

You can make a mistake in addition or subtraction on your tax return and if the government wants to push it...guess what? You're a felon.

If you get to looking into the matter there are a hell of a lot of felonies out there that do not involve harming anyone. These acts are felonies for one reason: a bunch of people with the pathological need to have power over others voted to make it so.

[jimpeel]

This law is a Bill of Attainder. A person is attained guilty for life for the crime of having committed a crime.

There is no authority in the Constitution to attain a person guilty for life; or that the person so attained should have their Constitutional rights eliminated for the remainder of their life. The sole exception for this is the crime of treason.

There will be those who will say "What about voting rights, Peel? They can't vote if they're felons."

This is, of course, true on its face. The right to vote, however, is not an absolute right; it is a conferred right.

Read the text of the Fifteenth Amendment and you will see that there is a certain something there called "Section 2 which states:

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. This means that they can add legislation at their whim to restrict anyone or any group they want. They can giveth and they can taketh away.

[jimpeel]

This happened in the PRK but could happen anywhere.

Man saves five lives by taking gun away from perp.

http://www.examiner.com/news/default.jsp?story=n.doublemurder.0816w

Man who saved five lives jailed for taking perp's gun.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/08/17/MN229399.DTL

[Elmer Snerd]

Under the guidelines, a sentence of at least 15 years was mandatory.

This is another thing about this case that bugs me. Thanks to the War on Some Drugs and Guns, the judge's personal discretion regarding your sentence can be taken away by the magic words "mandatory sentencing". It doesn't matter anymore if the judge has an ocean of common sense and knows that you just screwed up because you were tired after spending all day building orphanages.

[Dave Markowitz]

Let me ask this. Would not allowing felons to own/use firearms if they were convicted of a crime involving a firearm be fair enough? This is a prime example of where a zero tolerance policy just doesn't make any since.

No. E.g., it is a felony to have too many imported parts in a semiautomatic firearm, but it's not a felony to have an identical firearm with less than this arbitrary number of imported parts. The felony still "involves" a firearm.

If a felon is too dangerous to society to possess a firearm, he should remain in prison. If he is seen as sufficiently trustworthy to be released back into society, he should be trusted enough to possess a gun.

[cordex]

If an individual (for whatever reason) is too dangerous to possess a firearm, should they be allowed to possess an automobile? What about five gallons of gasoline and a lighter? Knives?

[rock jock]

When our society starts administering puniskment that is appropriate to the crime, I am all for restoring full rights to felons. As it stands, our revolving door policy of corrections only recycles criminals into meaner, stronger thugs when they get out.

[George Dickel]

I agree if a felon has paid his debt to society then he should have his rights restored. Whether they have sufficiently paid the debt is a point for another discussion. However, I do disagree that anyone should be able to legally posess a firearm.

The mentally retarded is one group. Many of them hold jobs and live in group homes where they return at night where they are supervised by a competent individual or they live with a family member but they have to have someone watch over them. They are incapable of controlling their own lives. There are mentally disturbed people who must take drugs to in order to control their problem. Some are violent if they don't take their drugs and won't take them unless forced to do so. Do you want these people to be armed?

The problem is how to have laws that prevent mentally incapable people of having a firearm that won't be bastardized into an instrument to ban all people from having a firearm. The solution to the problem is voters that pay attention to their elected representatives actions, not their words, and fire the ones that go too far.

[jimpeel]

Remember, there were no restrictions on ex-felons in possession of a firearm prior to the passage of GCA68. They changed the Constitution by fiat.

[moa]

All in all, I think we have too many laws to begin with. It is a hodge-podge from state-to-state and all the nokes and crannies of the Federal government.

In my state you are proscribed from owning a firearm if you have a conviction for any crime of violence no matter how long ago, and regardless if it is felony or misdemeanor. One exception is if it was a juvenile conviction and the person has attained the age of 30 with no other convictions for a violent crime.

Our gun owner-hating States Attorney has even determined that crimes such as disorderly conduct can bar a person from possessing a firearm.

[ojibweindian]

What a wet sack of fetid crap this ruling is. And for those who support it, just wait till you "violate" a law and become a "felon".

[ScottsGT]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32337

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deer hunter gets 15 years in prison
Judge admits he had 'great difficulty' imposing mandatory sentence

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 1, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com


Jack Altsman will spend a mandatory 15 years in federal prison because he hunted deer on his own property, reports the Associated Press.

The Beaver Falls, Pa., man was caught on the horns of a mandatory-sentencing statute requiring a minimum 15 years imprisonment for convicted felons found in possession of a firearm. Altsman, 43, has had two burglary convictions.

U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry said he had "great difficulty" in imposing the stiff mandatory sentence, according to the report.

Altsman, who said he hadn't realized hunting was illegal for him, added that he was the only one available to hunt with his father, who suffers from Alzheimer's.

"I wasn't in a bank with an automatic weapon," Altsman said. "I wasn't carjacking someone ... I wasn't in a bar with a gun. I was hunting."

Altsman was witnessed hunting on his property in Hovey Township by deputy state game commissioners on Nov. 26, 2001, according to prosecutors. Ironically, said the AP report, he had pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, deciding not to challenge the charges because he feared he would receive a more severe sentence if convicted in a trial.

However, according to sentencing guidelines of the Armed Career Criminal Act, the 15-year sentence was mandatory. McVerry could have sentenced Altsman to 19 years.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.

[Monte Harrison]

You know, the writers of slanted propaganda must really think all people who will be reading their stuff are total idiots. The Beaver Falls, Pa., man was caught on the horns of a mandatory-sentencing statute requiring a minimum 15 years imprisonment for convicted felons found in possession of a firearm. Altsman, 43, has had two burglary convictions. Convicted felons cannot possess firearms. Period. It may not be right, but that is how it is, and this is quite common knowledge. This guy was not sent to prison for hunting on his own property, he was sent up for being an armed criminal.

[tyme]

Well, some people need a 15-year mandatory sentence, but I don't think it's the ex-con helping his dad hunt, and I'm not sure it's the judge. I think those in need of the sentence are probably a bunch of former D.C. idiots who have since retired, and current D.C. idiots who have yet to repeal the idiotic laws responsible for this disaster.

Monte, the point is that 15 years is not a reasonable sentence for the crime, if in fact a true crime occurred.

[Ian]

No actual crime was committed. Nobody was hurt, nobody was threatened, no proterty was damaged.

Personally, I think this horrible person should be forced to face the consequences of his actions. The courts ought to force him to grill his Dad a venison steak!

[PATH]

He has two felony burglary convictions so picking up any firearm is not allowed. I am sure he could have picked up bow to hunt.

Maybe he should have looked into getting his rights restored if that is at all possible. I do think 15 years is over the top though.
In the state of New York some murderers don't get that sentence!

Tough one.

[JohnBT]

You know, maybe he was on his way to rob his elderly neighbors or burgle a church.

If dad needed someone to hunt with him, then his two-time loser son could have gone unarmed to guide him.

How many of the 15 years he got were parole/probation time he had hanging over his head?

JT

[TheeBadOne]

1, 2, 3 strikes!

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

2 seperate felonly convictions. I think the man knew waaaay better than to pick up a gun, just thought he wouldn't get caught on family land. :rolleyes:

[Elmer Snerd]

more here:
(link to this thread deleted)
(mod note: merged)

[Mike Irwin]

"Always remember that the Supreme Court at one point judged that it was legal to own people, as long as they had the right hue."

Always remember, too, that the Constitution ALLOWED the ownership of people, as well.

That's right, that sanctified, deified, glorified, honorized, sermonized, etc. document ALLOWED the ownership of human beings by other human beings.

Sort of makes you pause in your argument, doesn't it?

Given that the apparent position is that the Constitution is all infallible, and we should revert to the letter of Constitutional Law, I'll see you all down at the slave markets. I find myself in need of a couple of fine pickaninny's to help out around the plantation...

Oh WAIT!

Silly me!

The Constitution was written not by Gods who shot lightning bolts out their eyes at those who dared question their ability to lay down the ONE and ONLY LAW, it was written by a group of men, who by their own recognition had serious, pervasive faults!

Considering that other groups of men have, over the years, attempted to interpret the writings of the first group of men in a logical and straight-forward way that takes into account the changing needs of society, who else SHOULD interpret the Constitution?

What? No interpretation? Strict adherence to the Constitution as it was written? Throw out all of the Amendments after the Bill of Rights?

Cool.

See you down at the slave markets!

[nualle]

lendringser protested:The Bill of Rights has no footnote that says "...except for persons convicted of a felony". If your copy of the Constitution has one, I'd like to see it.
The footnote: The 13th Amendment.
"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."

Felony is defined in the U.S., in part, as a crime the conviction for which carries a limited form of life-long involuntary servitude. The form of that servitude includes loss of the rights of a citizen, including voting and having/carrying guns.

My own opinions about felons and the legal system aside, this seems to me to sum up the constitutionality argument.

Good point, Mike Irwin, about the constitution. It's not holy writ and the framers were far from divine. It's not helpful that it's so reverently treated.

[Ian]

Mike - The Supreme Court's support of salvery is only the tip of the iceberg. They've made so many disgusting rulings that it boggles the mind. Consider Roosevelt's New Deal legislation. The Court smacked it down repeatedly up until the spring of 1937. At that point, Roosevelt's supporters put a bill into Congress to pack the Court with 6 more pro-Roosevelt judges. Suddenly, the Court reversed its opinion! A couple judges handily changed sides, and 1937 saw a series of landmark pro-huge-government rulings. Heck, since 1940 the Court NEVER ruled against any use of the interstate commerce power until US v Lopez in 1995 (and as we know, the school zone possession law in question there was simply repassed without challenge a few years later).

Here are some specific examples for those of you who trust the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution:

McCray v US (1904) - Congress passed a law placing a tax on artificially-colored oleo margarine. Friggin Federal regulation of margarine. Not for being dangerous, mind you, but simply as a way to jack up the dairy industry (who do you think gave more money to Congress, dairy people or margarine people?). The Court uphold the law as Constitutional, on the grounds that since Congress has the power to levy taxes, it has the power to levy any taxes.

Wickard v Filburn (1942) - Filburn worked a small wheat farm in Ohio. In 1940, he was given permission by the Feds to grow 11.1 acres of wheat (does this strike anyone else as being wrong already?). However, he planted 23 acres of wheat - 11.1 were sold, and the remaining 11.9 were consumed by his family, and never left his property. He was fined $117 for exceed his quota of wheat production (thank you, Komrade Roosevelt). The Supreme Court unanimously upheld his conviction as a legitimate use of federal commerce powers. This is one of the cases defining the use of the commerce clause power to this day.

[Mike Irwin]

"At that point, Roosevelt's supporters put a bill into Congress to pack the Court with 6 more pro-Roosevelt judges. Suddenly, the Court reversed its opinion!"

Ian,

You need to read a little more about this.

No, Roosevelt brought up the issue of packing the Supreme Court. The reaction, even from many of his staunchest supporters in Congress?

Roosevelt was pretty much left hanging out to dry.

Condemnation was widespread, and he lost a LOT of political capital. One of the serious consequences was that FDR's legislative initiatitives had a LOT tougher road through Congress after this debacle.

The Court also didn't "suddenly" reverse its opinion.

The New Deal wasn't dealt with in a single, pervasive, and overriding opinion. It was addressed in a whole series of opinions ranging over several years.

The National Recover Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration were, among others, declared to be un Constitutional.

However, it's also instructive to look at what wasn't either brought before the court or found to be unconstitutional -- including the Civilian Conservation Corps and, most importantly of all, the Tennessee Valley Authority.

NRA was struck down in 1935, AAA in 1936.

Interestingly enough, one of the justices MOST opposed to Roosevelt's activities, James(?) McReynolds, was a Wilson appointee and Democrat.

The simple fact of the matter is that large parts of the New Deal WERE unconstitutional by any imaginable reading -- many of those who worked to pass these New Deal laws admitted that they were unconstitutional but felt that the needs of the time more than excused the Constitutional issues.

Now, given that the Supreme Court is made of of men and women, obviously people whose own experiences and views are going to influence their view of what is and what is not Constitutional, and given that the Constitution was written by men whose own experiences and views influenced their writing of the Constitution, just who then IS qualified to say what is and what is not Constitutional?

[Hand_Rifle_Guy]

There is a procedure in place for restoration of rights to convicted felons. They can petition to have their rights re-instated.

Unfortunately, they have to petition the friendly beareaucrats of our favorite branch of the Federal Gubmint, the BATF.

BATF has flatly REFUSED to so much as entertain the motions of restoring felons rights, citing "a lack of administrative funding and manpower" for what, the past 20-odd years or so? This in spite of the fact that it is a specifically mandated duty they are charged to administrate.

In my mind, this is deliberate malfeasance. The individuals perpetrating THIS little outrage should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town. This policy, like mandatory sentencing, removes any sort of middle ground or mitigation of what is admitted by all concerned to be a dire punishment indeed: the permanent abrogation of rights delineated in the Constitution as "inalienable."

Not that it matters in this particular case, as no mention is made of futile efforts on the part of our felon of the hour. But this is still a major part of the whole issue, as this guy had a form of redress available at least in potentia, that he can't even consider REGARDLESS of what the court thinks. I seem to remember reading that a judge tried to address this with the BATF administration some time ago, and was simply told "NO", citing reasons outlined above. That was where it got left, IIRC. (I think I read this at CATO or KABA, but it was a while back. Sorry I can't provide a reference link.)

:fire: Grrrr! :fire:

Heads oughta roll for that one. Us peons get hammered with contempt of court for that kind of attitude.

[tyme]

(Ian) (and as we know, the school zone possession law in question there was simply repassed without challenge a few years later).
To be fair, the new one has a "in... interstate or foreign commerce" clause, so if you build your own firearm (if it's legal in your state) and haven't moved since then, you should be able to tell the feds to take a hike if they come poking around.

922(q)(2)(a)
It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

So the part of US v Lopez that reads "Second, §922(q) contains no jurisdictional element which would ensure, through case by case inquiry, that the firearm possession in question affects interstate commerce..." is now irrelevant, since 922(q) has such an element now.

[Marko Kloos]

"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."

Felony is defined in the U.S., in part, as a crime the conviction for which carries a limited form of life-long involuntary servitude. The form of that servitude includes loss of the rights of a citizen, including voting and having/carrying guns.

The 13th Amendment covers "involuntary servitude", i.e. being in jail and stamping license plates against your will. It does not imply that the Bill of Rights is invalidated once you have been convicted of a crime. Once your period of "involuntary servitude" is over, you once again enjoy full protection as enumerated by the Bil of Rights.

We don't curb the rights of ex-felons when it comes to freedom of speech and religion, do we? What about the Third Amendment...ought the government be able to place soldiers in the houses of ex-felons without their consent? Do felons lose the right to jury trials and due process as recognized in the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, for the remainder of their lives? Does torture become legal when it's done on felons, since the Eight Amendment does not apply anymore?

If you think those propositions are ludicrous, why single out the Second Amendment as the only "dangerous" right? Isn't that how the Antis think? And don't you fall into the very same trap as the Antis by asserting that the Bill of Rights is not absolute, and the rights enumerated therein are not "inalienable"?

And if you actually agree with all these propositions, why do you fail to see that you are giving the enmies of freedom precisely the tool they need to abolish the Bill of Rights for all intents and purposes? If you agree that the Bill of Rights no longer applies to felons, how long do you think it will be before an enterprising Statist legislature makes damn near anything a felony?

Oh, wait, they're doing that already.

[Ian]

Mike,

Yeah, Roosevelt didn't get much support for packing the Court, but it was enough that Justices Roberts and Hughes joined the liberal faction for good. This, coupled with (conservative) Justice Van Devanter's retirement in June '37 led to a series of decisions specifically overruling the existing pro-free-trade decisions (such as Adkins v Childrens' Hospital, Lochner v US, Hammer v Dagenhart, etc).

The New Deal wasn't dealt with in a single, pervasive, and overriding opinion. It was addressed in a whole series of opinions ranging over several years. Yes, of course. Being a whole package of laws, the New Deal went to the Court in bits and pieces. But the attitude of the Court underwent a significant change in 1937 and abandoned previous small-government precedents. For instance, the AAA was struck down in 1936 (US v Butler), but was repassed and upheld in 1942 (Wickard v Filburn).

The simple fact of the matter is that large parts of the New Deal WERE unconstitutional by any imaginable reading -- many of those who worked to pass these New Deal laws admitted that they were unconstitutional but felt that the needs of the time more than excused the Constitutional issues.
Yeah - the law seen as an expedient tool for social change. Blech.

[QUOTE...just who then IS qualified to say what is and what is not Constitutional?[/QUOTE] I don't know. The situation could be improved by making some of the Constitution clearer, but short of that I don't know if anything can be done besides trying to get people on the Court who are willing to look at the intent of the document rather than their own preferred programs. In the meantime, I'm perfectly happy to judge Constitutionality myself when laws apply to me. If I can maintain a decent chance of avoiding punishment, I hve no qualms about disregarding a clearly unconstitutional law. The Supreme Court justices aren't bestowed with any superhuman knowledge of the Constitution - I dislike the premise that they should have a monopoly on interpreting it. Would this lead to widespread disregard for the government if everyone though that way? Yes, and that's half the point.

[Admiral Thrawn]

15 years for illegal possession is ABSOLUETLY REDICULOUS! :cuss:

He should have had the gun confiscated and been given a massive fine at the most, but jail time for "illegally" owning gun as you're already a "convicted felon" is bloody stupid IMO.

People has received much shorter sentences for armed robbery, manslaughter, you name it...

:banghead: