(PA) Mans hunts deer on own property, gets 15 years

[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....

 

[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]

 

[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 California laws in regard to firearms, but I was regularly shooting my AR15s with 30 round mags in California and I didn't even realize I was in California; 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!

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?

 

[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. 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!