mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
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
Smash all gun control!
MR
(PA) Mans hunts deer on own property, gets 15 years
- Thread starter Drizzt
- Start date
- Status
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
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.
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
Member
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:
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
Member
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.
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
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.
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
Member
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:
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:
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
Member
The extreme instance of this law
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
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
Member
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
Member
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.
rock jock
Member
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
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
Member
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
Member
Deer Hunter Gets 15 Years In Prison
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.
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
Member
You know, the writers of slanted propaganda must really think all people who will be reading their stuff are total idiots.
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.
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.
Monte, the point is that 15 years is not a reasonable sentence for the crime, if in fact a true crime occurred.
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!
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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
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
Member
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.
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.
Elmer Snerd
Member
more here:
(link to this thread deleted)
(mod note: merged)
(link to this thread deleted)
(mod note: merged)
Mike Irwin
Member
"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!
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!
- Status
