Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/4/2003 7:42:21 PM EDT
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/30/national/main551628.shtml[/url] Under most circumstances, I agree convicted felons should not be allowed to own guns. But this is just wrong. The punishment does not fit the crime.
Link Posted: 5/4/2003 7:57:31 PM EDT
1) If you get your First & Fourth Ammendment rights back after release, I think you should have your Second as well. Either you are a threat and shold be locked up, or are not and should be free. 2) IIRC, a muzzleloader is not a [i]firearm[/i]. Maybe he should got one of those. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse.
Link Posted: 5/4/2003 8:16:58 PM EDT
While I think the guy was an idiot for being a convicted felon and not asking 100 questions about what he could and could not do... I do think 15 years for hunting with a muzzle-loader on his own property is a bit extreme. If I was the officer in charge, I would seriously consider letting the guy go, just knowing what would happen to him. That, IMO, is ridiculous. Should have just given him a stern warning.
Link Posted: 5/4/2003 8:19:20 PM EDT
I'm missing something from that story. I hope. So the hunter was spotted with a gun on his property by a Pa. Game Warden. But he was prosecuted through the Federal Courts. Usually that requires something more than waht is listed, as priors, than what that story gives. 15 years seems very harsh with the info in the story.
Link Posted: 5/4/2003 8:22:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By REALM: While I think the guy was an idiot for being a convicted felon and not asking 100 questions about what he could and could not do... I do think 15 years for hunting with a muzzle-loader on his own property is a bit extreme. If I was the officer in charge, I would seriously consider letting the guy go, just knowing what would happen to him. That, IMO, is ridiculous. Should have just given him a stern warning.
View Quote
Isn't a muzzleloader or other black-powder weapon 'Not a gun' WRT the ATF?? I mean, you can walk into Gander Mountain, pick one off the rack, ring it up, and walk out. No background check, no questions, just buy-and-walk...
Link Posted: 5/4/2003 8:24:20 PM EDT
I think that's terrible and just plain wrong. 15 year sentence is a bit overkill, and I would be interested to know if there is something we are not hearing. Having said that, I certainly don't think that ANY convicted felon should ever be in possession of a firearm. He is a grown man and he alone is responsible with making sure he knows the laws that pertain to him. Anything less is just excuses. JMO
Link Posted: 5/4/2003 8:27:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By IYAOYAS467: I think that's terrible and just plain wrong. 15 year sentence is a bit overkill, and I would be interested to know if there is something we are not hearing. Having said that, I certainly don't think that ANY convicted felon should ever be in possession of a firearm. He is a grown man and he alone is responsible with making sure he knows the laws that pertain to him. Anything less is just excuses. JMO
View Quote
I didn't see in the article where he used a black powder firearm. I do know a guy that was busted for having an illegal silencer a couple years back. He is allowed by the ATF to own one black powder firearm even though he is a felon [>:/]
Link Posted: 5/4/2003 8:30:57 PM EDT
Completely and utterly ridiculous. If you are a convicted felon and used a gun in the commission of your crime, and harmed another person with that gun you should NEVER get your 2nd amendment rights back, EVER. OTOH, if you were convicted of a non-violent crime and there were NO GUNS AT ALL used or in your possession during the commission of the crime , you should get your 2nd amendments back immediately upon your release from prison.
Link Posted: 5/4/2003 10:46:48 PM EDT
Ahhh yes, Mandatory minimums and 3-strikes laws. Brought to you by which political party?
Link Posted: 5/5/2003 8:23:17 AM EDT
Mandatory sentencing is a nasty crutch and should be abolished. Any law that imposes a punishment without allowing the judge any leeway is unjust. On the other hand, who the f*ck was this guy's lawyer? If the firearm was a blackpowder gun, it is NOT illegal for him to own it or use it for target shooting or hunting as federal law does not classify black powder muzzleloaders as firearms. In Massachusetts, a felon can own a blackpowder muzzleloading rifle, but they CANNOT possess or own powder, powder substitute or primers. Some guys I know who fall into this classification just hunt in New Hampshire instead. Of course bowhunting is an open option for former felons. Yes the guy screwed up in not knowing what the practical limits on his rights were, but this is also a clear case of overzealous interpretation of the law. If he's smart he'll appeal on the basis that his gun was not technically a "firearm" thus he could not standa trial under firearms charges. His confession is invalid since he confessed to a crime which he did not technically commit.
Link Posted: 5/5/2003 9:01:26 AM EDT
There is more to this than is revealed in the story. A violation of 18 USC 922(g)(1) normally carries a maximum penalty of 10 years with no mandatory minimum. In order to qualify for the mandatory 15 year sentence, you have to have at least [b]three[/b] prior convictions for separate violent felonies or serious drug offenses. So there has to be more to this guy's record than just two burglaries. Additionally, every time I have seen someone sentenced for a felony, one of the things that the judge makes damn sure the defendant understands is that he can never possess a firearm ever again, for [b]any[/b] reason. I agree that the blanket prohibition on firearms ownership by a convicted felon is far too broad, but I'm having a hard time generating much sympathy for this clown.
Link Posted: 5/5/2003 9:19:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2003 9:23:41 AM EDT by TomJefferson]
Link Posted: 5/5/2003 9:26:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2003 9:27:27 AM EDT by Camel]
Originally Posted By TomJefferson: In NYC a man stopped a rape in progress with his handgun. He got two years on the Sulivan law. The rapist walked with probation after all they were stopped.
View Quote
I can see that happening. However, if I was in the shoes of the man who got two years for stopping the rape, that would be my last straw. And he will likely never be able to own a firearm again, even though he didn't commit a crime with one. Chalk one up to .gov, one more American who cannot legally own a gun.
Link Posted: 5/5/2003 9:30:17 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/5/2003 9:39:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By bvmjethead: If you are a convicted felon and used a gun in the commission of your crime, and harmed another person with that gun you should NEVER get your 2nd amendment rights back, EVER.
View Quote
I agree. And if you used a car you should never get another drivers license. If you cuss someone out you should never get your 1st Ammendment back. CNN should lose their 1st Ammendment rights as well. The problem with this logic, [i]I think[/i] is that.... When you tie felons to loss of rights, 1)you take the [b]Creator Endowed[/b] out of the spirit behind the BOR. It is now something the government can restrict, 2) thus you added fuel to the antis position of restricting guns any way they see fit. If you do not take the definitive position that our BOR is (as stated) [b]Creator Endowed Rights[/b], and a stated limit on government interference on same, you just fed the antis... Furthermore, when you create such a [i]law[/i], you have only restricted the law obiding. A felon, mental defective, hell even a quadrapeligic will find a way to shoot a gun if they want to do it. Or you can take all the guns and they will run you over in a car. Do you really feel any safer? If a felon is not rehabilitated, is not safe to be on the streets, they should be incarcerated. If they are rehabilitated there is no problem with them having a gun. If not, there is nothing but a law to stop them from a gun, and that wont stop them anymore than it stops murderers now.
Link Posted: 5/5/2003 9:49:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By CavVet: If a felon is not rehabilitated, is not safe to be on the streets, they should be incarcerated. If they are rehabilitated there is no problem with them having a gun. If not, there is nothing but a law to stop them from a gun, and that wont stop them anymore than it stops murderers now.
View Quote
Prison, jail, is for PUNISHMMENT. There is no rehabiliation test in order to get released. The Constitution also prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment". Therefor, even if the consumate criminal is sentenced to prison/jail for a crime. The lenght of the sentence is limited by the severity of the crime. They MUST be released at the end of thier sentence. Even if it is crystal clear that they are still a determined criminal. Also who decides if the person is still a "risk" Mr Bleeding Heart, or the Victim? (never mind it's rhetorical). Read Tom Jefferson's post, where the rapist got PROBATION. That wasn't even punishment. I won't go into rehabilitating sex offenders, since they have a re-offense rate that indicates they will NEVER be rehabilitated. That's reality. There is NO way around it. Jail is for punishment, there is no rehabilitation test. All change comes from within. So stop equating jail/prison with rehabilitation, paying a debt, etc. IT'S PUNISHMENT.
Link Posted: 5/5/2003 10:07:16 AM EDT
I think he is refering back to the liberal rant about prison being about rehabilitation rather than punishment. So, if you accept the liberal rant at face value, then when a person is released from prison, if the prison rehabillitation system is working right, the person should be rehabilitated and safe to be returned into society as a fully enfranchised citizen. However, Prima facie evidence shows that this is not the case and the repeat offense rate is very, very high. Thus rehabilitation doesn't work. The liberals know it too since they don't trust felons around kids or with weapons. Sort of pointing out the hypocracy in the liberal line.
Link Posted: 5/5/2003 10:13:09 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/5/2003 10:17:40 AM EDT by TheRicker]
Link Posted: 5/5/2003 10:14:53 AM EDT
He never should have taken up burglary as a hobby. 15 years for his crime is total bullshit though. What a travesty. Why do we sit back and let this kind of thing go unchecked?
Link Posted: 5/5/2003 6:31:52 PM EDT
If I were the judge then I would give him 10 years and give the guy who sold him the gun 5 years. [<]:)]
Link Posted: 5/5/2003 7:09:29 PM EDT
Prosecutors said [b]Altsman had two felony burglary convictions[/b] He broke the law not once but twice. He forfeited his rights. Let the convicted burglary lobby help him out. If he was not a felon, he would not be in this position.
Top Top