Hunter found dead in Quakertown

[soup]

They also said in one of the articles Manilla surrendered over 50 firearms...

[Dredly]

While I'm all about piling on the blame to this guy...

the other hunter was trespassing on private property, he wasn't wearing orange, and he was dragging a deer across the property.

So its possible this was an accidental shooting... the fact that he was hunting while he couldn't own a rifle and he didn't report it immediately is what will really fuck him up.

the game violations are trivial... he had bait around his house... so what, they were 700 yards away, he wasn't hunting from an ATV at least not that I was able to read in the article anywhere.

he was using the wrong gun, thats a fine and he was hunting without a license, another fine and a loss of license.

Also his guns were in his girlfriends attic... that doesn't' sound like he was in possession of them anymore so I don't know where the issue is coming from?

I love the part about "he could not have seen a deer"... that's complete bullshit... nobody ever had to take a test to ensure you could hit your target when shooting from a standing position with one shot... just because he didn't kill a deer doesn't mean he couldn't see one in that direction

[tl_3237]

What is absent in everything published sofar is whether the US Attorney will charge Federal violation of 18 USC 922(g) - possession of firearms by a prohibited person. Violation is a fine and up to 10 years.

It would seem that the facts are not in dispute that he was a prohibited person (aggravated assault = a felony) and that he possessed a firearm.

[yawns]

While I'm all about piling on the blame to this guy...

the other hunter was trespassing on private property, he wasn't wearing orange, and he was dragging a deer across the property.

So its possible this was an accidental shooting... the fact that he was hunting while he couldn't own a rifle and he didn't report it immediately is what will really fuck him up.

the game violations are trivial... he had bait around his house... so what, they were 700 yards away, he wasn't hunting from an ATV at least not that I was able to read in the article anywhere.

he was using the wrong gun, thats a fine and he was hunting without a license, another fine and a loss of license.

Also his guns were in his girlfriends attic... that doesn't' sound like he was in possession of them anymore so I don't know where the issue is coming from?

I love the part about "he could not have seen a deer"... that's complete bullshit... nobody ever had to take a test to ensure you could hit your target when shooting from a standing position with one shot... just because he didn't kill a deer doesn't mean he couldn't see one in that direction

Fuck that.

The newspaper said he was wearing an orange hat at the time of death.

That DA needs to go to jail, how many gun owners did he send up the river?

How many other times did he poach deer and endanger the public?

Why wasn't he picked up weeks ago??

He lied to the police.

Refused to render aid.

Fuck that.

[GunLawyer001]

While I'm all about piling on the blame to this guy...

the other hunter was trespassing on private property, he wasn't wearing orange, and he was dragging a deer across the property.

So its possible this was an accidental shooting... the fact that he was hunting while he couldn't own a rifle and he didn't report it immediately is what will really fuck him up.. . .

In an ordinary case, I'd be sorta with you. But this is no ordinary case. The shooter has a history that can best be described as "he doesn't give a shit about you or the rules or other people getting killed." He nearly killed the guy at the gym, he nearly killed the previous hunter that was shot in the neck, and now he finally succeeded in killing someone.

Lawyers know about rules better than anyone. If he had obeyed the rules, he wouldn't have been hunting, he wouldn't have fired that shot and killed a man. If he even CARED about the rules (or other human life), he might have spent a moment to distinguish a four-footed ungulate from a two-footed middle-aged man wearing an orange hat.

I have a little more respect for his uncle now, after seeing that he did in fact refuse to let the demon seed hide the rifle in his truck. But he knew for a fact that his nephew wasn't allowed to possess or use guns, and he was prohibited for a really good reason. This wasn't "privileged" information that he had a duty to keep secret, the nephew's prohibition is a matter of public record. Whether it's a conspiracy, aiding and abetting, or no crime at all to hunt with a man who you know for sure is legally barred from gun possession, is up to the courts. You have no general obligation to report crimes, unless you're part of the crime yourself (I think the Feds have a "misprision of a felony" statute, but it's rarely enforced.) The group hunt wasn't illegal, it was the dimwit's possession of the guns that was illegal, and he didn't need anyone else to aid him in that (well, except maybe the girlfriend.)

It's sort of ironic that the MontCo DA's office has taken a nearly compulsive dislike to citizen firearm possession. They issued a memo to MontCo PD's, instructing them IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES to retain every firearm seized for use in a trial, regardless of whether the case even gets to trial, or an acquittal results. I know this to be true from first-hand knowledge and discussions with some PD's and the DA's office.

Compare that instruction with this mandate from Harrisburg:
§ 6111.1. . . . .
(4) The Pennsylvania State Police and any local law enforcement agency shall make all reasonable efforts to determine the lawful owner of any firearm confiscated or recovered by the Pennsylvania State Police or any local law enforcement agency and return said firearm to its lawful owner if the owner is not otherwise prohibited from possessing the firearm. When a court of law has determined that the Pennsylvania State Police or any local law enforcement agency have failed to exercise the duty under this subsection, reasonable attorney fees shall be awarded to any lawful owner of said firearm who has sought judicial enforcement of this subsection.

Our Legislature says that police MUST return any firearm seized, by affirmatively seeking out the owner and returning the gun, if the owner isn't prohibited. Not just "found" guns, the statute explicitly says "seized" guns, too. But the DA in MontCo is so anti-gun that they unilaterally have decided that unless you're willing to front the cash for a return of property petition, then they just don't feel like obeying state law in this regard. And they are well aware of the math here, few people will front $1,500 to try to get their $500 gun back, with some possibility of getting that money back if the judge feels like it. (BTW, in Philadelphia, the insiders have apparently agreed that if the police had a good reason to seize the gun in the first place, then the Philly judges won't award attorney fees. So much for the words "shall be awarded".)
At the same time, a former MontCo DA is contentedly watching his nephew ignore a laundry list of firearms laws and game regs.

[PocketProtector]

While I'm all about piling on the blame to this guy...

the other hunter was trespassing on private property, he wasn't wearing orange, and he was dragging a deer across the property.

So its possible this was an accidental shooting... the fact that he was hunting while he couldn't own a rifle and he didn't report it immediately is what will really fuck him up.

the game violations are trivial... he had bait around his house... so what, they were 700 yards away, he wasn't hunting from an ATV at least not that I was able to read in the article anywhere.

he was using the wrong gun, thats a fine and he was hunting without a license, another fine and a loss of license.

Also his guns were in his girlfriends attic... that doesn't' sound like he was in possession of them anymore so I don't know where the issue is coming from?

I love the part about "he could not have seen a deer"... that's complete bullshit... nobody ever had to take a test to ensure you could hit your target when shooting from a standing position with one shot... just because he didn't kill a deer doesn't mean he couldn't see one in that direction

One of the charges: "shooting a loaded firearm from a vehicle in motion." They said the deceased never took off his orange hat and his vest was hanging in a tree nearby, just like you would do in turkey season.

He was trying to hide the gun, there is so much scumbag in this scumbag they could file 100 charges against him, IF THEY WANTED to and if it were you or I....Guess what ? They wouldn't be misdemeanors.

[WhiteFeather]

There are numerous examples of convicted criminals getting hunting license and going hunting without any counter check attempted to prevent this. So when they hurt or kill someone or get away with something it must be ok as there past criminal activities would indicate they don't like playing by the rules.

Yet a 12 year and everyone else still has to give their social security number just in case they are a dead beat dad so they can take their hunting license away.

Does anyone else feel the collecting of money is more important that preventing prohibitive person using and getting access to firearms?

Is there something wrong about the priorities?


Been kicking around a radical idea for all you to consider for quite some time


Would you be for or against prohibited persons having special color PA driver license or easy to read code on DL?

What’s your opinion?

Considering the human cost in this case this might have prevented had this been in effect, might save others lives as well.


Police / WCO / hunting license issue agents / FLL dealers would instantly know their status at point of contact, sure would solve and create some problems.

Part of this change you would have to give people a real path to have their rights fully restored so there is some extra reason to turn their life around so they wouldn't always feel or be treated like a criminal. People make and do stupid mistakes when they are young, they are not the same person 10 years later, they should have a means to legally correct this as a real reward for good behavior and being a responsible Citizen.

IF we ever get constitutional carry sure would aide all the above, help solve problems like straw purchases, traffic stops etc

THOUGHTS?

[soup]

[COLOR="Blue"]There are numerous examples of convicted criminals getting hunting license and going hunting without any counter check attempted to prevent this. So when they hurt or kill someone or get away with something it must be ok as there past criminal activities would indicate they don't like playing by the rules.

Problem with this is Archery. AFAIK you're not prohibited from owning a compound bow or crossbow when you're prohibited from possessing or having access to firearms.

Even still, It still doesn't solve anything. He obviously knew he was a prohibited person and not to posses firearms yet he did. What makes anyone believe that not getting a little yellow tag from walmart would stop him from going out and hunting.

You can see in the picture posted in the mercury it doesn't look like he had a back tag on anyway.

[smithwessn]

I have a hunting question: What precise "season" was it when this happened? I know for sure that we never have a "kill anything over 50 pounds" season, so shooting at "something" moving in the woods is never acceptable. But is there an "any deer" season, or do we have "doe" or "buck", or how does it work?

There is no "any deer" season. There is antlered and antlerless, generally referred to as buck and doe. To legally harvest a doe, a separate tag is required. The buck tag comes with the hunting license. Mind you, not just any buck is legal to harvest. In this part of the state, a buck must have three or more points on one side of the rack to be legal. Not only must a hunter take the time to count the number of points on at least one side of the rack before taking the shot, he/she needs to be sure a point is one inch in length or more. Anything less than one inch is not considered a point by the PGC. There are several details to check before even considering taking a shot.

[PocketProtector]

Let's see Mr. Heckler, have you ever heard of Obstruction of Justice?