Missing Oregon Hunter Found! Sent to Jail . . .

Anne Elk. A surprised elk (courtesy flickr.com)

Imagine the jailhouse phone call between Keith Spaulding and his best bud. Dude, why did she turn me in? More curious as to whether or not there will be additional charges filed for wildlife hunting violations. oregonlive.com:

According to police, John Boeder, 51, and Bryan Keith Spaulding, 52, were hunting Sunday night in the Crabtree Lake area off Quartzville Road outside of Sweet Home.

At 9:11 p.m., Boeder’s wife called police, worried that they hadn’t returned on time. About an hour later, police said, she called off the search, saying she had heard from her husband and that they would be heading home soon.

But Boeder’s wife called police once more, at 2:17 a.m. The two men still hadn’t returned, so she asked them to resume the search.

Deputies with the Linn County Sheriff’s Office responded to the Crabtree Lake area and found Boeder, who told them that his friend had been trying to flush out some elk and never returned to their vehicle.

Deputies searched the area and found Spaulding at 11:03 a.m. Monday. He was on a logging road, about a mile from where he was last seen.

When they found Spaulding, they arrested him on an allegation of being a felon possessing a firearm – a hunting rifle. He didn’t need medical attention and was lodged in the Linn County Jail.

Sometimes the road to hell jail is paved with good intentions.

comments

  1. avatar Ralph says:

    About 25% of the bow- and black powder-hunters who come to my store are restricted to primitive tools because of a prior felony. All they want to do is hunt. It’s something that they really love doing. And for most of them, the reason they are disbarred is a stupid felony DUI that should have been expunged a decade ago.

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      Barred, not disbarred. Disbarring is when you lose your license to practice law. Barring is when you are restricted from something. lol
      Of the hunters in my family, most of them use crossbows but I don’t think any of them has a felony.

      1. avatar Mark N. says:

        Disbarred is also correct. Its secondary meaning is to exclude (someone) from something. So one can be “disbarred the use of firearms.” And by the way, Ralph is a retired attorney.

      2. avatar Kilson.Wombat says:

        Irregardless, we know what he meant.

        1. avatar Leroy Jenkins says:

          not a word

        2. avatar Fit2BTyed says:

          The proper word to use is regardless. I find it irritating and irrational to use irregardless. 🙂

        3. avatar Ragnar says:

          Nice one Kilson, I see what you did there.

        4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          While Ragnar caught is, others didn’t.

    2. avatar Jon in CO says:

      The law here to receiver felony DUI is now 4 DUI convictions. I would think that 4 DUI’s, it’s time to start locking people up because they obviously have some issues they need to work out.

    3. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      I don’t know the law in your state, but in Texas, “a stupid DUI” presupposes that it’s your third offense for it to reach felony level. If there aee three convictions, you just know there are numerous other offenses when they didn’t get caught. The three are bad enough, though. Some states could be even more before it’s a felony.

      The only way DUI hits felony the first time here is if you’re driving with a child in the car, or you kill someone. That’s not petty stuff, there.

      Sorry, felons, no guns and no hunting with firearms for you.

      1. avatar Arc says:

        Time has been done, rights should be restored. I wouldn’t find an ebbbbiiilll felon guilty of possession if I were on the jury. Its usually some bullshit reason why someone is a “felon” theses days anyway.

        Just get a 1899 ball and cap pistol until we unfuck the law. As long as you don’t slap a conversion cylinder in it, all is well.

        1. avatar Matt says:

          I agree to the extent that non-violent felonies, once PROBATION is ended (as many have a period of probation after prison), you shouldn’t be a prohibited person anymore.

          That said, I’d convict. The law is the law and in this case, as many pointed out, you have to have multiple DUIs in most states or do something REALLY bad while committing a DUI for it to rise to a felony. Heck, many states you can have a dozen DUIs, so long as you space them out over the years. So A you’ve been convicted or plead guilty likely several times to doing something stupid, dangerous and illegal first. THEN you are stupid enough to know you are barred from firearm possession…and you go and be in possession of a firearm.

          Frankly if you are that stupid and willing to put others in danger (many DUIs), yeah I don’t really want you handling a gun. I don’t need to find out that you are also the kind of hunter who doesn’t care about no stinking safe backstops or not shooting towards buildings. Or that you like playing with loaded guns while drunk.

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        Sorry, felons, no guns and no hunting with firearms for you.

        I know of a felon that frequently uses guns and goes hunting all the time. He even hunts with his cop cousins half the time. So it’s really no firearms or guns or hunting for “some” of you.

    4. avatar Hank says:

      There’s nothing trivial about a DUI. Felony DUI especially. They deserve harsh punishments. It’s the same as operating a firearm or other tool while drunk. Only most of the time, those things aren’t being utilized on a public road. I have no sympathy for some retard who lost their rights for drunk driving. The same should be applied to retards who text and drive.

      1. avatar tfunk says:

        I know, right? Even if no one at all was injured. And, like, if someone speeds, that seriously increases risk…that should be a felony, too. Or if they drive while even SLIGHTLY less than alert. All felonies, all loss of any rights. If just one life is saved…

        1. avatar Steve in TX (not a transplant) says:

          Same with people driving in the left lane when they’re not passing. Felony might be a little harsh for such behavior but they should definitely be pulled over and taser’d.

        2. avatar gray man says:

          and actually, driving slower than the traffic around you causes more accidents than speeding – fact.
          so those people driving slower than the traffic around them should not only get felony charges … but be horse whipped as well.

        3. avatar Hsnk says:

          Actually yes, public whippings and stockade visits would do more to curb these kind of crimes then jail and probation.

        4. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          If Steve is serious, I pretty much agree. If he is being sarcastic, well, my first sentence explains my position.

      2. avatar gray man says:

        what about the non-retards who text and drive ?

        1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

          Yeah, cause like, I don’t do it unless someone else does it to me first.

      3. avatar Arc says:

        I think at least half of my old unit drew rifles drunk from the night.. morning… before, and were still massively hung over by the time they got to the field for BZO.

        Even firewatch in Okinawa was allowed to have alcohol, although they weren’t allowed to be drunk.

    5. avatar Retired_Veteran says:

      DUI’s are not stupid to begin with and a felony DUI says a lot about a person(s)
      inability to handle themselves.

      However if a person has served their sentence, paid any fines, and is towing the line
      they should be able to petition to get their 2A rights back

    6. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

      a stupid felony DUI – really? That mentality is part of the problem.

    7. No matter what we call it, they cannot possess firearms – and federally that includes black powder arms. Archery equipment, I don’t know….

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “and federally that includes black powder arms” – No, it doesn’t.

      2. avatar merlin says:

        black powder “firearms” are not considered firearms by the ATF … therefore black powder firearms are not prohibited … and in fact can be bought through the mail.

  2. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Why can’t the moral of the story be that women, who among their innumerable qualities and functions in society also serve as a backstop against our regressing into anarchy and barbary, should pick better partners?

    A felon? Seriously? Not to mention a felon who commits another felony by being a felon in possession? Girl, think of your future; make better decisions.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Not all felonies are created equal.

      1. avatar Rick says:

        But that’s a second order felony that there is no way to argue mitigation, other than I shouldn’t have the first, which means you know you have the first.

    2. avatar Arc says:

      Women and a marriage are a disaster waiting to happen these days. I don’t even go near women anymore because if they so much as even whisper the magical word, ‘rape’, or claim you hit them, boom! your life is over. Allegations alone will ruin you.

      1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        #metoo

    3. avatar Anonymous says:

      Dude, you probably committed 5 felonies just today.

  3. avatar Mark N. says:

    I don’t know about bows, but California felons can’t use/possess any firearms, including black powder muzzle loaders.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      If I have the right info a bow is legal for a felon in CA.

      I’m not a felon. I recieved my first bow in the mail Friday and will shoot if for the first time Monday or Tuesday.

      Don’t know if I’ll ever bow hunt. But I’m leaving my options open.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        I had a friend on mine who used to bow hunt. After some pigs ran off with $30 arrows stuck in their sides he thought 30c cartridges were a better trade off.

        The incident that finally changed is mind was when a pig that had two arrow hits charged him. He had a 12g coach-gun in his quiver and grabbed the gun firing the two shots. The first hit the pig about 5 metres or 15 feet out. The second shot which killed the pig was when the pig at his feet trying to run between his legs.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Southern Cross,

          Even with perfect arrow placement and penetration, it will still take a deer or hog upwards of 10 seconds to keel over from blood loss. That is plenty of time to charge the hunter.

          On another vein, I think your friend had insufficient draw weight if hogs were running away (as in several hundred yards away) with arrows in them. I shot a compound bow with 63 pound draw weight and EVERY arrow I shot at deer were pass-throughs, even deer that were quartering away requiring the arrow to go through twice as much flesh and bone.

        2. avatar jwm says:

          SC, here in CA it’s illegal to have a firearm when bowhunting.

        3. avatar Southern Cross says:

          I wasn’t present when the events happened. But the story is a good laugh when he tells it. But I can understand his frustration with the pigs running off with the arrows stuck in them.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      “California felons can’t use/possess any firearms, including black powder muzzle loaders.”

      In the People’s Republik of Massachusetts, felons can possess black powder guns, because they are not firearms under state (or Federal) law. However, they cannot possess “ammunition components,” which includes powder, pellets and primers.

      I guess they have to beat the deer to death with their muzzleloaders.

      1. avatar Southern Cross says:

        Or fix bayonets?

      2. avatar GS650G says:

        How about bump stocks on the black powder rifles?

  4. avatar IdahoBoy says:

    If a felony conviction does not involve violence, the threat of violence, or gross negligence with a firearm, then I’m wondering what is the point of removing someone’s right to wield a hunting firearm in the field. Even folks with felony DUI’s can eventually get their driver’s licenses back if they straighten up and fly right over a long period of time.

    But if Mr. Spaulding did fall into any of the aforementioned violently stupid categories, then in my opinion, removal of his right to a firearm would be prudent, and he should come to appreciate bow hunting season.

    Cue the 2A absolutists in 3, 2, 1…

    1. avatar Hank says:

      Most of the people who scream to high heaven about felons rights being restored have had very little experience in actually dealing with them. If they did so on a regular basis, and saw with their own eyes what absolute shit bags most of them are, they’d sing a different tune. It’s a flat out liberal myth that the prisons are just full of “peaceful pot smokers.”

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      IdahoBoy and Hank,

      Here are examples where the blanket prohibition on felons possessing firearms does not serve us well:
      (1) A “troubled teen” steels a car and then, after serving two years in prison for grand-theft auto, matures, marries, has a family, and maintains steady business/work with no more run-ins with the law.
      (2) A girl’s father learns that some scumbag raped his daughter. The father finds the scumbag before police and beats the rapist to a pulp — and spends two years in prison for felony aggravated assault and battery — and never harms anyone ever again.
      (3) A women on a hiking trail picks up a turkey feather which actually turns out to be an eagle feather — and spends two years in prison for felony possession of protected wildlife parts.
      (4) A man or woman loses control of their car, kills a pedestrian, and spend three years in prison for manslaughter.

      Should all of those people lose their right to keep and bear arms for the rest of their lives? I say an emphatic NO!

      Instead, when a convicted felon is released from prison, they should have a simple, inexpensive, and fast process to complete in order to legally own firearms again.

      Better yet, we could observe the simple principle that a person who is too dangerous to have a firearm in their home, in the woods, in their car, or in a grocery store is too dangerous to be free in society and should still be in prison — and allow people who are not in prison to exercise ALL of their rights.

      1. avatar Hank says:

        Ok, I get what you’re saying, really, I do. But I’m telling you the vast, vast majority of felons deserve the treatment they are handed. Often times the felonies they receive are simply the crimes they were caught for. For example, people love to bring up all the people doing felony time for mere possession. Most of them are addicts, and committed far more serious crimes like burglary and armed robbery to fund their habit, that they never got caught for. I know this because I work around these people. They constantly brag about the crimes they commit, and rattle off all the ones they got away with. If your suggesting maybe we look at each on case by case basis, and make a judgement call based on the individual, I’d support that, but I can tell you, you won’t be seeing very many get their rights restored. Some of the examples you bring up, such as the dad beating the rapist, hell, he never should’ve gone to jail in the first place. But the fact is so damn many of these felons are not what you describe. Being who they are, they also love to lie and manipulate. Nearly none of them are going to be absolutely honest or remorseful about their crimes.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          I don’t like criminals. No, strike that. I hate criminals. But a nonviolent criminal who has served her sentence and any probationary period without incident and paid restitution to her victims (if there were any) would seem to be present a good case for restoration of her Constitutional rights.

          Hell, in Virginia murderers can vote, as long as they vote Democrat.

        2. avatar Rick says:

          I’m pretty adamant that a felon should not have access to a firearm, or vote, etc, basically a very restricted citizen, if they are either incarcerated, or on supervised parole/probation. If your off of those, your a citizen, and you should have all the rights of a citizen. If we can’t trust you to vote, own a gun, etc, then you probably should be supervised.

          I live in KY, and here a nonviolent theft of over $100 can be a felony. Last year they past a law that a single nonviolent felony can get un-made. Its not a pardon, or an expungement, they call it something else but its fundamentally the same.

      2. avatar gray man says:

        agree 100%.
        either you have paid your penance, (going to jail) or you haven’t.
        if you have … you should have all rights returned.
        if you haven’t … why are you out of jail.

        1. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

          nobody on parole or probation for a violent felony should have access to guns…

        2. avatar 16V says:

          Because laws stop them from gaining access. Got it.

          There’s no girlfriend/wife to straw-buy. There’s no dude that’ll sell, no questions asked…

          Prohibition works, right?

      3. avatar IdahoBoy says:

        If you read carefully, you will see that I was not in favor of a blanket prohibition.

  5. avatar rt66paul says:

    Removal of his right to firearms is fine, but if the person has changed his life, there should be a road to firearm ownership. People that have lived the hard life and want to change, could just need a firearm to protect themselves from old cronies, as well as from newly minted ganstas.
    If they have paid their debt to society, they should have the right to hunt and own firearms for their protection.

  6. avatar ironicatbest says:

    AA tells me to find a Hi Power, evidently they are pro-gun

  7. avatar gray man says:

    according to the constitution … felons should not lose their 2nd amendment rights … for any reason … period.

    1. avatar Hsnk says:

      Rights can be stripped via due process. The founding fathers were very adamant about hangings, firing squads, whippings, and the stockade. And that was just what they did to their own continental soldiers who disobeyed. Many of you who cry about how “unconstitutional” felons are treated would Shit a brick if you actually read a history book. If Washington was POTUS with the kind of gang problems we have now, he’d consider gangs as in a state of revolt and have the military crush them with brute force.

      1. avatar Aaron says:

        Washington was da man! Offered to be made king of America by some of his victorious officers, he turned it down saying he did not fight to end one tyranny just to replace it with another.

        now imagine the response if somehow hillary was offered to be made queen of America…

      2. avatar gray man says:

        actually, i have read plenty of history books … and that is beside the point.
        “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
        means only one thing … and one thing only.
        not infringed.
        if you have paid your dues to society for crimes committed your second amendment rights should be returned.
        in fact, the point was first brought up in the declaration of independence …. our right are given to us by god … not the state … therefore the state cannot take them away.

  8. avatar Hunter427 says:

    Sex offenders are felon too, now they need to be armed up.Can I get an amen on that. Right (sarc)

  9. avatar What About Bob says:

    “According to police, John Boeder, 51, and Bryan Keith Spaulding, 52, were hunting Sunday night in the Crabtree Lake area off Quartzville Road outside of Sweet Home.”

    I thought Sweet Home was in Alabama……

  10. avatar Jjimmyjonga says:

    There should be a federal law differentiation between a violent and non-violent felony crime, allowing the non-violent person the retain 2A right, imho. Just as there should exist federal gun carry/ownership laws so we don’t have this “gotcha” patchwork we see today. And, like it or not, firearms are called the great equalizer for good reason – for good or bad, it is not unusual at all for a small child or even infant to inflict great harm on an very strong 200lb+ adult with a firearm, and guns are unique in that the mere pointing of one even a perceived firearm (real or not) from hundreds of feet away can get a victim to comply with a criminal’s wishes and also worthy of return of deadly force. No, those who have shown a pre-disposition for inflicting violence upon others via a violent past criminal act, via even momentary loss of self control, should never be allowed to own a gun again, as we all agree in the concept of responsibility for ones actions. Is a singular dui a violent act? Probably not. Is 3 or 4 dui show a pre-disposition towards putting ones own needs above other innocents and placing them in grave danger? Probably, but perhaps worthy of displaying proof of rehabilitation. This is how I feel.

    1. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

      “it is not unusual at all for a small child or even infant to inflict great harm on an very strong 200lb+ adult with a firearm” – Actually, both of those things are pretty rare. I’ve never even heard of an infant discharging a firearm.

  11. avatar Aaron says:

    most felons have a long history of crimes.

    most murderers have a history of lesser feloniesbefore they commit their first murder.

    most felons are not responsible, normal people.

    sure, the idea of a due process for restoring rights is probably fair, because a few felons really are reformed or just made a one-time mistake. but lets not pretend that felons, in general, are responsible, stable, non-violent people.

  12. avatar Charlie the Bear says:

    Some of these comments belong on the Comedy Network. Great sense of humor here sometimes.

    To the new bow owner – I wish you luck. I got a second hand compound hunting outfit back in the 70’s and practiced a couple times a week with a bow club. Never did get good enough to even think about hunting with it. Might could have beat an angry rooster with the danged thing. Frustrating experience.

    I see little difference between operating a gun and operating a vehicle while drunk or otherwise under the influence. One generally weighs a lot less. However, charging around in a 3 to 6 thousand pound death machine while out of your mind says a lot of things about ones’ sense of responsibility, none of them good. And someone can list “exceptions” all they want. The exceptions should seek the legal route to get those convictions overturned then sue the damned prosecutors. We need to get the gross offenders out of society. I too have to deal with those type of people, and their measure of “smart” is how to offend without getting caught, not how to change their life – around 98% of them.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email