Pittsburgh City Council Passes Illegal Firearms Ordinance
If your gun goes missing, you'd better report it, a Pittsburgh City Council majority declared yesterday in approving a measure designed to keep firearms from criminals, but also likely to keep lawyers busy.
I don't get it. Why wouldn't you report the theft of a firearm to the police. My bicycle gets stolen and I reported that to the police and lo and behold, it was recovered. But I suppose if you were losing firearms all the time, it might look like some kind of illegal activity going on. Go figure.
PA has preemption. It's a "foot in the door" challenge to that -- nothing more or less. The goal is simply an attempt to undermine preemption (under the guise of "public safety") so that a patchwork of restrictive gun control ordinances can then be enacted (semi-auto bans, hi cap bans, approved gun lists for municipalities (I believe either Columbus or Toledo OH had something like this before OH got a handle on their CCW laws), illegal city-designated "no carry" areas, etc).
Those who violate the law by passing stuff like this (or attempting to enforce it) need to be held accountable both criminally and in civil court. They're breaking a state law by passing/enforcing an agenda-based law. It's not like they don't know this--I believe Philly had a similar law struck down.
I agree, Rambo--you don't get it . This has nothing to do with you reporting your bike as stolen--it aims to make you a criminal if you don't report your bike as stolen. The two are very different things.
__________________
God gives us free will; the statist tries to take it away
But why wouldn't you report the theft of a firearm, which is much more deadlier in the wrong hands than a bicycle, immediately upon discovery of said theft, to the police? Wouldn't that be the prudent thing to do? That is unless you are covering up a criminal activity. I could see someone who has an illegal firearm not wanting to report the theft of it and I sure would not want to incriminate myself of crime while reporting a crime.
As I see this ordinance, it does nothing to prevent legal ownership of any firearm and in no way violates the 2nd Ammendment.
^ Under PA law, the ordinance is illegal. Plain and simple, and its authors know this. Its authors are attempting to write and enforce a law which they know to be illegal which is in and of itself I believe an illegal act--for this I believe they should held accountable and prosecuted in criminal and civil court. And yes, it does violate the 2A as well, but that's a different issue entirely.
You make the same mistake that most advocates of restrictive gun control laws make -- namely that passing one more law will in some way hinder the actions of someone who is already breaking a whole host of other (and usually "more important") laws. Robbery, assault, and murder are already quite illegal (as are "straw sales" -- the supposed rationale for the law) -- adding some type of misdemeanor charge on top of this is of little consequence to the perp. Incidentally, it's already been ruled by the courts that criminals aren't required to report under any gun control laws because it violates their 5A rights.
I don't think that a firearm in the "wrong hands" is any more or less deadly than a bike, car, airplane, or hammer for that matter. Although many would be want and consider it prudent to report a stolen firearm, it's wholly wrong to criminalize someone who's already been victimized by a theft or a loss in the matter and that's the point. This law serves no useful purpose whatsoever, save the advancing of an agenda by gun control advocates. It'll only harm honest, law-abiding citizens.
In any case, the intent of the law is simply a backdoor attempt at gun control. Supposedly directed toward "straw sales" it conveniently ignores the fact that straw sales are already illegal. The "close the loophole" argument of "the gun was stolen" is wholly invalid--in order to prosecute under the lost or stolen ordinance you'd have to show criminal intent (i.e. that the owner actually knew his gun was lost or stolen and knowingly failed to report it). This would require that you demonstrate the individual knowingly failed to report a lost or stolen firearm, which would be impossible without requiring each firearms owner to continuously inventory their firearms.
Again, it's not a "why wouldn't you" -- it's a "you're a criminal if you don't." And I think you still don't get it
__________________
God gives us free will; the statist tries to take it away
Where, under Pennsylvania law, does this ordinance become illegal? This ordinance does not restrict the purchase, possesion, carrying, or transfer of a firearm.
^ PA Uniform Firearms Act. The preemption provision was affirmed when the Commonwealth Court struck down the same attempt by Philly in the recent past. They verified that the State Legislature must initiate any attempts at firearms legislation (or grant Philly an exemption (as they did with a CCW provision in the past)) and preemption specifically appled.
__________________
God gives us free will; the statist tries to take it away
^ PA Uniform Firearms Act. The preemption provision was affirmed when the Commonwealth Court struck down the same attempt by Philly in the recent past. They verified that the State Legislature must initiate any attempts at firearms legislation (or grant Philly an exemption (as they did with a CCW provision in the past)) and preemption specifically appled.
Those were ordinances designed to regulate the transfer or carrying ability of a firearm. This proposed ordinance is about the reporting of a crime and in no way attempts to regulate firearms. Again, why wouldn't you report the theft of your firearms? It's like why wouldn't you want the government to wiretap your phone lines if you've got nothing to hide? That is the premise behind the Patriot Act, signed into law by G.W.Bush. If you let the government into your lives, where will it all end.
It has nothing to do, once again, with the "why wouldn't you" -- it has to do with "you're a criminal if you don't," the illegal usurption of preemption, and one more gun control law which serves only to do nothing other than punish law abiding citizens. I'm all in favor of a citizen reporting both stolen cars and stolen firearms (but doing so on his own, not under threat of being victimized by both a criminal and the state). Don't know why you're having trouble grasping this fact. I also am completely against unconstitutional and illegal wiretaps as well (whether or not someone considers anyone having "something to hide" is completely irrelevant to the discussion).
You are more than welcome to a "gee whiz, I sure wish Pennsylvania had more gun control laws" opinion; fortunately, the State Legislature and courts haven't really looked at this opinion but at the law which supports the current preemption statute.
__________________
God gives us free will; the statist tries to take it away
Best leave it go. It's like the old motorcycle adage - "If I have to explain it, you'll never understand!"
It's always best to enforce existing law than to create new ones - but remember, the ONLY way a politician can show he is working is to pass laws - ANY laws, no matter how stupid, egregious or draconian.
There is NO other metric by which a politico can show performance.
Rambo, I guess it's like this. Most honest and law-abiding people gun owners will already report their gun stolen as soon as they realize or discover it's missing.
So then, why should there be a law making them do so. All it does is give them a way to hold that gun owner accountable, beyond the reporting of said stolen gun. They'll find a way to hold that law-abiding person that did the right thing and reported their gun stolen for what the criminal does or will or may do with said gun. They pass something like this they'll always find something that the gun owner did wrong to then go ahead and deny that same person their rights under the 2nd Amendment...
Does having it said that way make more sense or help you to understand why we can't let them pass such a law and why they shouldn't get a law, such as this, passed?
I don't think it's about passing a law to help prevent criminals from getting guns. They get them anyways. I think a law like this is more designed to make things MORE difficult for the law abiding responsible gun owner and have the ability to fine or restrict them, at some point down the road after the theft of said gun which was reported... It's like holding a/the gun manufacturer responsible for what someone does with a gun after they've bought it. You can't do that. There'd be lawsuits never ending. I mean, do they hold car makers responsible when people use them when they drink and drive and kill someone or speed and kill someone etc., etc., etc....NO, they don't. Why, because such lawsuits will kill the that industry... And let's face it, the, difference here is, they want the gun industry killed.
__________________ "My next door neighbors two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs then Obama has." - Gary Johnson
Last edited by GlockMeister; 11-27-2008 at 12:11 PM.
I understand the concept of the States having control over the issuance of certain laws by lesser governments that would supercede State authority and likewise the Federal Government using the same authority over the States.
What no one answers is,"Why would you ever NOT report the theft of a firearm to the police?" What would be the motive of such a move?
Law-abiding citizens would report a firearms theft, Rambo. One reason why a person might not is that you know the individual who took it and intend to deal with the situation yourself and prefer not to involve the police....perhaps because the police might seize the weapon and hold it as evidence for an undetermined amount of time with no guarantee of it being returned to you.
Rambo, I believe I did answer that? I said, there's no need for such a law as most if not all law abiding gun owners WOULD report a firearm stolen anyways so therefore there's no need for such a law...
__________________ "My next door neighbors two dogs have created more shovel ready jobs then Obama has." - Gary Johnson
Rambo, I believe I did answer that? I said, there's no need for such a law as most if not all law abiding gun owners WOULD report a firearm stolen anyways so therefore there's no need for such a law...
I know. But sometimes when we stand up for our rights, we seem to be protecting criminals in the process and the general public doesn't understand. It's like banning certain types of firearms. There is no reason for a Tec-9 except spray and pray, yet we wind up protecting that firearm while trying to keep a Model 740 off the same list. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kinda thing. We take it in the shorts for protecting criminals when we are just trying to protect our gun rights.
That was the point of this discussion. We fight this ordinance and to the public it appears we are just protecting a criminal element from circumventing another gun law. So, as gun enthusiasts, we are perceived in a bad way. It's no wonder we wind up moving to a small town and clinging to our guns and religion. It's easier to convince 1200 people than 12 million.
I'm going deer hunting now. I'm sure another one of these laws will pop up somewhere before I get back.
^ We're not (and haven't been) "protecting" criminals in any way. Quite the opposite--we're in opposition to a bad law that doesn't need to exist in the first place, is illegal (and this has been verified by PA courts) and will ultimately end up exacerbating crime (thus favoring criminals) and making things worse. In the case of this particular law, it'll have no positive effect on decreasing crime whatsoever (In the places where similar laws have been enacted nationwide, I think you'd be challenged to show one case of a straw purchaser -- again which is already illegal under federal law -- being prosecuted under the lost/stolen provision). At best this type of law diverts enforcement resources and court time away from catching real offenders; in practice it serves only to hurt the law abiding citizens.
Gun control laws make crime worse. I don't know how to put it any more plainly. Criminals don't care one whit for gun control laws; this has been demonstrated time and time again not only through tracking committed crimes, but also through prison interviews where the convicts themselves state that gun control hasn't stopped them from getting firearms and admit that an armed population is a strong deterrent to committing their criminal acts. "Standing up for our rights" when it comes to gun rights doesn't protect or seem to protect criminals in any way. Exactly the opposite. Getting rid of gun control laws removes the encumberance to the law abiding citizen and allows him to defend himself. It's completely consistent with decreasing crime, not inhibiting the inherent right of self-defense, as well as preserving the RKBA. One need look no further than the horrible acts which occur within the "gun free" aka "free fire" zones nationwide.
The solution to this problem is education and objective information sources which tell the truth (i.e. that gun control laws in practice make crime worse). Statistics have shown that gun control laws in the U.S. exacerbate crime, while right to carry and right to defend policies decrease crime.
Anyway, I'm done on this and Cheers.
__________________
God gives us free will; the statist tries to take it away
Why don't they just make a law calling for the person who stole it to report it to the police? Or how 'bout making it illegal to steal someone else's gun? Oh yeah, they already have that one...
This law is one step away from prosecuting individuals for failure to keep their firearms under lock and key, which would not guarantee they still won't be stolen and renders them useless for self defense (in direct violation of the Heller decision). It is also the perfect opening for a civil suit claiming the firearm owner, by failure to report the theft to the police and/or keep their weapon secured, is at least partially responsible for the use of that weapon in a crime.
It does NOTHING add or aid prosecution of criminals. Even if you know who took the weapon and report it to the police, the police are powerless to act without evidence. Would you consider laws that make it illegal for the victim to fail to report a rape? You can make the same arguement there that such a law would alert the police and possibly prevent a future attack
. This has nothing to do with you reporting your bike as stolen--it aims to make you a criminal if you don't report your bike as stolen. The two are very different things.
Or how 'bout making it illegal to steal someone else's gun? Oh yeah, they already have that one...
