Pa. House considers making owners report lost, stolen handguns 3/17/08

[Nomad]

Here's something that everyone seems to be missing. Even if you think this law is "no problem", it is useless. It does not change the equation. Let me explain...

We'll start with current law, and the assumption that so-called "straw purchasers" will claim a gun was stolen to avoid liability. A gun is recovered from a crime scene and the police go to Strawman's house. They knock on the door and say, "Mr. Strawman, we recovered a gun from a crime scene and it turns out you had purchased it last year. Can you explain how it got there?" According to conventional wisdom (which is conventional but rarely wise), Strawman says, "Ah, it was stolen three months ago. I didn't bother to report it 'cause you guys never find stolen guns anyway." End result? If you are going to prosecute Strawman, YOU HAVE TO PROVE HE'S LYING.

Now on to the lovely Levdansky amendment... This proposal would require you to report a missing gun within 3 days of discovering the loss. Same scenario, police recover a gun at a crime scene and head to Strawman's house. They knock on the door and say, "Mr. Strawman, we recovered a gun you had purchased at a crime scene. Can you explain how it got there?" Strawman says, "My gun? What do you mean, my gun? I bought a gun last month and it is in a box under my bed!" Strawman leads the police up to the bedroom and pulls a box out from under the bed. He opens it and exclaims, "My goodness! My gun appears to be missing? Oh cruel world, how could this have happened? I had no idea! Oh, I hope no one was hurt!" End result? If you are going to prosecute Strawman, YOU HAVE TO PROVE HE'S LYING.

So this amendment does nothing in the real world. It may penalize the occasional stupid, honest crime victim who reports three of his guns stolen and forgets about the fourth (a nod to earlier posts). And when those convictions don't stack up, and the violence in Philly doesn't end, the gun-grabbers will be back saying that this just proves we need more gun laws!

Trust me, this is a bad idea. One more ineffective gun law just leads to demands for additional ineffective gun laws which leads to a patchwork maze of regulations that ends up doing nothing but snaring the unwary, honest gunowner. The first question to be asked regarding ANY additional proposed gun regulation is, "Will it work?" If the question is, "Do I personally have a problem with it?", well, you've got a problem and you don't even know it.

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by Nomad

They knock on the door and say, "Mr. Strawman, we recovered a gun you had purchased at a crime scene. Can you explain how it got there?" Strawman says, "My gun? What do you mean, my gun? I bought a gun last month and it is in a box under my bed!" Strawman leads the police up to the bedroom and pulls a box out from under the bed. He opens it and exclaims, "My goodness! My gun appears to be missing? Oh cruel world, how could this have happened? I had no idea! Oh, I hope no one was hurt!" End result? If you are going to prosecute Strawman, YOU HAVE TO PROVE HE'S LYING.

Best explanation I've seen yet as to why this proposed law is total BS.

[gnbrotz]

Nomad, those are excellent points. Rather than ripping off your comments, might I suggest that you post them here? My local paper just published this editorial in support of the measure today.

[Nomad]

gn,

Go ahead and rip 'em off. We'll just say they are in the public domain for your use. If you want to post them locally or write a letter to the editor, have at it. Most importantly, contact your local legislators THIS WEEK! The House comes back into session March 31, and guess which amendment is still receiving top billing!

I have seen complaints about not having enough time to talk to your legislator about this amendment... Well, now we've got it. Call, e-mail, carrier pigeon, morse code, whatever you need to do to let your House member know that this proposal is ridiculous and will serve no purpose other than to harass gunowners who have been the victim of a crime. Okay, one step lower on the soap box... It's really important to reach out on this one. The anti-gunners think they have a winner here and are using it to put pro-gun folks in a tough spot electorally. Let them know you'll be there to support them (and then actually back it up - work a poll, fold some envelopes, stand up for them in return for them standing up for you).

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Nomad

Now on to the lovely Levdansky amendment... This proposal would require you to report a missing gun within 3 days of discovering the loss. Same scenario, police recover a gun at a crime scene and head to Strawman's house. They knock on the door and say, "Mr. Strawman, we recovered a gun you had purchased at a crime scene. Can you explain how it got there?" Strawman says, "My gun? What do you mean, my gun? I bought a gun last month and it is in a box under my bed!" Strawman leads the police up to the bedroom and pulls a box out from under the bed. He opens it and exclaims, "My goodness! My gun appears to be missing? Oh cruel world, how could this have happened? I had no idea! Oh, I hope no one was hurt!" End result? If you are going to prosecute Strawman, YOU HAVE TO PROVE HE'S LYING.

that would work once or twice. but if someone made a lot of straw purchases and numerous guns used in crimes were traced back to him/her, it wouldn't work after a few times. the law could be effective for stopping career straw purchasers.

Trust me, this is a bad idea. One more ineffective gun law just leads to demands for additional ineffective gun laws which leads to a patchwork maze of regulations that ends up doing nothing but snaring the unwary, honest gunowner. The first question to be asked regarding ANY additional proposed gun regulation is, "Will it work?" If the question is, "Do I personally have a problem with it?", well, you've got a problem and you don't even know it.

will it work? depends on your definition of work, but i think it could be useful for stopping the worst straw purchasers (those who do it often and buy the guns for criminals who actually use them in crimes).

do i personally have a problem with it? i have a big problem with the "should have known" part. otherwise i don't have a huge problem with it, in and of itself, except that i do agree that, like any gun law, it will likely be abused by anti-gun LEOs and DAs. one way to help prevent that would be to add language requiring proof that the intent in not reporting it was to effect a straw purchase. this would still allow prosecution of repeat straw purchasers while providing some addtional protections for law abiding gun owners. of course, that's pretty much the law we have now.

at any rate, even if the did what i suggest, i still wouldn't be out there campaigning to pass this into law by any means.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

One of the big problems I see was language starting the 'clock' on reporting when it "is known or should have been known" that the guns were missing. Who decides when it should have been known? An officer, the DA....why are we intentionally creating new legislation with such poor language? Is this all the more we should expect from our 'professional' lawmakers?

It's going to be abused, just like every other open-ended and vague statute. It's no different than using the language of section 6109 to revoke LTCF's on a whim, that wasn't the intention behind that part of the law but it happens. And yeah, maybe people (like yourself) do get their permits back and are vindicated through the court, but that's only after spending the money on an attorney and having your rights suspended while the process drags out.

And I remember reading about gun owners in PA saying the same thing about the vague portions of 6109 as they are about this, "I don't mind this, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about".

Yeah, sure.

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

It's going to be abused, just like every other open-ended and vague statute. It's no different than using the language of section 6109 to revoke LTCF's on a whim, that wasn't the intention behind that part of the law but it happens. And yeah, maybe people (like yourself) do get their permits back and are vindicated through the court, but that's only after spending the money on an attorney and having your rights suspended while the process drags out.

And I remember reading about gun owners in PA saying the same thing about the vague portions of 6109 as they are about this, "I don't mind this, if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about".

Yeah, sure.

Due process should serve as a safety net, exercised by the citizenry when the system fails, not as an additional hurdle to be overcome when unjustly accused. Certainly the law can't cover every situation that may occur, but it amazes me that such piss poor statutes are continuously put forth that even a mere high school graduate like myself can point out multiple flaws in the language.

[louie]

Huh.

And what, pray tell, does this have to do with reducing violent crime? If this is an attempt to curb straw purchases, we already have laws on the books for this. Too bad they're not enforced. Besides, the PASP already has a database of all legal firearms transfers in PA.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

wasn't the weapon used in the cold-blooded killing of Officer Cassidy (Phila. PD), the same weapon carried by his mother who is a Dept. of Corrections officer? I'm sure she followed procedure, and reported the weapon lost or stolen. Yet it has been reported that this young man used the same weapon in a armed robbery previous to the shooting of Officer Cassidy.

[larrymeyer]

Originally Posted by louie

Huh.

And what, pray tell, does this have to do with reducing violent crime? If this is an attempt to curb straw purchases, we already have laws on the books for this. Too bad they're not enforced. Besides, the PASP already has a database of all legal firearms transfers in PA.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but...

wasn't the weapon used in the cold-blooded killing of Officer Cassidy (Phila. PD), the same weapon carried by his mother who is a Dept. of Corrections officer? I'm sure she followed procedure, and reported the weapon lost or stolen. Yet it has been reported that this young man used the same weapon in a armed robbery previous to the shooting of Officer Cassidy.

Hey your not suppose to know about that gun it was reported stolen after the shooting

[CZ40P]

You know what the bottom line with this and all the stupid gun laws these Philadelphia idiots try and pass?

The real purpose of this and all so-called " common sense" gun laws is to make buying a firearm a scary and burdensome proposition. The real reason is to discourage first time gun buyers from making that initial purchase.

The true best weapon the anti-gun bigots have is mis-information. People are afraid to buy a gun now because they don't want to have a gun "registered" in their name. They are afraid of just that liability of it being stolen. Passing this law will deter those first time, uninformed people from putting themselves in "that" position.

Of course the true purpose of all so-called "common sense" gun measure it to deter the law abiding. It has nothing to do with punishing the guilty.