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

[Karl/PA]

At risk of incurring the wrath of the membership on my own head, I really don't have a problem with the reporting requirement. I have a C&R FFL and have that requirement already. Actually its more stringent. I have to call ATF AND local law enforcement within 48 hours AND file a written report (Form 3310.11) with ATF.

[jkp1187]

The statute actually makes LESS sense because it excludes hunting rifles from the reporting requirement. What -- if someone steals a hunting rifle, they can't do that much harm with it?

Is there any law-abiding gun owner who WOULDN'T report a stolen gun, regardless of the statute?

Is there any law-breaking gun owner who WOULD, regardless of the statute?

[Philadelphia]

Originally Posted by Karl/PA

At risk of incurring the wrath of the membership on my own head, I really don't have a problem with the reporting requirement. I have a C&R FFL and have that requirement already. Actually its more stringent. I have to call ATF AND local law enforcement within 48 hours AND file a written report (Form 3310.11) with ATF.

In looking at a lot of various attitudes about this, in my mind it comes down to what Nomad was really getting at.

If the gov't is going to make us do or not do something, it should bear some burden of showing it has some valid reason for doing so. With this one, it's not hard to show there simply is no valid reason.

As Nomad pointed out, if the straw buyer lies under this new law and can convince a jury of that lie, she walks, exactly the same as under the existing law.

If she does the same thing multiple times, it will likely not be possible to convince anyone of that lie, same as with existing law.

The real trouble is some DAs offices haven't really been bothering with the existing law because no matter how you slice it, prosecuting a small time straw purchaser (like girlfriend buys one gun for boyfriend who then does a drive by) isn't easy. It's not easy under existing law and it won't be easy under the proposed law.

The justification given by the gov't that I've heard is that if guns are lost or stolen, having them reported right away will allow LEOs to go out looking for them sooner and get them off the streets. That's so senseless it's completely irrational. If a Glock 19 is stolen, should LEOs be on the lookout for a Glock 19? Come on. LEO sees a gun (at least in my town) it's bearer will get plenty of attention whether it's a Glock 19 or not.

This law is all about sounding good on the evening news. It sounds good if a law would allow our LEOs to look for stolen guns and get them off the streets. The fact that this law can't possibly do that under any imaginable scenerio isn't relevant.

So getting back to what I was getting at, why shouldn't we, as citizens, demand that our gov't only burden us with new laws that actually work to address problems we want resolved? It won't hurt anything (if that's how you feel) is not a justification. The pol's feet should be held to the fire for them to provide some objective evidence that the law will be effective at its ends, without overly burdening the citzenry in return. They haven't met the first hurdle there.

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by Philadelphia

The real trouble is some DAs offices haven't really been bothering with the existing law because no matter how you slice it, prosecuting a small time straw purchaser (like girlfriend buys one gun for boyfriend who then does a drive by) isn't easy. It's not easy under existing law and it won't be easy under the proposed law.

The justification given by the gov't that I've heard is that if guns are lost or stolen, having them reported right away will allow LEOs to go out looking for them sooner and get them off the streets. That's so senseless it's completely irrational. If a Glock 19 is stolen, should LEOs be on the lookout for a Glock 19? Come on. LEO sees a gun (at least in my town) it's bearer will get plenty of attention whether it's a Glock 19 or not.

Very true. It's implausible that the police will assign a few detectives to locating your stolen gun. As it is, they don't even investigate burglaries, their sole function is to write up a report so that your insurance company can verify the loss. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll bet that it's been years since the police canvassed pawn shops for stolen goods, dusted door knobs for fingerprints, made castings of footprints under the windows, just for a burglary. Maybe if the victim was a city councilman, or maybe if there was a murder involved. But reporting your gun stolen will only put it on a list, it will do nothing to get it back or stop crimes.

The real rationale here is to tighten the screws on gun owners, in the name of fighting straw purchasers. I notice that nobody in Harrisburg is asking for mandatory sentencing for straw purchasers, for criminals selling stolen guns out of their trunks. In fact, every time they catch a straw purchaser, they plead it down. FFL's get more grief over not detecting the fraud than the people who commit the fraud get. The straw purchasers themselves are usually just "understood" because they are victims of their boyfriends, or addicted to drugs so they can't help themselves. So the solution is to shift the burden from the guilty to the victims.

If this were about stopping straw purchases, they would be targeting straw purchasers. This is just about marginalizing gun owners and making the idea of owning a gun even more onerous.

[larrymeyer]

Originally Posted by jkp1187

The statute actually makes LESS sense because it excludes hunting rifles from the reporting requirement. What -- if someone steals a hunting rifle, they can't do that much harm with it?

I do so hope the above was sarcastic. If you take a rife or shot gun and cut down on the barrels and stocks you

Sorry I've said to much your right can't do much damage with a rifles

Honest officer they took my zip gun it doesn't have a serial number its a
Again TMIF

[jkp1187]

Originally Posted by larrymeyer

I do so hope the above was sarcastic. If you take a rife or shot gun and cut down on the barrels and stocks you

Sorry I've said to much your right can't do much damage with a rifles

Honest officer they took my zip gun it doesn't have a serial number its a
Again TMIF

Well, that's my point: handguns cause certain people to go hysterical, but somehow it's okay to have a rifle?!??

The bill's supporters either are so terrified of handguns that they think, somehow, that handguns are 'deadlier' than a hunting rifle or a shot gun...or they are transparently trying to play divide-and-conquer, hoping to politically separate those who own a firearm "just for hunting", and those who choose to carry a handgun purely for self-defense. Probably a little of both.

I was just saying that the bill would, at least, make more sense if all firearms were encompassed. I still wouldn't support it, but it would at least be consistent.

And if someone stole my handgun, you're goddamned right I'd report it to the police ASAP. Not because there's a statute, but because it's MINE and I'd want it back, and I'd want to make damned sure I don't get blamed for any crimes that someone may commit with it after it's been stolen. The only people who wouldn't, I think, are those who are breaking the law already. So I don't see how this statute would magically cause those people to start obeying the law....

[CZ40P]

More people die every year in Pennsylvania from cars than guns.

Would arresting folks who's car has been lost or stolen make it any better?


Works for me

[larrymeyer]

Originally Posted by jkp1187

Well, that's my point: handguns cause certain people to go hysterical, but somehow it's okay to have a rifle?!??

The bill's supporters either are so terrified of handguns that they think, somehow, that handguns are 'deadlier' than a hunting rifle or a shot gun...or they are transparently trying to play divide-and-conquer, hoping to politically separate those who own a firearm "just for hunting", and those who choose to carry a handgun purely for self-defense. Probably a little of both.

I was just saying that the bill would, at least, make more sense if all firearms were encompassed. I still wouldn't support it, but it would at least be consistent.

And if someone stole my handgun, you're goddamned right I'd report it to the police ASAP. Not because there's a statute, but because it's MINE and I'd want it back, and I'd want to make damned sure I don't get blamed for any crimes that someone may commit with it after it's been stolen. The only people who wouldn't, I think, are those who are breaking the law already. So I don't see how this statute would magically cause those people to start obeying the law....

I knew what you were saying I was just being a smart ass or maybe just an ass since I'm not all that smart

[Nomad]

[quote=LittleRedToyota;252176]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.

I thought it might make it easier if my comments (after quoting little red) were in a different color. I hope I did this correctly. Anyway, again, this new law doesn't change the equation in the way little red envisions. If the excuse under the new law ("Oh, I had no idea my gun was stolen") only works once or twice, then the excuse under current law ("Yeah, my gun was stolen but I didn't bother to report it") only works once or twice as well. It's the same scenario, you have to prove the bad guy is lying. If repeating the lie is sufficient to meet the burden of proof to obtain a conviction, then it works without enacting the Levdansky amendment.

It just doesn't add up to anything other than a panacea to make the anti-gunners happy for a moment. It's a sugar pill. When it doesn't work, they just come back and say that's proof we need more gun laws. Rather than waste time with new laws that don't work, we should focus on those that do. Study after study, from the Centers for Disease Control work released in 2003 to the National Academy of Sciences report released in 2005 to the Journal of Injury Prevention material published in 2005, have found no evidence that new gun control laws effect firearm violence. What does? Enforcement, appropriate sentencing and prevention. Since a disproportionate number of the worst violent crimes are committed by a small number of criminals, putting them in jail makes a difference. Effective use of police officers (impact zone policing, etc.) makes a difference. Drug/alcohol treatment, mental health treatment and programs to keep kids from heading down the wrong path (Big Brothers/Big Sisters, etc.) make a difference. That's where the focus should be if we really want to impact gun violence.

[piste]

Anyone actually done something wild and crazy and actually taken a look at the bill itself? I've been trying to find it and came up with this which looks to be an outdated one as it requires notice within 24 hours??

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/...r=1214&pn=1643

Educating myself with facts is just one of those crazy habits of mine....