What is the point of lost and stolen ordinances?

[JP8]

If these ordinances are unenforceable and no one has yet to be prosecuted under them for fear of legal liabilities, why are all these townships suddenly adopting these laws? Are they just slowly trying to chip away at the UFA?

Even if a resident couldn't care less about gun laws, I would think they'd be bothered that their tax money is being squandered on the adoption of a law that everyone knows is pointless.

[Philbert]

If these ordinances are unenforceable and no one has yet to be prosecuted under them for fear of legal liabilities, why are all these townships suddenly adopting these laws? Are they just slowly trying to chip away at the UFA?

Yep.

Even if a resident couldn't care less about gun laws, I would think they'd be bothered that their tax money is being squandered on the adoption of a law that everyone knows is pointless.

YMMV, but my impression around here is that most people are pretty clueless about the UFA and pre-emption. L&S is playing to the base who want "something done" about violent crime - and politicians are unwilling or unable to deliver a real short term solution (locking up violent criminals for long periods of time) or a real long term solution (produce fewer violent criminals), so we get "assault weapon" laws and "lost and stolen reporting" laws.

[DonM55]

They want to be able to keep track of the guns in the non register.

[andrewjs18]

it's 1 of those feel good laws...I think most municipalities have it to make the citizens feel safe, even though it's in violation of state law and does nothing to stop crime.

[Curmudgeon]

Yep.



YMMV, but my impression around here is that most people are pretty clueless about the UFA and pre-emption. L&S is playing to the base who want "something done" about violent crime - and politicians are unwilling or unable to deliver a real short term solution (locking up violent criminals for long periods of time) or a real long term solution (produce fewer violent criminals), so we get "assault weapon" laws and "lost and stolen reporting" laws.

^ Nail on the head, IMO.
.

[GunLawyer001]

Part of it is that the anti's believe that there' is no burden that would be unfair for those evil gun owners to bear. You shouldn't own a gun anyway, the fact that you're allowed to own one is a loophole, so screw you if you don't like additional excise taxes, sales taxes, license fees, gun safe requirements, ammo limits, carry restrictions, prohibitions on carrying in random locations, etc.

"After SCOTUS eliminated the D.C. ban, the city put in place dozens of regulations surrounding handgun ownership. Prospective gun owners in D.C. now are required to take training courses that include spending one hour on a firing range and several hours in a classroom learning about gun safety. They also must pass a 20-question test based on D.C.'s firearm laws.

Since the ban was lifted in D.C., just over 800 guns have been registered in city. The relatively low total comes as the district passed the slew of new requirements that also include being fingerprinted and taking ballistic tests, which could help police track bullets back to specific guns if needed."
http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward...-97328384.html


Another part is that they want to get us used to more laws. They get a bug up their asses every year about some new trendy cause, whether it's "assault weapons" or "cop-killer bullets" or "arsenals" or "bullet fingerprinting", then they hammer away at it through a national conspiracy with the MSM until they get some venal politicians to back it. Then after they get it enacted in a few places, the completely lose interest, and nobody ever mentions that no crimes are prevented, or solved.

Perhaps the more insidious aspect of ,mandatory reporting is that it moves us another step closer to strict liability for firearms owners. Unlike any other product, they want the registered owner to be liable for any crimes ever committed with that firearm, even if it's stolen. There are bits and pieces of that around the USA, where the owner is absolutely liable if a minor gets his hands on the gun, even if it took a crowbar to gain access. They want you to be liable if a thief breaks into your locked home, steals your gun from your safe, then sells it to some junkie, who shoots a liquor store clerk with it. This law gets them one step closer to that goal. But it wouldn't apply to a stolen car that's used to run over some kids, or to stolen cutlery, or to any other legal product that is criminally misused by third parties. It's only the guns, and they honestly believe that you shouldn't be allowed to own them at all, but if we're stuck with that antiquated 2nd Amendment, then we'll just have to make it as onerous as possible. The mayor of Chicago has pretty much said this explicitly:

"As expected, Mayor Daley and Chicago's City Council are circling the wagons to defend against an unfavorable decision by the Supreme Court concerning the city's gun ban.
Daley said the city would have in place a new ordinance aimed at making it difficult to purchase and own a gun in Chicago.
"We'll publicly propose a new ordinance very soon," Daley said at an afternoon press conference concerning the gun ban.
"As a city we must continue to stand up ..and fight for a ban on assault weapons .. as well as a crackdown on gun shops," Daley said. "We are a country of laws not a nation of guns."

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Daley-Vows-New-Gun-Ordinances-97328384.html#ixzz0yh0RqN17"

[GregorOneEye]

Boy, good thing I don't own a single firearm at all whatsoever.

Let's maybe let people have freedom and enforce the laws we have? Shucks?

[Siobhra]

The "official" reason is it helps catch straw purchases. They claim that when they catch someone who bought a gun for someone else they claim the gun was "lost" or that it was "stolen". Now they will not have to prove they sold it to bad person, just that they did not report it.
What will happen is it will be used against anyone making that claim, including people who were away at the time and come home to find the police waiting for them.
The only people who will have to fight it will be us gun owners. To the bad guys it will only be another charge to plea on.

[GunLawyer001]

The "official" reason is it helps catch straw purchases. They claim that when they catch someone who bought a gun for someone else they claim the gun was "lost" or that it was "stolen". Now they will not have to prove they sold it to bad person, just that they did not report it.
What will happen is it will be used against anyone making that claim, including people who were away at the time and come home to find the police waiting for them.
The only people who will have to fight it will be us gun owners. To the bad guys it will only be another charge to plea on.

They don't really even articulate a mechanism for how this will put a dent in straw sales, because there is no such mechanism. The penalty for not reporting a stolen firearm is usually just a summary offense, like a traffic ticket. The penalty for straw purchases is much higher, and so is the penalty for making a false police report; this means that any arms trafficker would be an idiot to make a false report of a gun theft (to hide his sales to criminals). The false report would just notify the cops that he's moving guns, and expose him. No, the savvy trafficker will just wait until one of his guns surfaces, then claim that it was stolen, and pay the $300 fine. Or else claim that he had no reason to suspect that it was lost or stolen until just now.

Failing to report a stolen gun doesn't make the prosecution for straw purchases any easier. The penalty is a joke, which means that once they get it into law, they will wait a few years, feign surprise that it's ineffective, and bump the penalty up into misdemeanor range. This seriously victimizes gun owners twice, and when Grandpa's junkie grandson steals a handgun from the closet at Christmas, Grandpa will be open to jail time for not noticing before New Year's Day.

[Siobhra]

Failing to report a stolen gun doesn't make the prosecution for straw purchases any easier. The penalty is a joke, which means that once they get it into law, they will wait a few years, feign surprise that it's ineffective, and bump the penalty up into misdemeanor range. This seriously victimizes gun owners twice, and when Grandpa's junkie grandson steals a handgun from the closet at Christmas, Grandpa will be open to jail time for not noticing before New Year's Day.

And I think this is their plan. What I said is only their excuse. Also they want another law that in time can be used to block yet another person from gun ownership. Because sooner or later they will try to get the crime raised to a level that makes you fail the background check.