Ben Avon REPEALS Lost and Stolen illegal Ordinance

[WhiteFeather]

Here is some excellent news.

Borough of Ben Avon Repeals Lost and Stolen Gun Ordinance

Another example of when gun owners work and take the time to educate the local elected officials they will take the information and do the right thing in lots of cases.


http://www.publiusfoundation.com/201...gun-ordinance/

Borough of Ben Avon Repeals Lost and Stolen Gun Ordinance
By Giles HowardPublished: July 24, 2010

Posted in: Blog, City/County, Featured

Tags: lost and stolen repeal, PA lost and stolen handgun law

In an important victory for liberty at the most local level, the Borough of Ben Avon — a small community of about 2,000 people located eight miles north of Pittsburgh — repealed its year-old lost and stolen gun ordinance Tuesday.

A flash point in the struggle over the Second Amendment, lost and stolen laws mandate that gun-owners report the loss or theft of a firearm within a certain number of hours after realizing that the weapon is gone. Penalties for not reporting a missing or stolen firearm include fines and jail time.

Lost and stolen ordinances can be found in about 40 communities across Pennsylvania due almost exclusively to the advocacy of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) – an organization co-founded by anti-gun activist and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg with the goal of “preventing criminals from illegally obtaining guns and using them.” MAIG argues that the purpose of lost and stolen gun laws is to punish so-called “straw purchasers” who legally purchase firearms and then sell them to convicted felons and others who cannot themselves legally purchase firearms.

Although a laudable goal, these ordinances spark strong opposition from gun-owners and Second Amendment organizations nationally who view lost and stolen laws as laws that further victimize law-abiding gun-owners who have themselves already been the victims of a robbery. Furthermore, these laws are rarely if ever enforced and some prosecutors argue that they make their work pursuing straw-purchasers more, not less, difficult.

In Pennsylvania, lost and stolen ordinances are particularly contentious because cities and smaller political subdivisions across the State passed their own lost and stolen ordinances after the State Legislature refused to do so. This has created a patchwork of local gun laws that violate the State’s Uniform Firearms Act and expose small communities to legal action if they ever choose to prosecute a gun-owner for violating the law.

Indeed, Ben Avon chose to repeal its lost and stolen ordinance largely because the lost and stolen law, according to the language of the repeal, “raised numerous concerns regarding possible legal challenges.” Moving forward, Ben Avon’s repeal of its lost and stolen ordinance should serve as an example to other political subdivisions throughout the Commonwealth who have, as a result of MAIG’s lobbying, enacted these ordinances.

It is important to recognize that these laws are unnecessary, burdensome regulations that threaten to make criminals out of innocent gun-owners who were already themselves victims of a criminal act. Even recognizing the validity of these powerful arguments against lost and stolen ordinances, it is more important for small towns and cities to recognize the legal challenges that these laws expose them to.

In repealing its lost and stolen ordinance, Ben Avon not only defended the interests of area gun-owners but, more importantly, defended the interests of every one of its citizens whose tax dollars would have been wasted on a costly legal battle had the Borough’s lost and stolen ordinance ever been enforced. The only responsible action for similar communities with similar laws is to follow Ben Avon’s example and repeal them in an effort to protect their constituents’ tax dollars from costly legal battles.

The battle is never over to we say so......

Thank to elected officals of Ben Avon that corrected the mistake with the orginal illegal passage of the L&S Ordinance

To CeaseFirePA & rest of your cronies, you are not going to have your way, despite all the money (400,000 plus) the Joyce foundation dumps in your coffers to fund your scams, to spin your web of propaganda.

CeaseFirePA distraction of making L&S the issue, is letting the bad guy slide on straw purchase contrary to their rhetoric.

Just adding another gun control law is a cruel joke to play on peoples intentions of doing something to address the problem. Trouble is they are aiming at the wrong target as without "the time out for the crime" enforcement means nothing IF its not used

If the UFA is just a Plea bargaining tool for the DA to toss out the firearm charges only to make the DA job easier whats the point of enacting more gun control laws?

Without aggressive prosecution & enforcement of existing firearm laws when there is criminal intent to send a message that straw purchases and illegal transfer of firearm will Not be tolerated.

If you lie for the other guy

If you do the crime expect to do all the time prescribed in the very restrictive existing firearm laws in PA.

Till prosecution and long jail sentences are imposed as provided by law, along with well published cases in the media so the message get to the street level criminals attention that we are serious.

NO one wins

Please read attachment of text of Ordinance

[Koli01]

previously posted here

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...-ben-avon.html


but thanks for the additional info

[WhiteFeather]

There is more info beyond this summary in a PDF available from web site and attached at bottom of post

As web base info been known to disappear at some point in time.

Many thanks to Giles Howard& Others for this effort

Lost and Stolen Gun Ordinances: A New Policy Briefing

By Giles Howard

Published: August 2, 2010

Posted in: Blog, City/County, Slideshow

Tags: lost and stolen gun laws, pa lost and stolen gun laws

Executive Summary

A prominent aspect of the debate surrounding crime and gun ownership, lost and stolen gun laws represent a particularly heated point of contention in an ideological debate between gun owners and anti-gun interest groups. After the Pennsylvania State House refused to pass a statewide lost and stolen law in 2008, lobbyists presented these ordinances to local governments throughout the state as a commonsense way to reduce crime.

Today, lost and stolen ordinances exist in approximately 45 communities – ranging in size from Philadelphia to Munhall – in Pennsylvania and their existence has prompted court cases that have yet to resolve whether or not such laws are legal. However the courts have ruled, it is clear that lost and stolen gun laws enacted by local governments in Pennsylvania are unenforceable and redundant.

It is also likely that, if these ordinances are ever enforced, their enforcement would engender a costly legal battle that, based on previous cases pertaining to local gun laws, would result in the overturning of lost and stolen gun laws enacted at the local level. In light of this situation, lost and stolen gun laws must be understood as posing more of a liability than a benefit in local governments’ struggle to fight crime.

In proving this contention, this briefing examines four distinct aspects of lost and stolen gun laws in Pennsylvania:

•An Unenforceable, Unnecessary Law: To our knowledge, no lost and stolen ordinance has ever been enforced in Pennsylvania and, because of its dubious legality, prosecutors and district attorneys are unlikely to attempt enforcement. Furthermore, these local ordinances are made redundant by harsher federal and state laws that criminalize straw purchasing.

•Pennsylvania Firearms Law: The Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act and current judicial precedent are both clear that local governments have no legal right to enact legislation impacting gun ownership. Lawsuits challenging local lost and stolen ordinances have been dismissed only because, due to lost and stolen laws not being enforced, no plaintiff has had standing to challenge these ordinances.

•An Invitation to Costly Lawsuits: Understanding Pennsylvania firearms law as it stands today, local governments that enact lost and stolen ordinances are in violation of judicial precedent and the Uniform Firearms Act. This makes local governments vulnerable to costly lawsuits by gun owners and pro-gun lobbying organizations.

•Criminalizing Victims: Lost and stolen ordinances not only constitute poor fiscal and anti-crime policy, they also threaten to criminalize individual gun owners who have already been the victims of a crime. In this way, lost and stolen ordinances violate our understanding of fairness in the law.

[WhiteFeather]

http://www.thecitizen.us/article/ben...repeal-gun-law

Ben Avon to repeal gun law
Article | 06.18.10 | By By Lois Thomson

Picking up where they left off last month, Ben Avon Council members at Tuesday's meeting continued a discussion on repealing the gun ordinance that was passed last December.

The ordinance requires residents to report lost or stolen handguns to the police within 72 hours of their disappearance, or face a fine and possible jail sentence.

Council had a lengthy discussion in May, but tabled the vote because Dan Herchenroether said he knew that Sue Weiss, who was not in attendance last month, had a strong opinion on the subject and deserved a chance to speak. Weiss did speak, saying that she likes an ordinance that requires people in Ben Avon to know where their guns are.

Ben Avon resident John Ott addressed council and asked them to repeal the ordinance, saying that someone whose gun was missing at the time the ordinance was approved, who only discovered it now and reported it missing, would be subject to a fine of approximately $90,000 and 46 years in jail. He pointed to the absurd nature of the penalty.

He also said that only the state can pass gun laws, not municipalities. He said such an ordinance could be challenged and taken all the way to the state supreme court.

Weiss countered that such an issue has not been tested in the courts, and she believes council would be premature in throwing it out. "John is correct about the laws," she added, "but this is about responsibility. We're not saying (residents) can't own guns."

Council member Judy Konitsney commented, "I feel strongly, like Sue does, but I got a lot of calls asking to repeal the ordinance, so I'm going to vote that way."

Council member R.J. White said he asked police chief Norbert Micklos after last month's meeting about the enforceability of the ordinance, and the chief said it would be difficult. White added, "It's crazy to think we can create a law that will single-handedly reduce crime in Ben Avon."

Council voted on a motion to advertise to repeal the gun ordinance. The vote was 5-1 in favor, with Weiss having the dissenting vote, and Brian Tokar absent. The ordinance will be advertised and voted on at next month's meeting.

Note the position changes mentioned in article with lots of gun owners doing their small part to get involved and let their voices be heard.

YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERANCE if you choose to....speak up and get active

http://www.thecitizen.us/article/repealed

Repealed
Article | 07.23.10 |

By a vote of 4-2, members of Ben Avon Council, at Tuesday's meeting, repealed the stolen handgun ordinance that they had adopted last December.

The ordinance, which has undergone much discussion the past two months, required residents to report lost or stolen handguns to the police within 72 hours of their disappearance, or face a large fine and possible jail sentence.

Council member Sue Weiss said that council was "premature in throwing it out." However, council member R.J. White referred to a 2006 Supreme Court and said that the ordinance was not reasonable.

Weiss and council member Brian Tokar had the dissenting votes; Rob Galbraith was absent.

Guess someone didn't get the count or attendance right in last story

[anonymouse]

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitt.../s_693794.html

Gun buncombe
Monday, August 9, 2010

Local-level laws that criminalize failure to report stolen and lost guns in Pennsylvania are patently unconstitutional in both federal and state contexts, useless against crime and invitations to financially ruinous litigation.

Doing the homework on the issue is Giles Howard, a senior history major at the University of Pittsburgh and president and founder of the Publius Foundation, a nonpartisan, nonprofit student think tank. Writing at publiusfoundation.com, he says such laws:

• Are unenforceable -- knowing they're legally dubious, prosecutors have yet to use them -- and unnecessary due to harsher state and federal laws against legal buyers' "straw purchasing" of guns for felons.

• Violate both the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act's ban on local laws affecting gun ownership and judicial precedent upholding that ban.

• Make communities subject to lawsuits that are costly even if dismissed, as all such litigation to date has been -- but solely because lack of enforcement means nobody has the necessary legal standing.

• Unfairly criminalize victims of gun theft.

In short, lost-and-stolen gun laws are bureaucratic buncombe. The sooner communities repeal them, the better -- for law-abiding gun owners, police, prosecutors and the public at large.