Who cares about it being unconstitutional?

[HenryReardon]

So says a councilwoman in Pittsburgh, -

http://www.pittsburghpostgazette.com/pg/08329/930426-100.stm

excerpt:
[Quote removed by moderator] Copyright ©1997 - 2008 PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/district6/


This kind of attitude is more than a little bit worrisome, is it not?

 

[construct]

I agree that the council member's wording is troublesome. The issue is whether an ordinance about reporting lost or stolen guns violates state law precluding ordinances about possession of firearms. It's being litigated in a different jurisdiction which means Pittsburgh would be inviting a lawsuit if the ordinance passes. If I were on the council, I might be inclined to wait and see how the lawsuit turned out.

 

[iman]

Philadelphia has a similar law. Guns are stolen all the time and used to commit crime and guns retrieved that have been used in a crime need to be traced back to an owner who cannot claim the gun was stolen.

 

[construct]

Philadelphia has a similar law. Guns are stolen all the time and used to commit crime and guns retrieved that have been used in a crime need to be traced back to an owner who cannot claim the gun was stolen.

Yes, but the Philadelphia ordinance was found at trial to violate state law. That case is on appeal, I believe. The problem is with people buying guns legally for the purpose of selling them to criminals. When the gun is then used in a crime, the buyer claims it was stolen and everybody is off the hook. The Philadelphia and Pittsburgh ordinances were seeking to discourage this practice. Yet there is a state law which arguably preempts these local ordinances. So I still think it would be a good thing to let the courts sort out the Philadelphia ordinance before passing one in Pittsburgh.

 

[archive]

^ Why not report it stolen sooner? This isn't about the right to keep and bear arms but about the responsibilities that go along with that right.

Even then, that's not the point of the OP, and the second poster picked up on it. Her question was poor. It's disturbing when legislators sound as if they are purposely dismissive of the Constitution.

And speaking of poor, does this quote have too many instances of the word "that"?

exactly...i personally dont see a problem with reporting a gun stolen

 

[doctorsun]

I like the law. It doesn't infringe on the second amendment, it just makes sure those who utilize it are responsible. But, yes, the woman was stupid with her comment and she probably hurt her own cause by saying it.

 

[Kulindahr]

The big problem is that firearms have in the past been stolen, and the first the owner knew of it was the use of the firearm in a crime. People aren't always around their guns 24-7, so the 24-hr limit is unfair.

For example, I have a number of rifles in storage right now. If some felon busted in and stole them from there, I wouldn't know for weeks, maybe months, because I don't just zip by every day to check on them.

A better approach would be to require insurance companies to set standards for storage of firearms, before those are insured. Another is the program here of providing gun locks, which disable the weapon, for free.

As to that question about who cares if it's unconstitutional, that's a wide pathway to unchecked tyranny.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ My stance is that one should be responsible for their weapons, regardless of where they are. These irresponsible gun owners are arming the criminals which ironically provokes the gun control laws they go all chicken little over.

Up to a reasonable limit, yes. But if I have guns in a safe, and the safe is in a locked storage unit, and each of my guns has been disabled by a safety lock, my responsibility is fulfilled; that's as reasonably safe as anyone should expect.

Or if I'm traveling, and I have to leave my sidearm in the vehicle because I'm in a particularly repressive political entity, if I disable the firearm by removal of an important part, disable it further with a safety lock, and lock it in a flat safe bolted to the vehicle floor, that's also as reasonably safe as anyone should expect.

But if I was lazy and just stuffed a rifle under the mattress, or stuck my sidearm up under the seat, and it gets stolen... those can't reasonably be expected to be secure.

Call me crazy but, if your gun is stolen, isn't it in your best interest to report it IMMEDIATELY?

I don't think people steal guns to use as paperweights, I do NOT want MY gun being used in a gun-war where some innocent 4 year old girl gets caught in the cross-fire.

We report credit cards when they're stolen, and credit cards don't have bullets in em.

Immediately on learning of it, yes -- but that 24-hour rule is ridiculous.

I've been stared at even by fellow shooters, BW, when I have to leave my sidearm in a vehicle, or turn it over to a desk in a hospital or something, and first I dismantle it and remove an essential part, so it can't fire -- but I do it because if anyone's going to shoot my gun, it's going to be me; anyone who might break in and somehow get my sidearm is going to find something that will shoot as well as a paperweight.

BTW, if you leave your gun somewhere that it can be stolen, and it's loaded -- I'd call it 500 hours of community service, half of it doing something particularly nasty.

BTW (2), I've had credit cards stolen, and didn't know it for more than 48 hours. The time-limit thing is just moronic.

 

[smelter]

BTW (2), I've had credit cards stolen, and didn't know it for more than 48 hours. The time-limit thing is just moronic.

I use a scissors to snip off a corner of my unattended credit cards so they don't start charging without my knowledge.

 

[Kulindahr]

I havent read the language of the law, but from the newspaper accounts,it doesn't sound like you'd get nailed for not being not having a date time group of when the weapon was no longer in your custody.

It sounds like they want you to report it within 24 hours of you being aware of it being stolen.

Seems reasonable enough to me.

If that's the case, then I have no real objection, except that the fine amount seems ridiculous. Maybe it should be pegged to the value of the firearm -- like, 20%.

 

[Kulindahr]

I use a scissors to snip off a corner of my unattended credit cards so they don't start charging without my knowledge.

Do you write "Ask for matching corner" on the back of the card?

 

[smelter]

Do you write "Ask for matching corner" on the back of the card?

No, because they only discharge with a corner nipped! Credit cards discharging is a good thing, whereas weapons discharging is a bad thing.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, because they only discharge with a corner nipped! Credit cards discharging is a good thing, whereas weapons discharging is a bad thing.

Well, credit cards can keep discharging far into the red, while firearms only keep discharging what they've stored up.

I bet if you were being jumped by three neoNazis with knives, you'd think that my weapon discharging in your defense was a good thing.

 

[smelter]

Well, credit cards can keep discharging far into the red, while firearms only keep discharging what they've stored up.

I bet if you were being jumped by three neoNazis with knives, you'd think that my weapon discharging in your defense was a good thing.

I thought we were talking about unattended or stolen credit cards and weapons. Besides, a discharge being the opposite of a charge on a credit card, puts money back into your account!

 

[Kulindahr]

LOL

A totally unattended weapon discharging would be TRULY scary!

 

[smelter]

LOL

A totally unattended weapon discharging would be TRULY scary!

I have arthritic fingers so mine have hair trigger mechanisms that can be discharged by a fat fly landing on them. Never fuck with old people!

 

[Kulindahr]

^
Depends on where you are, I think. Not too long back we had a judge who aspired to higher office, who was slapping everyone who came in front of him with pretty heavy fines, etc. -- wanted to look "tough on crime".