Report lost or stolen firearms within 48 hours or get fined $1000 and/or 90 days in jail...

[spin]

SCRANTON – The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects an American’s right to keep and bear arms.

On Tuesday night, a group of armed and unarmed Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association members and their families attended city council’s meeting to express concerns for an ordinance that council is considering, which would require gun owners to report lost of stolen firearms to the Scranton Police Department within 48 hours or face a $1,000 fine and/or 90 days in prison.

The motion was tabled 4-1 because council said they would need to consult the state Attorney General’s Office to see if the proposal is legal.



http://www.timesleader.com/scrantonedition/news/Gun_owners_fired_up_over_proposal_10-04-2009.html

[robinlynne]

1. sounds perfectly logical to me. edited to add; If i lose my creidt card and do

not report it timely, I will suffer the consequences. if a gun owner does not report a missing gun, why not go to jail if that gun is used to kill someone? The conseuences of a lost gun are much more serious than a lost credit card.

[timeforpeace]

12. I agree, makes sense, no downside for a responsible gun owner so do it.

[MercutioATC]

16. I don't shoot weekly any more. I may go 2-3 weeks without looking at my firearms.

I don't know many gun owners who inventory everything they own every 2 days.

As for the "If they're secure, you don't have to chack them every 48 hours" argument, there are a plethora of reasons why one might have a firearm (even a secured firearm) that they didn't notice was taken within 48 hours.


If you don't report your credit card lost or stolen in a "timely" manner, you might be responsible for unauthorized charges. You don't go to jail.

[Euromutt]

52. Are you fined or jailed for failing to report the theft of your card?

Even if your card is used to commit an offense, e.g. used to rent a getaway car for a bank robbery? No, I don't believe you are. Moreover, the proposed ordinance would leave the lawful owner open to punishment even if the weapon was never used to commit a crime.

So, bad analogy.

[robinlynne]

62. Interesting. you mentioned car. great analogy. if your car gets in an accident, YOU ARE

responsible criminally and civilly. UNLESS you have filed a stolen report ahead of time, of course.... Thanks for the analogy. Cars, and guns can be used to kill. Credit cards cannot.

[Euromutt]

64. Where do you get that idea?

You're liable if you gave the driver permission to operate the vehicle, yes. But in the case of a stolen vehicle, such permission is by definition absent.

The general rule is that absent “special circumstances” the owner of a vehicle has no duty to protect third persons against the possibility a thief will steal the vehicle and injure them with it. In other words, unless there are unique facts, if someone steals a vehicle, even with the keys in it, and injures or kills someone, the owner of the vehicle is generally not responsible.

Source:
http://www.sierrasun.com/article/20090917/OPINION/909179978/1022/NONE&parentprofile=1054

[robinlynne]

73. IF you report it stolen. Otherwise, you are liable.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. You can't be held liable if you can prove you were somewhere else, or not the operator

and you weren't even aware the car had been stolen.


I mean where do you even get this idea.

[Euromutt]

78. You know what? Show me the statute

Show me the statute that says that you're liable for what someone who's stolen your vehicle does with it, even if he's done it before you even realized the car had been stolen. Your profile says you live in California, so I'll accept the relevant California state law.

Personally, I think you're full of it, but I'll retract that statement with an apology if you can produce the relevant statute.

[Taverner]

2. Gun owners: before you get upset this is for your OWN PROTECTION

That way, if your gun is stolen and used in a murder - you're off the hook

[Eric J in MN]

3. What is that photo? NT

NT

[Taverner]

8. Edie Sedgewick, Warhol, VU and a squirrel nt

[MercutioATC]

17. Umm...no

Mandating a 48-hour timeframe doesn't get anybody "off the hook" to any greater degree than existing law (and practice).

[Taverner]

21. I do think 48 hours is too short

And I would advise instead of penalizing the gun owner, give them a $50 coupon for a new gun...

But the idea is sound

[MercutioATC]

22. Incentives to report a stolen gun are good. Agreed.

People really shouldn't NEED an incentive, but I guess it wouldn't hurt. PENALIZING people for failing to report a gun theft within 48 hours smacks of authorship by a non-gun-owner.

Reporting gun theft - good.

Penalties based on random timeframes - stupid.

[Taverner]

23. I just think it needs to happen though - true law enforcers should have a database

And I do agree with gun fingerprinting

I know its not 100% accurate, but its better than nothing

[MercutioATC]

25. I have absolutely no problem with pre-sale ballistics recording.

The Glock I bought 5 years ago came with two spent casings...that were fired to meet MA requirements. If some government agency wants to keep ballistics records on guns commercially sold in this country, I'm fine with that.

[Treo]

27. Ballistics

Aren't like finger prints they might be able to narrow down to a particular type of weapon but another weapon of similar age and wear from the same lot can produce very similar rifling and imprints on the cartridge case. Plus your are edging dangerously close to registration.

[Taverner]

33. Yes but its narrowing down the list

That's what police work is - narrowing down the list of suspects

[benEzra]

37. It doesn't narrow it down.

Bullet markings are like tire tracks; you can tell make and model without an individualized registry, and an individualized registry doesn't do you any good because tires are too similar to each other and change over short time scales.

Ballistic registries of all new guns are merely an excuse for the registry part; they have no forensic utility. A database of guns recovered at violent-crime scenes can be somewhat useful because of the likelihood that a gun used in a crime may have been used in other crimes nearby in both geography and time, but a ballistic database of all guns is as useless forensically as a database of tire tracks from every new car sold in America.

[Euromutt]

57. And ballistics imaging databases do exactly the opposite

As benEzra rightly notes, ballistic markings are more like tire tracks than fingerprints. If you recover spent cartridge cases from a crime scene and run them through a ballistics imaging database, you're probably going to get a ton of close matches (namely, every registered firearm of that particular model and caliber). But because ballistic markings change with as the firing pin, extractor, ejector and chamber undergo wear every time the gun is fired, and the ballistics imaging database contains images from when the gun was brand new, you're probably not going to get a single exact match unless the gun has barely been fired since it was purchased. If the firing pin, extractor, ejector and/or barrel have been replaced, just forget it.

Ballistics testing is useful to create corroborating evidence; e.g. if you've already identified a suspect, and you find a firearm in his possession (on his person, in his house or car, etc.), you can compare that firearm's marking to cartridge cases or bullets recovered from the crime scene. Provided the weapon hasn't been fired too often in the intervening period, the markings should match closely. But even ballistics testing can be defeated by putting a couple of hundred rounds through the gun after it was used for nefarious purposes.

[PavePusher]

35. Quick, name five crimes solved by firearms ballistics testing.

I'll go make popcorn, cookies and maybe start a few loaves of bread.

[Taverner]

36. Solved? You don't understand solving cases do you

It's not about the magic silver bullet that tells us "AHA! It was Mr Mustard in the bedroom with a gun!"

It's about narrowing your list of suspects

[PavePusher]

38. I do understand it. Alas, many who favor it are under the misapprehension

that such is the gun equivalent of fingerprints combined with DNA testing and DO consider it to be a 'magic bullet'.

If the reports from Maryland and New York are correct, their expensive and cumbersome ballistics databases have been of no use in solving any crimes.

If I recall correctly, firearms registration has a similar track record. Having said that, I'll be happy to register and print my firearms... 5 years after those requirements go into effect for everyones First Amendment rights.

[Taverner]

39. The Second Ammendment says nothing about firearm registration - pro or con

So I don't think registration is so off base...

[PavePusher]

44. I would bet you my entire net worth...

that if you proposed weapons registration to the founders of this nation, they would certainly do cruel and unusual things to you.

I'll keep the government out of my gun safe, my library, my bedroom and off my airwaves, thank you very much. And how do you propose to ensure my co-operation in registering my weapons anyway? Government force? Now wouldn't that be hypocritical irony at it's finest...

[Taverner]

45. You're overreacting

I'm not asking about jackbooted thugs breaking into homes and counting guns

But if there was say, some kind of positive reinforcement to get folks to register - I dunno, let gun owners decide

Say, make keeping a good log of your guns and any fingerprint changes and you get moved to the top of the list for CCW (provided you live in a state like CA where its hard to get)

[Treo]

51. No

Registration always, always always leads to confiscation.

And how about we do a way W/ "the list" and move to Vermont style carry?

[MercutioATC]

40. I'm under no such misapprehension.

The whole concept is easily thwarted by buying a replacement barrel anyway.

...but if it'll keep some who don't understand the real issues quiet, I'm more than willing to let them have this.

[Euromutt]

56. I sure as hell do

Ballistics imaging databases cost a sod of a lot of money and police man hours to maintain, with precious little to show for it. Maryland spends at least half a million dollars on its ballistic imaging database (MD-IBIS), and it's helped secure exactly one conviction in nine years. New York has spent a million dollars a year on its system (CoBIS) since 2002, results nada.

Those are resources that could have been spent doing something effective.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. No.

If your gun is stolen and used in a murder... the officer would have to prove otherwise to convict the gun owner.
Or they would have to prove your gun was not sold beforehand. Very difficult w/out a registry.

Ignoring the fact that this law resembles a piece of swiss cheese without competent gun registration...
This law will nothing to HELP gun owners. It will be used against them.
It will be used as a tool to paint defendants guilty of crimes they may not have committed should their firearm not be reported.
And there are legitimate reasons a missing arms report might not exist past the allotted time limit.
So how can this law help?!? To get you off the hook?? Newsflash: The DA still has to prove you were there and you pulled trigger.
Even if a defendant did report a gun missing and still stands trial for a crime...
reporting a gun missing is in no way an insinuation or evidence of innocence or guilt. It's a moot point.
Compliance of this law will not help/hurt a defendants case and will be glossed over without second thoughts.

Noncompliance of the law easily paints a guilty picture and compliance is a neutral indicator.
This can't help.

Very much like those miranda "rights'... Anything say can be used against you in a court of law.
Nowhere does that indicate what you say can be used to "help you"...
and an officer taking the stand on speaking on behalf of the defendant will be objected as hearsay.

[Euromutt]

55. Uh-oh, I think you've sussed it, and it's not good

Ignoring the fact that this law resembles a piece of swiss cheese without competent gun registration...

That's it! After a couple of years, or even a dozen, when this type of law has utterly failed to aid in the solving of a single case, its proponents will say not "oh well, we were wrong"; they'll say "well, it would work just fine if only we had registration."

It's the thin end of the wedge.

[aikoaiko]

49. No, I'm pretty sure that if a gun I reported as stolen turns up in a crime scene, I will still

be investigated completely and fully.

I see no adequate reason in criminalizing the privacy of gun owners if they have been the victims of crime.

Maybe someone who supports this legislation could explain how this law would really helps law enforcement?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. "they would need to consult the state Attorney General’s Office to see if the proposal is legal."

This seems self explanatory... but if you have to ask why even mess with it.
The only thing I see coming from this law is just another way to punish a person who didn't do anything.

People (criminals) with illegal guns or who aren't allowed to posses guns will not file having lost them... and people "losing" guns into criminals' pockets will certainly have the street savvy to either say "I sold it" or report it "stolen". Once again, another law aimed at turning law abiding citizens/victims into criminals.

[Rabrrrrrr]

5. I would want it to be "report within 48 hours of KNOWING it was lost or stolen", but great idea.

Absolutely great idea.

[Jackson1999]

7. Yes, but the problem with some of the drafted legislation...

in other towns is that they say "know or reasonably should have known" the gun was missing. If someone has a shotty in the attic they haven't looked at in a year, they could get in trouble.

[old mark]

6. More bull shit. Criminalising the gun owners "for our own good."

I guess the Scranton cops don't have enough real crimes to work on - they have to invent more.

This has been tried in several other cities in PA, and I doubt it has survived legal challenges anywhere.

mark

[Taverner]

9. Then I have a better idea: $50 coupon for a new gun after you report it stolen

[northzax]

13. well, wouldn't you want to claim insurance anyway?

and to do that you have to have a police report?

[Taverner]

14. Not everyone has homeowners insurance

But that would be a question I would ask someone if their gun was used in a murder, and they didn't report it stolen...

[Treo]

20. I guess that would depend on the value of the firearm V. the deductible NT

[spin]

30. That might work better than threats.

The law probably wouldn't stand up on court review anyhow.

I had a friend who had put a Ruger .22 cal target pistol away in his attic when he gave up target shooting. Several years later, he started shooting with me. When he went to check for the target pistol, he found it was gone.

He didn't think it was stolen, but was at a loss to explain what happened to it.

If it was stolen, probably a member of his family stole it.

It's obvious that he wouldn't go into his attic every 48 hours to check on the firearm.

[baldguy]

10. Same old RW propaganda: a lot of talk about the "right" to own guns but nothing about responsability

God forbid that a gun owner would actually be responsible for their gun!

[Howardx]

15. +1

[dsc]

11. Gun Owners are just like middle schoolers

all rights no responsibilities. This is emminently reasonable. If you can't get off your rear end and report a stolen gun then shame on you.

[Treo]

18. I purchased every gun I own

in a private sale. there is no documentation anywhere connecting them to me. AFAIC the law is unenforceable because you can't even prove the guns were ever mine. So how do you get around that? do you propose registration?

If a crime is commited and the weapon is able to be traced back to the last legal owner they'll have enough trouble proving they weren't involved in a crime anyway.

[spin]

48. Not a bad idea to purchase all your guns privately...

especially if laws like this get passed.

[HillbillyBob]

19. Any reasonable person would report it stolen, I know I would..

and we would know they were missing since the rack is on a wall. Where I can get at them to run off stray dogs, kreestians and other right wing nuts at need. We don't really anticipate needing them for that too much since we are up a dead end road. Our only near neighbors has pretty much cleared the stray dogs since one got in his hen house and one got in his dog pen with his prize Wiemariner...

We had a bit of upset yesterday seems someone dumped the body of a young woman in downtown next to the old theater which has been boarded up for some time.
Since the local sheriff office who knows nearly everyone did not recognize her seems likely that she and her murderer are from out of the area. She was wrapped in a rug and had a lamp cord tied around her throat.

This is a low crime area, usually domestic disputes, and a couple that was cooking up meth for their own use on the other side of the county.

[PavePusher]

34. Make the victim responsible for the crime. Right.

Why don't we penalize the actual thief for not reporting the crime? That makes just as much sense here.

[JonQ]

41. Can you be penalized for being victimized while

utilizing any other rights?

[SteveM]

50. Your attitude is why most gun-owners don't favor these proposals...

There are perhaps 90-100,000,000 gun-owners you have likened to "middle schoolers -- all rights no responsibilities."

Sounds like you are in a culture war where the aim is to attack gun-owners; the means to do this being secondary.

I will be on Thanksgiving vacation for nearly 2 weeks. If my house is broken into during this time, and neighbors are not alerted, when I return to discover the crime I will be subject to criminal penalties. BTW, how is this "timely" reportage supposed to help in solving anything?

[dsc]

60. It would permit the police to figure out by working backward who might have

did the crime.

[Treo]

63. Not W/out registration

Currently the ATF can only trace a gun as far as the first buyer, unless the that person engages the services of an FFL when he sells the gun. Private sales carry no paperwork. So, if I sell a gun to you there's no record of the sale. There's also no record that I ever bought the gun.

So if you (hypothetically) steal a gun from me and the police recovr it at a crime scene they'll beable to track down the guy who bought it new 10 years ago but they'll never conect the gun to me, dead end.

[dsc]

67. if you report the gun as stolen they will

which is what the law requires you to.

[Treo]

68. But I don't need a law to compel me to report a stolen firearm.

And this law can't compel me to do so unless I am required to register my firearms. So why put another useless law on the books?
TYPO

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

70. So, the trace of a gun used in a crime

by criminals is entirely dependant on the likelihood of people reporting a firearm "stolen" because the law says they have to.
Gotcha. :eyes:

a) If you lost a gun and decided to not report it... the law would be unenforceable if no one knows you lost it.
b) What if the gun has been sold to a few different people in the past.
Sales transactions are not required to be reported and because it wasn't "lost or stolen".
c) You could report a gun stolen and keep it in your possession for nefarious deeds... and no one would be the wiser.

From just about every possible angle, this law in unenforceable... especially when suspects or criminals have decided to NOT comply with it. The ONLY thing this law can accomplish is to tack on another meaningless misdemeanor charge onto some guy's sentence after he has been caught doing other illegal actions.

In fact, the ONLY way this law makes sense to comply with is if you are the original purchaser of the firearm (from an FFL dealer) and it was truly lost or stolen. Only then could it be traced to you should it turn up at a crime scene. If you've acquired your firearm any other way with no documentation of your private sale... a gun can never be "traced" back to you. In fact, if the latter is the case, reporting it stolen will put you "on the radar" associated with that gun. In no way would I want to be even associated with a firearm located at the scene of a crime. Anonymity beats an alibi every time.

[spin]

24. I am surprised that no one commented on the fact that some of the attendees were armed...

and what effect, if any, this had on the meeting.

The quality of the picture in the article sucks but it looks like two of the men are carrying openly.

In Florida, where we can only carry concealed, weapons are forbidden in municipal meetings.

My daughter was threatened with being escorted out of a local meeting when she had the balls to politely ask three questions during the meeting about the proposal to sell a local park to build a CVS drug store. The council woman who threatened this action was pushing the sale of the park.

I wonder that if we had open carry and my daughter would have had her model 25-2 .45 acp S&W revolver in a holster on her side, the lady would have been more polite. After all, an armed society IS a polite society.



The council woman was way out of line, but was upset with the fact that my daughter's questions started a minor uproar of descent against selling the park.

The park was saved. My grandchildren can still enjoy going there.

[Treo]

28. I had to look at the photo a couple of times

Before I saw the weapons

[spin]

29. Perhaps the photographer was in a hurry to take the picture...

or didn't want to get noticed while he was doing it. The picture sucks.

[Treo]

31. I think it's a cell phone picture NT

[spin]

65. I didn't think of that...

I have a cell phone but I only use it for emergencies.

I HATE phones. I used to work on the late night shift and I would sleep during the day. I had to leave the ringer on i case my wife or my daughter had a problem.

I remember telling a salesman who was trying to sell me a grave site that I would put him in a grave if he ever called again.

Over the years, I've grown more polite. That change started when I first got my concealed carry permit.

[Treo]

32. I don't see how this law could work

unless you ban private sales of firearms. If the law is going to cost money and do no good what's the point?

[Katya Mullethov]

42. It's groundbreaking legislation

They are creating a new category , a new gun crime . And the herd resonates mooooooooooooooooo . It isnt like anybody will actually do any jail time , not if they can pay the fine for getting ripped off . The precedent or the insinuation of this being a vile enough act to call for some kind of punishment is the real accomplishment . And you will hear that again and again , along with mooooooooooooooo .

[Treo]

43. A case in Texas

Does anyone remember a case in Texas that happened a yearor so ago in which two young girls were shot presumambly W/ a .40 S&W hand gun. The police actually sent letters to every person they knew of that owned such a weapon. The letters basically requested that they turn in their weapons for voluntary balistic testing . the catch was that any one who refused automatically became a suspect. The ballistics became an issue because of the similarity tbetween guns of that caliber. I'll see if I can find a link

ETA
In a state that doesn't require gun registration, officials have had to canvas local pawn shops to check sales records for Glocks. Authorities said they sent out about 60 letters to gun owners and tested the weapons of about 40 last weekend. But they still need to test more.

Brown said those weapons were taken by investigators and test-fired, and the results of those tests now are being evaluated. She said nearly half a dozen former gun owners contacted authorities to identify new owners, and another 15 gun owners did not show up.

Those who participated in a forum on the newspaper website expressed sympathy for the victims and their families, but worried about the maneuver of inspecting privately owned guns without a search warrant or probable cause.

"This is a really sad story. My heart goes out to the families involved," said one participant. "For some reason, though, it bothers me that 60 gun owners were asked to 'voluntarily' relinquish their legally-owned firearms."

http://www.jurorthirteen.com/SkylaTaylorInvestigation/tabid/691/Default.aspx

[JonQ]

47. I'm sure the ACLU was all over that violation of our basic rights

Oh right . . .

[Euromutt]

53. It's not impossible, actually

The ACLU has defended gun owners before, when the matter involves a violation of the Fourth or Fifth Amendment. Admittedly, they do play it as a 4th or 5th Amendment issue, not a 2nd Amendment issue.

[JonQ]

58. Very much to their discredit

they fail to recognize that there are in fact 10 amendments in the original bill of rights.

[Euromutt]

54. A .40-cal Glock, eh?

Only the most common police handgun in the country. I wonder if anyone bothered to test the guns of local law enforcement agencies that issue Glock 22s and 23s?

[proteus_lives]

46. No, thank you.

If one of my weapons is stolen, I'll report it but I don't want this.

[One_Life_To_Give]

59. What is current practice for other controlled substances?

If your local pharmacy is robbed of Oxycontin or other Narcotic how long do they have to report it?
What about missing Radioactive materials? Other Products/Hazardous Materials?

[spin]

61. Good question. Maybe someone can answer...

I remember back when I worked on some highly classified military gear, every devise was inventoried on a daily basis as well as every tech manual.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

66. FFLs (firearms dealers) and Pharmacies are required to report loss/theft.

This is to satisfy the regulations of their licenses to deal their wares. In both cases there is a strict inventory (registry) of items and it is meticulously kept to prevent illegal sales. Reporting any theft or loss, in addition to following the law, would be in the best interest of the pharma/dealer to avoid costly discrepancies in their books. Likewise, private citizens with registered firearms (machine guns, NFA weapons, silencers...) ARE required to inform the BATFE of loss, destruction, or theft.

Private citizens, in the case of the OP, are currently not required to report loss/theft of guns.
No different than if a thief raids a citizen's pseudo-ephedrine from the medicine cabinet.
No different than if your car is lost/stolen.

The status quo seems to be that the reporting of crime is an elective process for unregulated items.
Why should the status quo be changed now to report the loss/theft of an unregistered, unlicensed, privetely owned item?
This law has no teeth and adds questionable societal benefit. As such I see little benefit in it's existence.
If a proposed law goes against the status quo... shouldn't proponents have to go out of THEIR way to prove its necessity?
Especially considering that it deals with constitutionally protected items?!?

[spin]

72. Is there a time limit on reporting the loss or theft? (n/t)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

74. FFL dealers have 48 hours to report.

I am not very familiar with pharmacy regulation though, sorry.

[spin]

77. I wonder if that's where the 48 hours...

the city council had in their ordinance, came from.

[spin]

69. If your state allowed it, would you attend a town meeting while carrying openly?

As two of the people are in the picture in the OP. (The picture quality is terrible, but if you look at the first two men, both look like they are carrying firearms.

The original article says:

On Tuesday night, a group of armed and unarmed Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association members and their families attended city council’s meeting...

In Florida I can't even carry concealed to the local town meeting. I have no problems with this as usually the police chief attends and he is armed.

[Euromutt]

71. Why would a law like this even be necessary?

Is there some major problem with stolen guns not being reported? This looks remarkably like a solution in search of a problem. Personally, I can't imagine not reporting the theft of one or more of my firearms of my own volition. I don't need to be threatened with some city ordinance.

It's not going to work against straw purchasers either, you know, guns gets traced to a guy and he claims "oh, that was stolen; no, I didn't report it." If case law is anything to go by, all it takes is for one of those types to have a lawyer argue that a requirement to report a missing firearm would constitute self-incrimination, and they're off the hook. That's already a problem with firearm registries: there's been at least one case in which a convicted felon successfully argued that requiring him to register a firearm that he was prohibited to possess in the first place would infringe on his right against self-incrimination.

[gorfle]

76. Good for them!

This is simply another attempt at the State attempting to nail down who owns which firearms. This anonymity needs to be preserved.

Anyone who is truly concerned about an actual theft will almost certainly be reporting their lost property anyway, so as to file an insurance claim.

People who are just anonymously trying to get rid of a firearm should be able to do so without threat or intimidation by the government. And yes, that will mean that even criminals can do it. Tough.